Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 18:2 (2019) ► pp.207–230

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Negotiating digital surveillance legislation in post-Snowden times

An argumentation analysis of Finnish political discourse

ORCiD logo with link | University of Jyväskylä
Published online: 18 April 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.18004.tia
Abstract
In the digital era, when security agencies world-wide have been challenging basic democratic principles with massive data gathering, