Ubiquitous surveillance the IP Act and implications for freedom of expression in Scotland

Digital Democracy Critical Perspectives in the Age of Big DataECREA Conference Stockholm 11 November 2017

Nik Williams Scottish PENDr Lauren Smith University of StrathclydeDavid McMenemy University of Strathclyde

bull Scottish centre of PEN International

bull Worldrsquos oldest free expression organisation

bull Defends writers and freedom of expression freedom of press and freedom to critique

bull Campaigns on behalf of imprisoned and repressed writers eg Raif Badawi Lydia Cacho Liu Xiaobo

bull Promotes Scottish writing and encourages translation

Project Background

bull Motivation for research Snowden revelations 2013 IP Act 2016

bull Is the perception of increased digital surveillance a driver to self-censorship

bull Increase in digital service provision communication platforms and online research

bull How this development has affected the right to free expression of writers in Scotland

The IP Act

UK reformed consolidated modernised and expanded digital surveillance powers in the Investigatory Powers Act (IP Act)

Powers bull Enable web browsing and app usage data to be held on

every British citizen for 12 months to be accessed without a warrant

bull Allow agencies to hack devices and networks

bull Codify the ability to collect or take action in bulk ndashtargeting the many to find the few

bull Establish obligations for tech companies to build in capacities for the state to access data from their platforms

bull New oversight mechanism ldquodouble-lockrdquo

bull Warrants approved by Secretary of State

bull Judicial Commissioner will review decision made by SoS and approve or deny warrant

bull Unclear level of access of judiciary for each warrant

bull Judicial commissioner can be bypassed in lsquourgentrsquo cases

Previous Research

Adapted methodology of 2013 PEN America study

Chilling Effects NSA Surveillance Drives US Writer to Self-Censor

bull 1 in 6 writers avoided ldquowriting or speaking on a topic they thought would subject them to surveillancerdquo

bull Use of social media web searches and online correspondence similarly impacted

Penney (2016)

Wikipedia user traffic before and after Snowden revelations

bull Traffic to issues that raise privacy concerns dropped following National Security Agency (NSA) leak

bull Wikipedia articles containing 48 terrorism-related terms DHS identified mdash including ldquoal-Qaedardquo ldquocar bombrdquo and ldquoTalibanrdquo mdash saw traffic drop by 20 per cent

bull Further study young people and women most likely to self-censor (Penney 2017)

Spiral of Silence

ldquoKnowledge of government surveillance causes people to self-censor their dissenting opinions onlinerdquo

bull Concerns around homogenisation of online discourse

bull Only majority viewpoints reflected on online fora

bull Surveillance ldquocan contribute to the silencing of minority views that provide the bedrock of democratic discourserdquo

Stoycheff (2016)

Google Search Traffic

bull Monitored Google search usage and traffic in 41 countries

bull Following revelations about US monitoring capabilities changes in search behaviour identified

bull Reduced searching for terms that people identified could get them in trouble with the US government

bull Included search terms related to issues such as health implications for public health and wellbeing

bull Limitations starting point research uncertain causality

Marthews and Tucker (2015)

Methods Survey

Basis PEN America study questions + IP Act and corporate surveillance incorporated

bull Four key themesbull Awareness of digital surveillance

bull Impact on individual behaviour or creative output

bull Impact on broader cultural environment

bull Individual agency

bull Survey tool Qualtrics

bull Emailed to Scottish PEN members and partner organisations in the arts and culture publicised on social media

bull Response 118 writers based in Scotland

Methods Interviews

bull Respondents invited to participate in follow-up interviews

bull Eight writers interviewed at the University of Strathclyde or remotely using Wire (encrypted video call service)

bull Semi-structured interviews based on survey responses

bull Explored key themes in more depth

bull Qualitative coding using categories within theoretical framework derived from surveillance literature and survey results

Key Findings

If you knew that the UK government had collected data about your internet activity would you feel that your personal privacy had been violated

Yes (96) 82 No (12) 10 Dont know (9) 8

How concerned are you about the UK governmentrsquos new law (the Investigatory Powers Act) to collect and analyse data and metadata (eg time and location) on e-mails browsing and other online activity of Britons

Concern around IP Act

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Very concerned (87) Somewhat concerned(23)

Not too concerned (1) Not concerned at all(1)

Not sure (5)

Concern around Tech Companies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very (96) Somewhat (17) Not too (1) Not at all (1) Not sure (2)

How concerned are you about technology companies being compelled to work with the government to provide vast amounts of personal information on Britons

Concern around Corporations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very (61) Somewhat (42) Not too (10) Not at all (3) Not sure (1)

How concerned are you about corporations gathering data to track and analyse consumer behaviour and preferences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very Somewhat Not too concerned Not concerned at all Not sure

General Feelings around Surveillance

IP Act Tech Companies Corporations

Self-Censorship

bull 22 had avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic with 17 seriously considering doing so (39 total)

bull 28 had curtailed or avoided activities on social media with 13 seriously considering doing so (41 total)

bull Majority of respondents said that collection of metadata (39) collection of content data (62) hacking platforms networks or devices (60) and installing backdoors into encrypted platforms (59) would make them use the internet differently

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

bull Scottish centre of PEN International

bull Worldrsquos oldest free expression organisation

bull Defends writers and freedom of expression freedom of press and freedom to critique

bull Campaigns on behalf of imprisoned and repressed writers eg Raif Badawi Lydia Cacho Liu Xiaobo

bull Promotes Scottish writing and encourages translation

Project Background

bull Motivation for research Snowden revelations 2013 IP Act 2016

bull Is the perception of increased digital surveillance a driver to self-censorship

bull Increase in digital service provision communication platforms and online research

bull How this development has affected the right to free expression of writers in Scotland

The IP Act

UK reformed consolidated modernised and expanded digital surveillance powers in the Investigatory Powers Act (IP Act)

Powers bull Enable web browsing and app usage data to be held on

every British citizen for 12 months to be accessed without a warrant

bull Allow agencies to hack devices and networks

bull Codify the ability to collect or take action in bulk ndashtargeting the many to find the few

bull Establish obligations for tech companies to build in capacities for the state to access data from their platforms

bull New oversight mechanism ldquodouble-lockrdquo

bull Warrants approved by Secretary of State

bull Judicial Commissioner will review decision made by SoS and approve or deny warrant

bull Unclear level of access of judiciary for each warrant

bull Judicial commissioner can be bypassed in lsquourgentrsquo cases

Previous Research

Adapted methodology of 2013 PEN America study

Chilling Effects NSA Surveillance Drives US Writer to Self-Censor

bull 1 in 6 writers avoided ldquowriting or speaking on a topic they thought would subject them to surveillancerdquo

bull Use of social media web searches and online correspondence similarly impacted

Penney (2016)

