| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
156018
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
175089
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The evaluation of the effectiveness of surveillance technology in intelligence agencies and oversight bodies is notably lacking. Assessments of surveillance technology concerning legal compliance, cost, and matters of privacy occupy a solid place, but effectiveness is rarely considered. Bureaucracy may explain this absence. Applying James Q. Wilson’s observations on bureaucracy reveals that effectiveness is minimally treated because it is more difficult to evaluate than budget assessments and legal compliance, and because intelligence outcomes are unobservable and difficult to oversee. Effectiveness evaluation is thus fettered by bureaucracy. Considerations of bringing in effectiveness assessment must appreciate the realities of bureaucratic constraints to be successful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
161531
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Intelligence agencies routinely use surveillance technology to perform surveillance on digital data. This practice raises many questions that feed a societal debate, including whether the surveillance technology is effective in achieving the given security goal, whether it is cost-efficient, and whether it is proportionate. Oversight bodies are important actors in this debate, overseeing budgets, legal and privacy matters, and the performance of intelligence agencies. This paper examines how oversight bodies evaluate the questions above, using documents produced by American and British oversight mechanisms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
147320
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This contribution asks how the reliance on mass dataveillance of travellers is sustained as a central policy option in the governance of EU border security. It examines this question by analysing a recent initiative of the European Commission proposing the establishment of EU ‘smart borders’. The analysis draws from a set of thinking tools developed by the sociology of association in the field of science and technology studies. The contribution argues that in order to grasp policy outcomes such as smart borders, security studies would benefit from adopting a compositional outlook on agency, where action is seen as the effect of associated entities. Looking at the smartening of EU borders, the article finds that this process is held together by multiple translations and enrolments through which the technical side of dataveillance – platforms, automated gates, matching systems, and so forth – has become associated with the processes of policymaking on border security and sustains the furtherance of mass dataveillance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|