1887
Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In the digital era, when security agencies world-wide have been challenging basic democratic principles with massive data gathering, Finland has had a different approach: it has conducted no large-scale surveillance of citizens’ online activities. Now, however, the country is planning such a vast expansion of state surveillance that the constitution itself must be altered. The present article examines one key point in this legislative process to see how the new surveillance measures are argued for and criticized, and how the differing points of view are negotiated to ultimately enable political action. Drawing particularly on Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) approach to argumentation in political discourse, the article finds that surveillance is promoted as essential for national security, and criticized especially for its economic risks, consequences for civil rights and questionable effectiveness. Despite this range of critical perspectives, only economic considerations become a topic of extended deliberation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.18004.tia
2019-04-18
2019-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Audi, Robert
    2006Practical Reasoning and Ethical Decision. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203015681
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203015681 [Google Scholar]
  2. Allmer, Thomas
    2012Towards a Critical Theory of Surveillance in Informational Capitalism. New York: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑01459‑4
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-01459-4 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnard-Wills, David
    2011 “UK News Media Discourses of Surveillance.” The Sociological Quarterly52 (4): 548–567. doi:  10.1111/j.1533‑8525.2011.01219.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01219.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Fairclough, Norman
    1992Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Fairclough, Isabela, and Norman Fairclough
    2012Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2013 “Argument, Deliberation, Dialectic and the Nature of the Political: A CDA perspective.” Political Studies Review, 11(3): 336–344. doi:  10.1111/1478‑9302.12025
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1478-9302.12025 [Google Scholar]
  7. Finlayson, Alan
    2013 “Critique and Political Argumentation.” Political Studies Review, 11(3): 313–320. doi:  10.1111/1478‑9302.12023
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1478-9302.12023 [Google Scholar]
  8. Foucault, Michel
    1972The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 1977Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fuchs, Christian, Kees Boersma, Anders Albrechtslund, and Marisol Sandoval
    2012 “Introduction: Internet and Surveillance.” InInternet and Surveillance. The challenges of Web 2.0 and Social Media, ed. byFuchs, Christian, Kees Boersma, Anders Albrechtslund, and Marisol Sandoval, 1–30. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fuchs, Christian
    2015 “Surveillance and Critical Theory.” Media and Communication3(2): 6–9. doi:  10.17645/mac.v3i2.207
    https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v3i2.207 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gee, James Paul
    2014An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Haggerty, Kevin D., and Richard V. Ericson
    2000 “The Surveillant Assemblage.” The British Journal of Sociology51(4): 605–622. doi:  10.1080/00071310020015280
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00071310020015280 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hay, Colin
    2013 “Political Discourse Analysis: The Dangers of Methodological Absolutism.” Political Studies Review, 11(3): 321–327. doi:  10.1111/1478‑9302.12026
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1478-9302.12026 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hintz, Arne, and Ian Brown
    2017 “Enabling Digital Citizenship? The Reshaping of Surveillance Policy After Snowden.” International Journal of Communication, 11(20): 782–801.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Jokinen, Arja
    1999 ”Vakuuttelevan ja suostuttelevan retoriikan analysoiminen [Analysing persuading and convincing rhetoric].” InDiskurssianalyysi liikkeessä [Discourse analysis in motion]ed. byJokinen, Arja, Kirsi Juhila, and Eero Suoninen, 126–159. Tampere: Vastapaino.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kakkuri-Knuuttila, Marja-Liisa
    1998Argumentti ja kritiikki. Lukemisen, keskustelun ja vakuuttamisen taidot [Argument and critique. The skills of reading, conversation and convincing]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Lischka, Juliane A.
    2017 “Explicit Terror Prevention Versus Vague Civil Liberty: How the UK Broadcasting News (De) Legitimatise Online Mass Surveillance Since Edward Snowden’s Revelations.” Information, Communication & Society20(5): 665–682. doi:  10.1080/1369118X.2016.1211721
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1211721 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lyon, David
    1994Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2014 “Surveillance, Snowden, and Big Data: Capacities, Consequences, Critique.” Big Data & Society1(2): 1–13. doi:  10.1177/2053951714541861
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714541861 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2015Surveillance after Snowden. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Mathiesen, Thomas
    2013Towards a Surveillant Society: The Rise of Surveillance Systems in Europe. Sherfield on Loddon: Waterside Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Marx, Gary T.