Wikipedia user traffic before and after Snowden revelations

bull Traffic to issues that raise privacy concerns dropped following National Security Agency (NSA) leak

bull Wikipedia articles containing 48 terrorism-related terms DHS identified mdash including ldquoal-Qaedardquo ldquocar bombrdquo and ldquoTalibanrdquo mdash saw traffic drop by 20 per cent

bull Further study young people and women most likely to self-censor (Penney 2017)

Spiral of Silence

ldquoKnowledge of government surveillance causes people to self-censor their dissenting opinions onlinerdquo

bull Concerns around homogenisation of online discourse

bull Only majority viewpoints reflected on online fora

bull Surveillance ldquocan contribute to the silencing of minority views that provide the bedrock of democratic discourserdquo

Stoycheff (2016)

Google Search Traffic

bull Monitored Google search usage and traffic in 41 countries

bull Following revelations about US monitoring capabilities changes in search behaviour identified

bull Reduced searching for terms that people identified could get them in trouble with the US government

bull Included search terms related to issues such as health implications for public health and wellbeing

bull Limitations starting point research uncertain causality

Marthews and Tucker (2015)

Methods Survey

Basis PEN America study questions + IP Act and corporate surveillance incorporated

bull Four key themesbull Awareness of digital surveillance

bull Impact on individual behaviour or creative output

bull Impact on broader cultural environment

bull Individual agency

bull Survey tool Qualtrics

bull Emailed to Scottish PEN members and partner organisations in the arts and culture publicised on social media

bull Response 118 writers based in Scotland

Methods Interviews

bull Respondents invited to participate in follow-up interviews

bull Eight writers interviewed at the University of Strathclyde or remotely using Wire (encrypted video call service)

bull Semi-structured interviews based on survey responses

bull Explored key themes in more depth

bull Qualitative coding using categories within theoretical framework derived from surveillance literature and survey results

Key Findings

If you knew that the UK government had collected data about your internet activity would you feel that your personal privacy had been violated

Yes (96) 82 No (12) 10 Dont know (9) 8

How concerned are you about the UK governmentrsquos new law (the Investigatory Powers Act) to collect and analyse data and metadata (eg time and location) on e-mails browsing and other online activity of Britons

Concern around IP Act

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Very concerned (87) Somewhat concerned(23)

Not too concerned (1) Not concerned at all(1)

Not sure (5)

Concern around Tech Companies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very (96) Somewhat (17) Not too (1) Not at all (1) Not sure (2)

How concerned are you about technology companies being compelled to work with the government to provide vast amounts of personal information on Britons

Concern around Corporations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very (61) Somewhat (42) Not too (10) Not at all (3) Not sure (1)

How concerned are you about corporations gathering data to track and analyse consumer behaviour and preferences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very Somewhat Not too concerned Not concerned at all Not sure

General Feelings around Surveillance

IP Act Tech Companies Corporations

Self-Censorship

bull 22 had avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic with 17 seriously considering doing so (39 total)

bull 28 had curtailed or avoided activities on social media with 13 seriously considering doing so (41 total)

bull Majority of respondents said that collection of metadata (39) collection of content data (62) hacking platforms networks or devices (60) and installing backdoors into encrypted platforms (59) would make them use the internet differently

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Project Background

bull Motivation for research Snowden revelations 2013 IP Act 2016

bull Is the perception of increased digital surveillance a driver to self-censorship

bull Increase in digital service provision communication platforms and online research

bull How this development has affected the right to free expression of writers in Scotland

The IP Act

UK reformed consolidated modernised and expanded digital surveillance powers in the Investigatory Powers Act (IP Act)

Powers bull Enable web browsing and app usage data to be held on

every British citizen for 12 months to be accessed without a warrant

bull Allow agencies to hack devices and networks

bull Codify the ability to collect or take action in bulk ndashtargeting the many to find the few

bull Establish obligations for tech companies to build in capacities for the state to access data from their platforms

bull New oversight mechanism ldquodouble-lockrdquo

bull Warrants approved by Secretary of State

bull Judicial Commissioner will review decision made by SoS and approve or deny warrant

bull Unclear level of access of judiciary for each warrant

bull Judicial commissioner can be bypassed in lsquourgentrsquo cases

Previous Research

Adapted methodology of 2013 PEN America study

Chilling Effects NSA Surveillance Drives US Writer to Self-Censor

bull 1 in 6 writers avoided ldquowriting or speaking on a topic they thought would subject them to surveillancerdquo

bull Use of social media web searches and online correspondence similarly impacted

Penney (2016)

Wikipedia user traffic before and after Snowden revelations

bull Traffic to issues that raise privacy concerns dropped following National Security Agency (NSA) leak

bull Wikipedia articles containing 48 terrorism-related terms DHS identified mdash including ldquoal-Qaedardquo ldquocar bombrdquo and ldquoTalibanrdquo mdash saw traffic drop by 20 per cent

bull Further study young people and women most likely to self-censor (Penney 2017)

Spiral of Silence

ldquoKnowledge of government surveillance causes people to self-censor their dissenting opinions onlinerdquo

bull Concerns around homogenisation of online discourse

bull Only majority viewpoints reflected on online fora

bull Surveillance ldquocan contribute to the silencing of minority views that provide the bedrock of democratic discourserdquo

Stoycheff (2016)

Google Search Traffic

bull Monitored Google search usage and traffic in 41 countries

bull Following revelations about US monitoring capabilities changes in search behaviour identified

bull Reduced searching for terms that people identified could get them in trouble with the US government

bull Included search terms related to issues such as health implications for public health and wellbeing

bull Limitations starting point research uncertain causality

Marthews and Tucker (2015)

Methods Survey

Basis PEN America study questions + IP Act and corporate surveillance incorporated

bull Four key themesbull Awareness of digital surveillance

bull Impact on individual behaviour or creative output

bull Impact on broader cultural environment

bull Individual agency

bull Survey tool Qualtrics

bull Emailed to Scottish PEN members and partner organisations in the arts and culture publicised on social media

bull Response 118 writers based in Scotland

Methods Interviews

bull Respondents invited to participate in follow-up interviews

bull Eight writers interviewed at the University of Strathclyde or remotely using Wire (encrypted video call service)

bull Semi-structured interviews based on survey responses

bull Explored key themes in more depth

bull Qualitative coding using categories within theoretical framework derived from surveillance literature and survey results

Key Findings

If you knew that the UK government had collected data about your internet activity would you feel that your personal privacy had been violated

Yes (96) 82 No (12) 10 Dont know (9) 8

How concerned are you about the UK governmentrsquos new law (the Investigatory Powers Act) to collect and analyse data and metadata (eg time and location) on e-mails browsing and other online activity of Britons

Concern around IP Act

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Very concerned (87) Somewhat concerned(23)

Not too concerned (1) Not concerned at all(1)

Not sure (5)

Concern around Tech Companies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very (96) Somewhat (17) Not too (1) Not at all (1) Not sure (2)

