Search results

In recent years, the European Union (EU) has widened its competences considerably in the field of transnational surveillance. The main databases for border movements, Schengen Information System (SIS), Visa Information System (VIS), and Eurodac, are planned to merge increasingly to ensure maximum efficiency in surveillance. These databases are keeping track of movement within the EU and across its borders, mainly for the purpose of controlling migration . This process of harmonising migration surveillance systems is controversial. All three databases entail large-scale surveillance of migrants and travellers thereby turning every recorded individual into a potential suspect. As the European Data Protection Supervisor stated, "all travellers are put under surveillance and are considered a priori as potential law breakers".David Lyon (2003), the founder of surveillance studies, assesses that transnational surveillance systems classify individuals according to certain criteria that allow for discriminatory treatment. Thereby, social differences are created and stored, which he labels social sorting. Social sorting, in other words, refers to surveillance systems obtaining data for the purpose of classifying people according to specific criteria. Classification occurs according to risk categories such as citizens, migrants or potential criminals. This may lead to establishing or strengthening social differences. Starting out from Lyon's assumption that every form of surveillance entails social sorting, this paper assesses in how far and with what consequences such classification is found in present-day EU surveillance systems. If they display social sorting characteristics to a high degree, this indicates that the traditional function of borders of exclusion and inclusion of migrants is to some extent taken over by the new surveillance systems. The question then arises how this form of social sorting affects the concept of the border in the EU. The intended merger of transnational databases will create an increasingly sophisticated information infrastructure that may alter the function of territorial boundaries. If border surveillance is no longer confined to checking documents "on the ground" but is carried out "in the cloud", what does this entail for the concept of the territorial border?

"Scientia potentia est" – knowledge is power. Many people seem to read this phrase, attributed to Francis Bacon, as a mission statement. If knowledge is power, then it is easy to understand why people demand more transparency and why at the same time surveillance increases. Transparency and surveillance are means to acquire knowledge and information. For centuries, governments have been surveilling their people to ensure that they behave according to their wishes. Similarly, the people are demanding more transparency with regard to the activities of their governments in order to hold their governments accountable for their actions. However, it needs to be understood that the argument that transparency only empowers people and automatically leads to societal betterment is amounting to mere oversimplification. Potential shifts in power relations depend on the sort of power, as well as on its direction and magnitude. Therefore, power in this joint volume needs to be understood as a very flexible term with many contingent forms. Each form of power and of power relations needs to be seen in the individual and divergent context of each contribution.

Based on the Baconian imperative that "knowledge is power", the drive for transparency gathers up ever-more speed. Especially in politics and economics, transparency has become a widely used catchphrase. Transparency is supposed to alter information asymmetries, improve market efficiency and establish a more inclusive and fair political praxis. While transparency is hoped to alter power relations, and thus to be a revolutionary or at least a reformative tool, surveillance is the privilege of those already in power, and thus regarded as a reactionary tool. The studies in this joint volume have investigated this dichotomy by looking at various actors in regard to their possibility to change or cement existing power relations, symmetries, improve market efficiency, and establish a more inclusive and fair political praxis. While transparency is hoped to alter power relations, and thus to be a revolutionary or at least a reformative tool, surveillance is the privilege of those already in power. Each contribution, in its unique way, took a skeptical stance towards potential power shifts induced through societal or behavioral changes. This book examined a multitude of societal actors and the power relations between them. Although all contributions highlighted very different subject matters, some common themes emerged. These common themes ought to be highlighted in this final section. Moreover, this final chapter allows us to briefly summarise the central themes and most important finding of each article. The first contribution treats surveillance and transparency as two sides of the same coin in the sense that both are attempts at changing behaviour by increasing the visibility of actors. Zeijl examines several attempts at transparency from a wide variety of actors. He argues that transparency, as it is currently put in practice by governments and companies, is more lip service than real concern with accountability and openness. Zeijl claims that these attempts at transparency are influenced by the logic of surveillance and therefore consolidate already existing power relations. While there are alternative ways of constructing transparency, they all have possible adverse effects that cannot and should not be easily cast aside. Therefore, one needs to critically assess what the exact benefits of transparency are in order to reach a balanced judgement on whether these possible adverse effects are worth the risk. Since transparency is more often invoked than defined, it is absolutely crucial to pay attention to the structure that transparency is supposed to assume, its organisation, its agents, and its potential impacts. Otherwise, transparency becomes a metaphysical catchphrase to graze (political) support rather than a real concern for accountability and openness.

"Scientia potentia est" – knowledge is power. Many people seem to read this phrase, attributed to Francis Bacon, as a mission statement. If knowledge is power, then it is easy to understand why people demand more transparency and why at the same time surveillance increases. Transparency and surveillance are means to acquire knowledge and information. For centuries, governments have been surveilling their people to ensure that they behave according to their wishes.