    2002 “What’s New about the ’New Surveillance’? Classifying for Change and Continuity.” Surveillance & Society1(1): 9–29. 10.24908/ss.v1i1.3391
    https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v1i1.3391 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ministry of Defence
    Ministry of Defence 2015 “Guidelines for Developing Finnish Intelligence legislation: Working Group Report”, accessedDecember 14, 2017, https://www.defmin.fi/files/3016/Suomalaisen_tiedustelulainsaadannon_suuntaviivoja.pdf
  25. Ni Loideain, Nora
    2015 EU Law and Mass Internet Metadata Surveillance in the Post-Snowden Era. Media and Communication, 3(2): 56–62. 10.17645/mac.v3i2.297
    https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v3i2.297 [Google Scholar]
  26. Pietikäinen, Sari, and Anne Mäntynen
    2009Kurssi kohti diskurssia [Course towards discourse]. Tampere: Vastapaino.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Scheinin, Martin
    2015 “The State of Our Union: Confronting the Future.” International Journal of Constitutional Law13(3): 559–566. doi:  10.1093/icon/mov051
    https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mov051 [Google Scholar]
  28. Schulze, Matthias
    2015 “Patterns of Surveillance Legitimization: The German Discourse on the NSA Scandal.” Surveillance & Society13(2): 197–217. doi:  10.24908/ss.v13i2.5296
    https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v13i2.5296 [Google Scholar]
  29. Scollon, Ron, and Suzie Wong Scollon
    2004Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203694343
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203694343 [Google Scholar]
  30. Simone, Maria A.
    2009 “Give Me Liberty and Give Me Surveillance: A Case Study of the US Government’s Discourse of Surveillance.” Critical Discourse Studies6(1): 1–14. doi:  10.1080/17405900802559977
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900802559977 [Google Scholar]
  31. Steiger, Stefan, Wolf J. Schünemann, and Katharina Dimmroth
    2017 “Outrage without consequences?: Post-Snowden Discourses and Governmental Practice in Germany.” Media and Communication5(1): 7–16. 10.17645/mac.v5i1.814
    https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v5i1.814 [Google Scholar]
  32. Tiainen, Minna
    2017 “(De)legitimating Electronic Surveillance: a Critical Discourse Analysis of the Finnish News Coverage of the Edward Snowden Revelations.” Critical Discourse Studies, 14(4), 402–419. doi:  10.1080/17405904.2017.1320296
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2017.1320296 [Google Scholar]
  33. Tréguer, Félix
    2017 “Intelligence Reform and the Snowden Paradox: The Case of France.” Media and Communication, 5(1): 17–28. 10.17645/mac.v5i1.821
    https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v5i1.821 [Google Scholar]
  34. Toulmin, Stephen E.
    2003The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511840005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005 [Google Scholar]
  35. Van Gulijk, Coen,
    2014 “Paper Assessing Surveillance in the Context of Preventing a Terrorist Act.” Seventh Framework Programme. Surveillance: Ethical Issues, Legal Limitations, and Efficiency, AccessedDecember 14, 2017, https://surveille.eui.eu/research/publications/
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Van Leeuwen, Theo
    2007 “Legitimation in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse & Communication1(1): 91–112. doi:  10.1177/1750481307071986
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986 [Google Scholar]
  37. Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin, Lucy Bennett, and Gregory Taylor
    2017 “The Normalization of Surveillance and the Invisibility of Digital Citizenship: Media Debates after the Snowden Revelations.” International Journal of Communication, 11: 740–762.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Walton, Douglas
    2006Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2007Media Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619311
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619311 [Google Scholar]
  40. Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer
    (eds.) 2016Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. Los Angeles: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.18004.tia
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.18004.tia
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argumentation , critical discourse studies , digital surveillance , political discourse and privacy
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error