How concerned are you about technology companies being compelled to work with the government to provide vast amounts of personal information on Britons

Concern around Corporations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very (61) Somewhat (42) Not too (10) Not at all (3) Not sure (1)

How concerned are you about corporations gathering data to track and analyse consumer behaviour and preferences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very Somewhat Not too concerned Not concerned at all Not sure

General Feelings around Surveillance

IP Act Tech Companies Corporations

Self-Censorship

bull 22 had avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic with 17 seriously considering doing so (39 total)

bull 28 had curtailed or avoided activities on social media with 13 seriously considering doing so (41 total)

bull Majority of respondents said that collection of metadata (39) collection of content data (62) hacking platforms networks or devices (60) and installing backdoors into encrypted platforms (59) would make them use the internet differently

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

The IP Act

UK reformed consolidated modernised and expanded digital surveillance powers in the Investigatory Powers Act (IP Act)

Powers bull Enable web browsing and app usage data to be held on

every British citizen for 12 months to be accessed without a warrant

bull Allow agencies to hack devices and networks

bull Codify the ability to collect or take action in bulk ndashtargeting the many to find the few

bull Establish obligations for tech companies to build in capacities for the state to access data from their platforms

bull New oversight mechanism ldquodouble-lockrdquo

bull Warrants approved by Secretary of State

bull Judicial Commissioner will review decision made by SoS and approve or deny warrant

bull Unclear level of access of judiciary for each warrant

bull Judicial commissioner can be bypassed in lsquourgentrsquo cases

Previous Research

Adapted methodology of 2013 PEN America study

Chilling Effects NSA Surveillance Drives US Writer to Self-Censor

bull 1 in 6 writers avoided ldquowriting or speaking on a topic they thought would subject them to surveillancerdquo

bull Use of social media web searches and online correspondence similarly impacted

Penney (2016)

Wikipedia user traffic before and after Snowden revelations

bull Traffic to issues that raise privacy concerns dropped following National Security Agency (NSA) leak

bull Wikipedia articles containing 48 terrorism-related terms DHS identified mdash including ldquoal-Qaedardquo ldquocar bombrdquo and ldquoTalibanrdquo mdash saw traffic drop by 20 per cent

bull Further study young people and women most likely to self-censor (Penney 2017)

Spiral of Silence

ldquoKnowledge of government surveillance causes people to self-censor their dissenting opinions onlinerdquo

bull Concerns around homogenisation of online discourse

bull Only majority viewpoints reflected on online fora

bull Surveillance ldquocan contribute to the silencing of minority views that provide the bedrock of democratic discourserdquo

Stoycheff (2016)

Google Search Traffic

bull Monitored Google search usage and traffic in 41 countries

bull Following revelations about US monitoring capabilities changes in search behaviour identified

bull Reduced searching for terms that people identified could get them in trouble with the US government

bull Included search terms related to issues such as health implications for public health and wellbeing

bull Limitations starting point research uncertain causality

Marthews and Tucker (2015)

Methods Survey

Basis PEN America study questions + IP Act and corporate surveillance incorporated

bull Four key themesbull Awareness of digital surveillance

bull Impact on individual behaviour or creative output

bull Impact on broader cultural environment

bull Individual agency

bull Survey tool Qualtrics

bull Emailed to Scottish PEN members and partner organisations in the arts and culture publicised on social media

bull Response 118 writers based in Scotland

Methods Interviews

bull Respondents invited to participate in follow-up interviews

bull Eight writers interviewed at the University of Strathclyde or remotely using Wire (encrypted video call service)

bull Semi-structured interviews based on survey responses

bull Explored key themes in more depth

bull Qualitative coding using categories within theoretical framework derived from surveillance literature and survey results

Key Findings

If you knew that the UK government had collected data about your internet activity would you feel that your personal privacy had been violated

Yes (96) 82 No (12) 10 Dont know (9) 8

How concerned are you about the UK governmentrsquos new law (the Investigatory Powers Act) to collect and analyse data and metadata (eg time and location) on e-mails browsing and other online activity of Britons

Concern around IP Act

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Very concerned (87) Somewhat concerned(23)

Not too concerned (1) Not concerned at all(1)

Not sure (5)

Concern around Tech Companies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very (96) Somewhat (17) Not too (1) Not at all (1) Not sure (2)

How concerned are you about technology companies being compelled to work with the government to provide vast amounts of personal information on Britons

Concern around Corporations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very (61) Somewhat (42) Not too (10) Not at all (3) Not sure (1)

How concerned are you about corporations gathering data to track and analyse consumer behaviour and preferences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very Somewhat Not too concerned Not concerned at all Not sure

General Feelings around Surveillance

IP Act Tech Companies Corporations

Self-Censorship

bull 22 had avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic with 17 seriously considering doing so (39 total)

bull 28 had curtailed or avoided activities on social media with 13 seriously considering doing so (41 total)

bull Majority of respondents said that collection of metadata (39) collection of content data (62) hacking platforms networks or devices (60) and installing backdoors into encrypted platforms (59) would make them use the internet differently

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

UK reformed consolidated modernised and expanded digital surveillance powers in the Investigatory Powers Act (IP Act)

Powers bull Enable web browsing and app usage data to be held on

every British citizen for 12 months to be accessed without a warrant

bull Allow agencies to hack devices and networks

bull Codify the ability to collect or take action in bulk ndashtargeting the many to find the few

bull Establish obligations for tech companies to build in capacities for the state to access data from their platforms

bull New oversight mechanism ldquodouble-lockrdquo

bull Warrants approved by Secretary of State

bull Judicial Commissioner will review decision made by SoS and approve or deny warrant

bull Unclear level of access of judiciary for each warrant

bull Judicial commissioner can be bypassed in lsquourgentrsquo cases

Previous Research

Adapted methodology of 2013 PEN America study

Chilling Effects NSA Surveillance Drives US Writer to Self-Censor

bull 1 in 6 writers avoided ldquowriting or speaking on a topic they thought would subject them to surveillancerdquo

bull Use of social media web searches and online correspondence similarly impacted

Penney (2016)

Wikipedia user traffic before and after Snowden revelations

bull Traffic to issues that raise privacy concerns dropped following National Security Agency (NSA) leak

bull Wikipedia articles containing 48 terrorism-related terms DHS identified mdash including ldquoal-Qaedardquo ldquocar bombrdquo and ldquoTalibanrdquo mdash saw traffic drop by 20 per cent

bull Further study young people and women most likely to self-censor (Penney 2017)

Spiral of Silence

ldquoKnowledge of government surveillance causes people to self-censor their dissenting opinions onlinerdquo

bull Concerns around homogenisation of online discourse

bull Only majority viewpoints reflected on online fora

bull Surveillance ldquocan contribute to the silencing of minority views that provide the bedrock of democratic discourserdquo

Stoycheff (2016)

