Institutionalization of Governability and the Problem of Veillance in the Space of Digital Communications | South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences
Institutionalization of Governability and the Problem of Veillance in the Space of Digital Communications
Vol. 20 (2019) No. 3, Public Administration and Governance
Vol. 20 (2019) No. 3
Public Administration and Governance

Institutionalization of Governability and the Problem of Veillance in the Space of Digital Communications

Smorgunov L.V.
St. Petersburg State University
ORCID ID 0000-0002-2581-2975
PDF (Russian)
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-20-3-62-75
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-20-3-62-75

How to Cite Array

Smorgunov L.V. (2019) Institutionalization of Governability and the Problem of Veillance in the Space of Digital Communications. South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences, 20 (3), pp. 62-75. DOI: 10.31429/26190567-20-3-62-75 (In Russian)
Submission Date 2019-08-14
Accepted Date 2019-08-30
Published Date 2019-09-27

Copyright (c) 2019 Леонид Владимирович Сморгунов

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

The article raises the problem of public governability in modern media which entail surveillance and sousveillance. Digitalization in the sphere of public life entails both positive effects and threats. Improving conditions for governability, digitalization simultaneously generates the threat of surveillance and sousveillance. The paper dwells upon the specificity of both. Oversight can result in turning governability into the instrument of ordering people’s life. In this context, governability is a data-­intensive instrument that uses the data array processed by large operational systems about citizens. It allows not only to control them but also to use the data to govern and control the behavior of large masses of people. Sousveillance is the result of the need for network belonging and it generates self-­censorship as a form of governability. Yet, the citizens’ participation in public administration, backed by modern digital technologies, is opposed to surveillance and sousveillance. Digital public governance is based on algorithms that ensure such institutional norms of interaction as anonymity, justice and reciprocity. Participatory governability is the result of network-­based coordination of interaction that creates the effect of collaboration rather than contest. The tendency of “Internet sovereignty” is analyzed as a form of governability, which is expressed in modern regulatory policies of states aimed at creating conditions to provide sufficient national guarantees of control over the Internet space. The paper emphasizes the importance of legal institutionalization of modern forms of governability arising in the context of the development of control from above and from below.

Keywords

public governability, surveillance, sousveillance, sovereign Internet, instituti­ona­li­zation

Acknowledgements

The research was carried out through the financial support of the Russian Scienсе Foundation, grant No 19-18-00210 “Political ontology of digitalization: Study of institutional bases for digital forms of governability”.

References

  1. Adee, S. (2019, 15 May). The Global Internet is Disintegrating. What Comes Next? BBC: Future Now. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190514-the-global-internet-is-disintegrating-what-comes-nex
  2. Asgarkhani, M. (2005). Digital Government and Its Effectiveness in Public Management Reform. Public Management Review, 7(3), 465–487.
  3. Assange, J., Appelbaum, J., Muller-Maguhn, A. & Zimmermann, J. (2012). Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet. N.Y., L.: OR Books.
  4. Bakir, V. (2013). Torture, Intelligence and Sousveillance in the War on Terror. Ashgate: Farnham, Surrey.
  5. Bakir, V., Feilzer, M. & McStay, A. (2017). Introduction to Special Theme Veillance and Transparency: A Critical Examination of Mutual Watching in thePost-Snowden, Big Data era. Big Data & Society, 4(1), 1–5. DOI: 10.1177/2053951717698996
  6. Borradori, G. (2016). Between Transparency and Surveillance: Politics of the Secret. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 42(4–5), 456–464. doi: 10.1177/0191453715623321
  7. Brokeš, F. (2018, 24 September). Russia’s Sovereign Internet. Central European Financial Observer. Retrieved from https://financialobserver.eu/cse-and-cis/russias-sovereign-internet/
  8. Chalmers, R. (2005). Orwell or All Well? The Rise of Surveillance Culture. Alternative Law Journal, 30(6), 258–261.
  9. Clement, A. (2018, 26 March). Canadian Network Sovereignty: A Strategy for Twenty-First-Century National Infrastructure Building. Retrieved from https://www.cigionline.org/articles/canadian-network-sovereignty
  10. Ganascia, J.-G. (2010). The Generalized Sousveillance Society. Social Science Information, 49(3), 489–507. DOI: 10.1177/0539018410371021
  11. Latour, B. (2018). Politiki pryrody [Politics of Nature]. М.: Ad Marginem Press.
  12. Mrachnoe budushchee interneta: neravenstvo i nesvoboda [The dark future of the Internet: inequality and the absence of freedom]. (2017, 4 August). Habr [Habr]. Retrieved from https://habr.com/ru/company/asus/blog/405783/
  13. Online Harms White Paper. (2019, 8 April). Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper
  14. Parés, M., Bonet-Martí, J. & Martí-Costa M. (2012). Does Participation Really Matter in Urban Regeneration Policies? Exploring Governance Networks in Catalonia (Spain). Urban Affairs Review, 48(2), 238–271. DOI:10.1177/1078087411423352
  15. Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies. Adopted by the OECD Council on 15 July 2014. (2014). OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/Recommendation-digital-government-strategies.pdf
  16. Salin, P. (2017). Ierarkhiia ravnykh. Kak preodolet’ krizis sistemy mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [The Hierarchy of Equals. How to Overcome the Crisis in the System of International Relations]. Rossia v globalnoi politike [Russia in Global Affairs], 5, 129–140.
  17. Scott, B., Loonam, J. & Kumar, V. (2017). Exploring the Rise of Blockchain Technology: Towards Distributed Collaborative Organizations. Strategic Change, 26(5), 423–428. DOI: 10.1002/jsc.2142
  18. Shen, Y. (2016). Cyber Sovereignty and the Governance of Global Cyberspace. Chinese Political Science Review, 1(1), 81–93. DOI: 10.1007/s41111-016-0002-6
  19. Smorgunov, L.V. (2016). Znanie I publichnoe upravlenie: ot utverzdenia normy k suzdeniyu [Knowledge and Public Administration: From Ordered Rule to Judgment]. Politicheskaya nauka [Political Science], 2, 181–197.
  20. US and UK Refuse to Sign UN’s Communications Treaty. (2012, 10 December). BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-20717774
  21. Wagner, B., Kettemann, M. & Veith, K. (Eds.). (2019). Research Handbook on Human Rights and Digital Technology. Global Politics, Law and International relations. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  22. Xinaris, Ch. (2016). The Individual in an ICT World. European Journal of Communication, 31(1), 58–68. DOI: 10.1177/0267323115614487