Surveillance and Democracy in Europe by Kirstie Ball William Webster

Author:Kirstie Ball, William Webster [Kirstie Ball, William Webster]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780367490218
Barnesnoble:
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Published: 2020-02-25T00:00:00+00:00

Conclusion

The four cases show that there are several intersections between ANPR and aspects of the democratic polity which seek to limit the harms of excessive surveillance. ANPR is a surveillance practice which is aligned with the interests of the state, its law enforcement and other administrative agencies. In three out of four cases, its use was given statutory authority and debated in elected parliaments. In the one where it was not, tools of democratic scrutiny such as FOI requests and public enquiries attempted to find transparency where there was none. We particularly see the influence of contrasting legal frameworks which embody different rationales for the use and scrutiny of ANPR. Germany’s top-down regulatory approach coupled with scrutiny by the courts and parliament contrasts sharply with Britain’s extra-regulatory use, media scrutiny and challenges under the data protection regulation. Belgium’s emergent regulatory framework emerges as a mid-point between the cases of Germany and the UK, and Slovakia’s economic rationale on the back of which surveillance and security issues are conveniently packaged and data protection and privacy are conveniently side-lined. Considering the case in terms of Wright and Raab’s (2014) taxonomy of harms, we note intersection with, among other things, the right to assemble with others without being surveilled, the right to travel without being tracked, openness, transparency and notice, consent, collection limitation, accuracy and quality.

In Germany, a robust rights framework surrounding information self-determination and a constitutional court to which citizens can make complaints about the constitutionality of various government practices have ensured two things: first, that the harms of ANPR are recognised; and second, that legal limits to the use of ANPR are put in place. Germany has a strong, top-down regulatory framework for ANPR governance. It has also been the subject of parliamentary debates. Through the right of information self-determination and its associated enforcement mechanisms, the German institutions around ANPR are beginning to open up. However, there is still low general public awareness of ANPR and the organisational practices and processes surrounding its use have been criticised for being non-transparent.

In Belgium, the lack of a legal basis for mobile ANPR has been recognised with recent legal changes. These legal changes also allow for a consultative framework over the implementation of ANPR. Broader issues surrounding privacy, consent and notice that ANPR cameras are present have not been addressed, however.

In Slovakia the economic and environmental harms which stem from the ETS mirror the reasons for which it is implemented: economic revenue collection and the regulation of road use. The environmental consequences of this have been counteracted with an extension of the ETS to cover a wider range of roads coupled with no-entry signage. No public discussion of the harms associated with privacy or surveillance has occurred and there is no public acknowledgement of the issue. In spite of this, security services and police have access to ETS data. Furthermore, subject access rights are not encouraged. Data protection authorities have not mobilised their powers in relation to the ETS.

In the UK ANPR is on

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.