Google Search Traffic

bull Monitored Google search usage and traffic in 41 countries

bull Following revelations about US monitoring capabilities changes in search behaviour identified

bull Reduced searching for terms that people identified could get them in trouble with the US government

bull Included search terms related to issues such as health implications for public health and wellbeing

bull Limitations starting point research uncertain causality

Marthews and Tucker (2015)

Methods Survey

Basis PEN America study questions + IP Act and corporate surveillance incorporated

bull Four key themesbull Awareness of digital surveillance

bull Impact on individual behaviour or creative output

bull Impact on broader cultural environment

bull Individual agency

bull Survey tool Qualtrics

bull Emailed to Scottish PEN members and partner organisations in the arts and culture publicised on social media

bull Response 118 writers based in Scotland

Methods Interviews

bull Respondents invited to participate in follow-up interviews

bull Eight writers interviewed at the University of Strathclyde or remotely using Wire (encrypted video call service)

bull Semi-structured interviews based on survey responses

bull Explored key themes in more depth

bull Qualitative coding using categories within theoretical framework derived from surveillance literature and survey results

Key Findings

If you knew that the UK government had collected data about your internet activity would you feel that your personal privacy had been violated

Yes (96) 82 No (12) 10 Dont know (9) 8

How concerned are you about the UK governmentrsquos new law (the Investigatory Powers Act) to collect and analyse data and metadata (eg time and location) on e-mails browsing and other online activity of Britons

Concern around IP Act

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Very concerned (87) Somewhat concerned(23)

Not too concerned (1) Not concerned at all(1)

Not sure (5)

Concern around Tech Companies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very (96) Somewhat (17) Not too (1) Not at all (1) Not sure (2)

How concerned are you about technology companies being compelled to work with the government to provide vast amounts of personal information on Britons

Concern around Corporations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very (61) Somewhat (42) Not too (10) Not at all (3) Not sure (1)

How concerned are you about corporations gathering data to track and analyse consumer behaviour and preferences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very Somewhat Not too concerned Not concerned at all Not sure

General Feelings around Surveillance

IP Act Tech Companies Corporations

Self-Censorship

bull 22 had avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic with 17 seriously considering doing so (39 total)

bull 28 had curtailed or avoided activities on social media with 13 seriously considering doing so (41 total)

bull Majority of respondents said that collection of metadata (39) collection of content data (62) hacking platforms networks or devices (60) and installing backdoors into encrypted platforms (59) would make them use the internet differently

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

bull New oversight mechanism ldquodouble-lockrdquo

bull Warrants approved by Secretary of State

bull Judicial Commissioner will review decision made by SoS and approve or deny warrant

bull Unclear level of access of judiciary for each warrant

bull Judicial commissioner can be bypassed in lsquourgentrsquo cases

Previous Research

Adapted methodology of 2013 PEN America study

Chilling Effects NSA Surveillance Drives US Writer to Self-Censor

bull 1 in 6 writers avoided ldquowriting or speaking on a topic they thought would subject them to surveillancerdquo

bull Use of social media web searches and online correspondence similarly impacted

Penney (2016)

Wikipedia user traffic before and after Snowden revelations

bull Traffic to issues that raise privacy concerns dropped following National Security Agency (NSA) leak

bull Wikipedia articles containing 48 terrorism-related terms DHS identified mdash including ldquoal-Qaedardquo ldquocar bombrdquo and ldquoTalibanrdquo mdash saw traffic drop by 20 per cent

bull Further study young people and women most likely to self-censor (Penney 2017)

Spiral of Silence

ldquoKnowledge of government surveillance causes people to self-censor their dissenting opinions onlinerdquo

bull Concerns around homogenisation of online discourse

bull Only majority viewpoints reflected on online fora

bull Surveillance ldquocan contribute to the silencing of minority views that provide the bedrock of democratic discourserdquo

Stoycheff (2016)

Google Search Traffic

bull Monitored Google search usage and traffic in 41 countries

bull Following revelations about US monitoring capabilities changes in search behaviour identified

bull Reduced searching for terms that people identified could get them in trouble with the US government

bull Included search terms related to issues such as health implications for public health and wellbeing

bull Limitations starting point research uncertain causality

Marthews and Tucker (2015)

Methods Survey

Basis PEN America study questions + IP Act and corporate surveillance incorporated

bull Four key themesbull Awareness of digital surveillance

bull Impact on individual behaviour or creative output

bull Impact on broader cultural environment

bull Individual agency

bull Survey tool Qualtrics

bull Emailed to Scottish PEN members and partner organisations in the arts and culture publicised on social media

bull Response 118 writers based in Scotland

Methods Interviews

bull Respondents invited to participate in follow-up interviews

bull Eight writers interviewed at the University of Strathclyde or remotely using Wire (encrypted video call service)

bull Semi-structured interviews based on survey responses

bull Explored key themes in more depth

bull Qualitative coding using categories within theoretical framework derived from surveillance literature and survey results

Key Findings

If you knew that the UK government had collected data about your internet activity would you feel that your personal privacy had been violated

Yes (96) 82 No (12) 10 Dont know (9) 8

How concerned are you about the UK governmentrsquos new law (the Investigatory Powers Act) to collect and analyse data and metadata (eg time and location) on e-mails browsing and other online activity of Britons

Concern around IP Act

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Very concerned (87) Somewhat concerned(23)

Not too concerned (1) Not concerned at all(1)

Not sure (5)

Concern around Tech Companies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very (96) Somewhat (17) Not too (1) Not at all (1) Not sure (2)

How concerned are you about technology companies being compelled to work with the government to provide vast amounts of personal information on Britons

Concern around Corporations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very (61) Somewhat (42) Not too (10) Not at all (3) Not sure (1)

How concerned are you about corporations gathering data to track and analyse consumer behaviour and preferences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very Somewhat Not too concerned Not concerned at all Not sure

General Feelings around Surveillance

IP Act Tech Companies Corporations

Self-Censorship

bull 22 had avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic with 17 seriously considering doing so (39 total)

bull 28 had curtailed or avoided activities on social media with 13 seriously considering doing so (41 total)

bull Majority of respondents said that collection of metadata (39) collection of content data (62) hacking platforms networks or devices (60) and installing backdoors into encrypted platforms (59) would make them use the internet differently

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Previous Research

Adapted methodology of 2013 PEN America study

Chilling Effects NSA Surveillance Drives US Writer to Self-Censor

bull 1 in 6 writers avoided ldquowriting or speaking on a topic they thought would subject them to surveillancerdquo

bull Use of social media web searches and online correspondence similarly impacted

Penney (2016)

Wikipedia user traffic before and after Snowden revelations

bull Traffic to issues that raise privacy concerns dropped following National Security Agency (NSA) leak

bull Wikipedia articles containing 48 terrorism-related terms DHS identified mdash including ldquoal-Qaedardquo ldquocar bombrdquo and ldquoTalibanrdquo mdash saw traffic drop by 20 per cent

bull Further study young people and women most likely to self-censor (Penney 2017)

Spiral of Silence

ldquoKnowledge of government surveillance causes people to self-censor their dissenting opinions onlinerdquo

bull Concerns around homogenisation of online discourse

bull Only majority viewpoints reflected on online fora

bull Surveillance ldquocan contribute to the silencing of minority views that provide the bedrock of democratic discourserdquo

Stoycheff (2016)

Google Search Traffic

bull Monitored Google search usage and traffic in 41 countries

bull Following revelations about US monitoring capabilities changes in search behaviour identified

bull Reduced searching for terms that people identified could get them in trouble with the US government

bull Included search terms related to issues such as health implications for public health and wellbeing

bull Limitations starting point research uncertain causality

Marthews and Tucker (2015)

Methods Survey

Basis PEN America study questions + IP Act and corporate surveillance incorporated

bull Four key themesbull Awareness of digital surveillance

bull Impact on individual behaviour or creative output

bull Impact on broader cultural environment

bull Individual agency

bull Survey tool Qualtrics

bull Emailed to Scottish PEN members and partner organisations in the arts and culture publicised on social media

bull Response 118 writers based in Scotland

Methods Interviews

bull Respondents invited to participate in follow-up interviews

bull Eight writers interviewed at the University of Strathclyde or remotely using Wire (encrypted video call service)

bull Semi-structured interviews based on survey responses

bull Explored key themes in more depth

bull Qualitative coding using categories within theoretical framework derived from surveillance literature and survey results

Key Findings

If you knew that the UK government had collected data about your internet activity would you feel that your personal privacy had been violated

Yes (96) 82 No (12) 10 Dont know (9) 8

How concerned are you about the UK governmentrsquos new law (the Investigatory Powers Act) to collect and analyse data and metadata (eg time and location) on e-mails browsing and other online activity of Britons

Concern around IP Act

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Very concerned (87) Somewhat concerned(23)

Not too concerned (1) Not concerned at all(1)

Not sure (5)

Concern around Tech Companies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very (96) Somewhat (17) Not too (1) Not at all (1) Not sure (2)

How concerned are you about technology companies being compelled to work with the government to provide vast amounts of personal information on Britons

Concern around Corporations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very (61) Somewhat (42) Not too (10) Not at all (3) Not sure (1)

How concerned are you about corporations gathering data to track and analyse consumer behaviour and preferences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very Somewhat Not too concerned Not concerned at all Not sure

General Feelings around Surveillance

IP Act Tech Companies Corporations

Self-Censorship

bull 22 had avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic with 17 seriously considering doing so (39 total)

bull 28 had curtailed or avoided activities on social media with 13 seriously considering doing so (41 total)

bull Majority of respondents said that collection of metadata (39) collection of content data (62) hacking platforms networks or devices (60) and installing backdoors into encrypted platforms (59) would make them use the internet differently

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Penney (2016)

Wikipedia user traffic before and after Snowden revelations

bull Traffic to issues that raise privacy concerns dropped following National Security Agency (NSA) leak

bull Wikipedia articles containing 48 terrorism-related terms DHS identified mdash including ldquoal-Qaedardquo ldquocar bombrdquo and ldquoTalibanrdquo mdash saw traffic drop by 20 per cent

bull Further study young people and women most likely to self-censor (Penney 2017)

Spiral of Silence

ldquoKnowledge of government surveillance causes people to self-censor their dissenting opinions onlinerdquo

bull Concerns around homogenisation of online discourse

bull Only majority viewpoints reflected on online fora

bull Surveillance ldquocan contribute to the silencing of minority views that provide the bedrock of democratic discourserdquo

Stoycheff (2016)

Google Search Traffic

bull Monitored Google search usage and traffic in 41 countries

bull Following revelations about US monitoring capabilities changes in search behaviour identified

bull Reduced searching for terms that people identified could get them in trouble with the US government

bull Included search terms related to issues such as health implications for public health and wellbeing

bull Limitations starting point research uncertain causality

Marthews and Tucker (2015)

Methods Survey

Basis PEN America study questions + IP Act and corporate surveillance incorporated

bull Four key themesbull Awareness of digital surveillance

bull Impact on individual behaviour or creative output

bull Impact on broader cultural environment

bull Individual agency

bull Survey tool Qualtrics

bull Emailed to Scottish PEN members and partner organisations in the arts and culture publicised on social media

bull Response 118 writers based in Scotland

Methods Interviews

bull Respondents invited to participate in follow-up interviews

bull Eight writers interviewed at the University of Strathclyde or remotely using Wire (encrypted video call service)

bull Semi-structured interviews based on survey responses

bull Explored key themes in more depth

bull Qualitative coding using categories within theoretical framework derived from surveillance literature and survey results

Key Findings

If you knew that the UK government had collected data about your internet activity would you feel that your personal privacy had been violated

Yes (96) 82 No (12) 10 Dont know (9) 8

How concerned are you about the UK governmentrsquos new law (the Investigatory Powers Act) to collect and analyse data and metadata (eg time and location) on e-mails browsing and other online activity of Britons

Concern around IP Act

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Very concerned (87) Somewhat concerned(23)

Not too concerned (1) Not concerned at all(1)

Not sure (5)

Concern around Tech Companies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very (96) Somewhat (17) Not too (1) Not at all (1) Not sure (2)

How concerned are you about technology companies being compelled to work with the government to provide vast amounts of personal information on Britons

Concern around Corporations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very (61) Somewhat (42) Not too (10) Not at all (3) Not sure (1)

How concerned are you about corporations gathering data to track and analyse consumer behaviour and preferences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very Somewhat Not too concerned Not concerned at all Not sure

General Feelings around Surveillance

IP Act Tech Companies Corporations

Self-Censorship

bull 22 had avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic with 17 seriously considering doing so (39 total)

bull 28 had curtailed or avoided activities on social media with 13 seriously considering doing so (41 total)

bull Majority of respondents said that collection of metadata (39) collection of content data (62) hacking platforms networks or devices (60) and installing backdoors into encrypted platforms (59) would make them use the internet differently

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Spiral of Silence

ldquoKnowledge of government surveillance causes people to self-censor their dissenting opinions onlinerdquo

bull Concerns around homogenisation of online discourse

bull Only majority viewpoints reflected on online fora

bull Surveillance ldquocan contribute to the silencing of minority views that provide the bedrock of democratic discourserdquo

Stoycheff (2016)

Google Search Traffic

bull Monitored Google search usage and traffic in 41 countries

bull Following revelations about US monitoring capabilities changes in search behaviour identified

bull Reduced searching for terms that people identified could get them in trouble with the US government

bull Included search terms related to issues such as health implications for public health and wellbeing

bull Limitations starting point research uncertain causality

Marthews and Tucker (2015)

Methods Survey

Basis PEN America study questions + IP Act and corporate surveillance incorporated

bull Four key themesbull Awareness of digital surveillance

bull Impact on individual behaviour or creative output

bull Impact on broader cultural environment

bull Individual agency

bull Survey tool Qualtrics

bull Emailed to Scottish PEN members and partner organisations in the arts and culture publicised on social media

bull Response 118 writers based in Scotland

Methods Interviews

bull Respondents invited to participate in follow-up interviews

bull Eight writers interviewed at the University of Strathclyde or remotely using Wire (encrypted video call service)

bull Semi-structured interviews based on survey responses

bull Explored key themes in more depth

bull Qualitative coding using categories within theoretical framework derived from surveillance literature and survey results

Key Findings

If you knew that the UK government had collected data about your internet activity would you feel that your personal privacy had been violated

Yes (96) 82 No (12) 10 Dont know (9) 8

How concerned are you about the UK governmentrsquos new law (the Investigatory Powers Act) to collect and analyse data and metadata (eg time and location) on e-mails browsing and other online activity of Britons

Concern around IP Act

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Very concerned (87) Somewhat concerned(23)

Not too concerned (1) Not concerned at all(1)

Not sure (5)

Concern around Tech Companies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very (96) Somewhat (17) Not too (1) Not at all (1) Not sure (2)

How concerned are you about technology companies being compelled to work with the government to provide vast amounts of personal information on Britons

Concern around Corporations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very (61) Somewhat (42) Not too (10) Not at all (3) Not sure (1)

How concerned are you about corporations gathering data to track and analyse consumer behaviour and preferences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very Somewhat Not too concerned Not concerned at all Not sure

General Feelings around Surveillance

IP Act Tech Companies Corporations

Self-Censorship

bull 22 had avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic with 17 seriously considering doing so (39 total)

bull 28 had curtailed or avoided activities on social media with 13 seriously considering doing so (41 total)

bull Majority of respondents said that collection of metadata (39) collection of content data (62) hacking platforms networks or devices (60) and installing backdoors into encrypted platforms (59) would make them use the internet differently

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Google Search Traffic

bull Monitored Google search usage and traffic in 41 countries

bull Following revelations about US monitoring capabilities changes in search behaviour identified

bull Reduced searching for terms that people identified could get them in trouble with the US government

bull Included search terms related to issues such as health implications for public health and wellbeing

bull Limitations starting point research uncertain causality

Marthews and Tucker (2015)

Methods Survey

Basis PEN America study questions + IP Act and corporate surveillance incorporated

bull Four key themesbull Awareness of digital surveillance

bull Impact on individual behaviour or creative output

bull Impact on broader cultural environment

bull Individual agency

bull Survey tool Qualtrics

bull Emailed to Scottish PEN members and partner organisations in the arts and culture publicised on social media

bull Response 118 writers based in Scotland

Methods Interviews

bull Respondents invited to participate in follow-up interviews

bull Eight writers interviewed at the University of Strathclyde or remotely using Wire (encrypted video call service)

bull Semi-structured interviews based on survey responses

bull Explored key themes in more depth

bull Qualitative coding using categories within theoretical framework derived from surveillance literature and survey results

Key Findings

If you knew that the UK government had collected data about your internet activity would you feel that your personal privacy had been violated

Yes (96) 82 No (12) 10 Dont know (9) 8

How concerned are you about the UK governmentrsquos new law (the Investigatory Powers Act) to collect and analyse data and metadata (eg time and location) on e-mails browsing and other online activity of Britons

Concern around IP Act

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Very concerned (87) Somewhat concerned(23)

Not too concerned (1) Not concerned at all(1)

Not sure (5)

Concern around Tech Companies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very (96) Somewhat (17) Not too (1) Not at all (1) Not sure (2)

How concerned are you about technology companies being compelled to work with the government to provide vast amounts of personal information on Britons

Concern around Corporations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very (61) Somewhat (42) Not too (10) Not at all (3) Not sure (1)

How concerned are you about corporations gathering data to track and analyse consumer behaviour and preferences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very Somewhat Not too concerned Not concerned at all Not sure

General Feelings around Surveillance

IP Act Tech Companies Corporations

Self-Censorship

bull 22 had avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic with 17 seriously considering doing so (39 total)

bull 28 had curtailed or avoided activities on social media with 13 seriously considering doing so (41 total)

bull Majority of respondents said that collection of metadata (39) collection of content data (62) hacking platforms networks or devices (60) and installing backdoors into encrypted platforms (59) would make them use the internet differently

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Methods Survey

Basis PEN America study questions + IP Act and corporate surveillance incorporated

bull Four key themesbull Awareness of digital surveillance

bull Impact on individual behaviour or creative output

bull Impact on broader cultural environment

bull Individual agency

bull Survey tool Qualtrics

bull Emailed to Scottish PEN members and partner organisations in the arts and culture publicised on social media

bull Response 118 writers based in Scotland

Methods Interviews

bull Respondents invited to participate in follow-up interviews

bull Eight writers interviewed at the University of Strathclyde or remotely using Wire (encrypted video call service)

bull Semi-structured interviews based on survey responses

bull Explored key themes in more depth

bull Qualitative coding using categories within theoretical framework derived from surveillance literature and survey results

Key Findings

If you knew that the UK government had collected data about your internet activity would you feel that your personal privacy had been violated

Yes (96) 82 No (12) 10 Dont know (9) 8

How concerned are you about the UK governmentrsquos new law (the Investigatory Powers Act) to collect and analyse data and metadata (eg time and location) on e-mails browsing and other online activity of Britons

Concern around IP Act

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Very concerned (87) Somewhat concerned(23)

Not too concerned (1) Not concerned at all(1)

Not sure (5)

Concern around Tech Companies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very (96) Somewhat (17) Not too (1) Not at all (1) Not sure (2)

How concerned are you about technology companies being compelled to work with the government to provide vast amounts of personal information on Britons

Concern around Corporations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very (61) Somewhat (42) Not too (10) Not at all (3) Not sure (1)

How concerned are you about corporations gathering data to track and analyse consumer behaviour and preferences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very Somewhat Not too concerned Not concerned at all Not sure

General Feelings around Surveillance

IP Act Tech Companies Corporations

Self-Censorship

bull 22 had avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic with 17 seriously considering doing so (39 total)

bull 28 had curtailed or avoided activities on social media with 13 seriously considering doing so (41 total)

bull Majority of respondents said that collection of metadata (39) collection of content data (62) hacking platforms networks or devices (60) and installing backdoors into encrypted platforms (59) would make them use the internet differently

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Methods Interviews

bull Respondents invited to participate in follow-up interviews

bull Eight writers interviewed at the University of Strathclyde or remotely using Wire (encrypted video call service)

bull Semi-structured interviews based on survey responses

bull Explored key themes in more depth

bull Qualitative coding using categories within theoretical framework derived from surveillance literature and survey results

Key Findings

If you knew that the UK government had collected data about your internet activity would you feel that your personal privacy had been violated

Yes (96) 82 No (12) 10 Dont know (9) 8

How concerned are you about the UK governmentrsquos new law (the Investigatory Powers Act) to collect and analyse data and metadata (eg time and location) on e-mails browsing and other online activity of Britons

Concern around IP Act

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Very concerned (87) Somewhat concerned(23)

Not too concerned (1) Not concerned at all(1)

Not sure (5)

Concern around Tech Companies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very (96) Somewhat (17) Not too (1) Not at all (1) Not sure (2)

How concerned are you about technology companies being compelled to work with the government to provide vast amounts of personal information on Britons

Concern around Corporations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very (61) Somewhat (42) Not too (10) Not at all (3) Not sure (1)

How concerned are you about corporations gathering data to track and analyse consumer behaviour and preferences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very Somewhat Not too concerned Not concerned at all Not sure

General Feelings around Surveillance

IP Act Tech Companies Corporations

Self-Censorship

bull 22 had avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic with 17 seriously considering doing so (39 total)

bull 28 had curtailed or avoided activities on social media with 13 seriously considering doing so (41 total)

bull Majority of respondents said that collection of metadata (39) collection of content data (62) hacking platforms networks or devices (60) and installing backdoors into encrypted platforms (59) would make them use the internet differently

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Key Findings

If you knew that the UK government had collected data about your internet activity would you feel that your personal privacy had been violated

Yes (96) 82 No (12) 10 Dont know (9) 8

How concerned are you about the UK governmentrsquos new law (the Investigatory Powers Act) to collect and analyse data and metadata (eg time and location) on e-mails browsing and other online activity of Britons

Concern around IP Act

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Very concerned (87) Somewhat concerned(23)

Not too concerned (1) Not concerned at all(1)

Not sure (5)

Concern around Tech Companies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very (96) Somewhat (17) Not too (1) Not at all (1) Not sure (2)

How concerned are you about technology companies being compelled to work with the government to provide vast amounts of personal information on Britons

Concern around Corporations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very (61) Somewhat (42) Not too (10) Not at all (3) Not sure (1)

How concerned are you about corporations gathering data to track and analyse consumer behaviour and preferences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very Somewhat Not too concerned Not concerned at all Not sure

General Feelings around Surveillance

IP Act Tech Companies Corporations

Self-Censorship

bull 22 had avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic with 17 seriously considering doing so (39 total)

bull 28 had curtailed or avoided activities on social media with 13 seriously considering doing so (41 total)

bull Majority of respondents said that collection of metadata (39) collection of content data (62) hacking platforms networks or devices (60) and installing backdoors into encrypted platforms (59) would make them use the internet differently

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

How concerned are you about the UK governmentrsquos new law (the Investigatory Powers Act) to collect and analyse data and metadata (eg time and location) on e-mails browsing and other online activity of Britons

Concern around IP Act

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Very concerned (87) Somewhat concerned(23)

Not too concerned (1) Not concerned at all(1)

Not sure (5)

Concern around Tech Companies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very (96) Somewhat (17) Not too (1) Not at all (1) Not sure (2)

How concerned are you about technology companies being compelled to work with the government to provide vast amounts of personal information on Britons

Concern around Corporations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very (61) Somewhat (42) Not too (10) Not at all (3) Not sure (1)

How concerned are you about corporations gathering data to track and analyse consumer behaviour and preferences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very Somewhat Not too concerned Not concerned at all Not sure

General Feelings around Surveillance

IP Act Tech Companies Corporations

Self-Censorship

bull 22 had avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic with 17 seriously considering doing so (39 total)

bull 28 had curtailed or avoided activities on social media with 13 seriously considering doing so (41 total)

bull Majority of respondents said that collection of metadata (39) collection of content data (62) hacking platforms networks or devices (60) and installing backdoors into encrypted platforms (59) would make them use the internet differently

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Concern around Tech Companies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very (96) Somewhat (17) Not too (1) Not at all (1) Not sure (2)

How concerned are you about technology companies being compelled to work with the government to provide vast amounts of personal information on Britons

Concern around Corporations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very (61) Somewhat (42) Not too (10) Not at all (3) Not sure (1)

How concerned are you about corporations gathering data to track and analyse consumer behaviour and preferences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very Somewhat Not too concerned Not concerned at all Not sure

General Feelings around Surveillance

IP Act Tech Companies Corporations

Self-Censorship

bull 22 had avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic with 17 seriously considering doing so (39 total)

bull 28 had curtailed or avoided activities on social media with 13 seriously considering doing so (41 total)

bull Majority of respondents said that collection of metadata (39) collection of content data (62) hacking platforms networks or devices (60) and installing backdoors into encrypted platforms (59) would make them use the internet differently

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Concern around Corporations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very (61) Somewhat (42) Not too (10) Not at all (3) Not sure (1)

How concerned are you about corporations gathering data to track and analyse consumer behaviour and preferences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very Somewhat Not too concerned Not concerned at all Not sure

General Feelings around Surveillance

IP Act Tech Companies Corporations

Self-Censorship

bull 22 had avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic with 17 seriously considering doing so (39 total)

bull 28 had curtailed or avoided activities on social media with 13 seriously considering doing so (41 total)

bull Majority of respondents said that collection of metadata (39) collection of content data (62) hacking platforms networks or devices (60) and installing backdoors into encrypted platforms (59) would make them use the internet differently

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very Somewhat Not too concerned Not concerned at all Not sure

General Feelings around Surveillance

IP Act Tech Companies Corporations

Self-Censorship

bull 22 had avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic with 17 seriously considering doing so (39 total)

bull 28 had curtailed or avoided activities on social media with 13 seriously considering doing so (41 total)

bull Majority of respondents said that collection of metadata (39) collection of content data (62) hacking platforms networks or devices (60) and installing backdoors into encrypted platforms (59) would make them use the internet differently

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Self-Censorship

bull 22 had avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic with 17 seriously considering doing so (39 total)

bull 28 had curtailed or avoided activities on social media with 13 seriously considering doing so (41 total)

bull Majority of respondents said that collection of metadata (39) collection of content data (62) hacking platforms networks or devices (60) and installing backdoors into encrypted platforms (59) would make them use the internet differently

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Surveillance amp Blacklisting

ldquoIt should be just as worrying I think really if you end up on a blacklist because you hold

views that are not very savoury ndash unless they are actually inciting to violence and hatredhellipyoursquore

breaking the law ndash but simply to oppose something without breaking the law shouldnrsquot

make you a target for surveillancerdquo

Respondent One

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

ldquoIn terms of government my argument would be that governments need to take much more seriously the concerns that individuals and groups have about the

potential of intrudingrdquo

ldquoI think I would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism I might work on aspects of the

theory but not on interviewing peoplehellipin the past I have interviewed people who would be calledhellipsubversivesrdquo

Respondent Three

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Government Ideology

ldquoOne thing that people dont ever seem to give any consideration to ndash governments certainly dont they always sayhellipldquoIf youve done nothing wrong youve

got nothing to fearhelliprdquo They dont consider that the ideologies of governments can change

and what might be perfectly acceptable in one erahellipmight become unacceptable in a future erardquo

Respondent Four

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Digital Literacy amp Vulnerability

ldquoI think probably what worries me and probably people my kind of age would behellipdoes our ignorance of whatrsquos technologically possible

and whatrsquos unethically being done legally or illegally but either of it unethically make us

vulnerable because we just donrsquot really understandrdquo

Respondent Five

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

ldquoI need to learn more about what the implications of the Act are going to be Thatrsquos what none of us know yet in order to be able to protect myself and in order to be able to do what I want to do digitallyrdquo

Participant One

ldquoA lot of the language of computing although Irsquove been in classes where itrsquos discussed by experts just kind of baffles me to be honest andhellipI think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someonehellipbecause I think we probably are a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable more than we realise I guess itrsquos that thatrsquos Irsquom obviously not losing sleep over it but I think Irsquom a bit more agitated about thisrdquo

Participant Five

ldquoI guess it depends how technology-proficient you are Some people just absorb it myself for example I donrsquot really worry too much about that in isolation I just tend to look at the bigger picture but I do know a few people who arehellipless literate with IT and for them it would be a much bigger issuerdquo

Participant Six

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Digital InequalityAmericans with lower levels of income and education are acutely aware of a range of digital privacy-related harms that could upend their financial professional or social wellbeinghellip there are significant racial disparities when looking at privacy-related concerns in particular foreign-born Hispanic adults stand out for both their privacy sensitivities and their desire to learn more about safeguarding their personal information Yet many of those who feel most vulnerable to data-related harms also feel as though it would be difficult for them to find the tools and strategies needed to better protect their personal information online

(Data and Society Research Institute 2017)

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Freedom of Expression

ldquoYou canrsquot exist as a writer if yoursquore self-censoring if yoursquore thinking about a law thatrsquos come into effect

which forces you to self-censor because you donrsquot want to go to jailrdquo

Respondent Eight

ldquoI suppose itrsquos pointing towards self-censorship being the norm and I expect thatrsquos already happeningrdquo

Respondent One

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Foucaultrsquos Panopticism

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

bull Potential of being observed exerts disciplinary force

bull Unseen nature of digital surveillance exerts similar force on internet users

bull Surveillance as securitystate power (Lischka 2017)

bull Surveillance as ambivalent protective and enabling (Allmer2011)

bull Buthellipin the context of the IP Act surveillance is centralised and hierarchical

bull Power subjection normalization internalization social control (Simon 2005)

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

What surveillance really is at its root is a highly effective form of social control The knowledge of always being watched changes our behaviour and stifles dissent The inability to associate secretly means there is no longer any possibility for free association The inability to whisper means there is no longer any speech that is truly free of coercion real or implied Most profoundly pervasive surveillance threatens to eliminate the most vital element of both democracy and social movements the mental space for people to form dissenting and unpopular views

Riseup (2013)

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Conclusionsbull Writers are worried about surveillance and engage in self-censorship as a result

bull Widespread concern about government and corporate surveillance

bull Already engaging in self-protective behaviour that is limiting their freedom to research and write freely

bull Majority of participants reported that they are not adequately informed or skilled to protect themselves online

bull Self-censorship of research writing and speech has implications for creativity free expression civic discourse and strength of democracy

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Recommendations Policy

1 Clearly outline the scope and scale of lawful state surveillance powers to help the public understand what powers can lawfully be deployed

2 Develop a robust human rights analysis of all surveillance reforms that involves engagement with the public academics and civil society more broadly

3 Improve the processes by which members of the public can play a meaningful role in the legislative process to ensure their concerns are incorporated within all laws drafted and passed in the UK

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Recommendations Practice

1 Develop and deliver educational programmes on digital human rights and ways users can protect their rights online

2 Establish protections for vulnerable groups to protect themselves online in a range of services ie libraries social services amp private services

3 Create conditions for rational discourse about surveillance to occur in discursive public sphere

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Recommendations Researchers

1 Interrogate and analyse the deployment of surveillance processes

2 Investigate how government and corporate surveillance shapes how individuals use the internet to ldquointeract discuss political issues and seek new informationrdquo (Stoycheff 2016)

3 Question ethics and impact of big data research and algorithmic governance on freedom of expression self-censorship and civic discourse

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Public Engagement

Academics and researchers working in the space of surveillance have a responsibility to support the public to increase awareness knowledge and understanding of the implications of current and future state corporate and academic surveillance

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Further Research

Address the questions

bull To what extent are people of different agesgendersethnicitiesreligions likely to self-censor as a result of statecorporateacademic surveillance

bull What are the social justice implications of this for marginalised disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals and groups

bull What is the likelymeasurable impact on freedom of expression political pluralism robust debate strength of democracy etc

bull Opportunities for replication of PEN America and Scottish PEN self-censorship research internationally

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

ReferencesAllmer T 2011 Critical Surveillance Studies in the Information Society tripleC Communication Capitalism amp Critique Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 9(2) pp566ndash592 httpswwwtriple-catindexphptripleCarticleview266

Chatman E A 1996 The impoverished life-world of outsiders Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 47(3) pp193ndash206 httpsdoi101002(SICI)1097-4571(199603)473lt193AID-ASI3gt30CO2-T

Data and Society Research Institute 2017 Privacy Security and Digital Inequality httpsdatasocietynetpubsprvDataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequalitypdf

Lischka JA 2017 Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowdenrsquos revelations Information Communication and Society 20(5) pp665ndash682 httpsdxdoiorg1010801369118X20161211721

Loader B D (Ed) (1998) Cyberspace divide Equality agency and policy in the information society London Sage

Marthews Alex and Tucker Catherine E 2017 Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior httpsssrncomabstract=2412564 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn2412564

PEN America (2013) Chilling Effects NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor httpspenorgsitesdefaultfilesChilling20Effects_PEN20Americanpdf

Penney J 2016 Chilling Effects Online surveillance and Wikipedia Use Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31 (1) 117 httpsssrncomabstract=2769645

Penney J 2017 Internet Surveillance Regulation and Chilling Effects Online A Comparative Case Study Internet Policy Review 11 httpspapersssrncomsol3paperscfmabstract_id=2959611

Riseup 2013 August Newsletter httpsriseupnetplabout-usnewsletter201308

Stoycheff E (2016) Under surveillance Examining Facebooks spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring Journalism amp Mass Communication Quarterly 93(2) 296ndash311 httpsdoi1011771077699016630255

Thank You

Project page Self-censorship and surveillance concerns of Scottish writers

Lauren Smithwalkyouhomelaurensmithinfogmailcom

Nik WilliamsNikWilliams2nikscottishpenorg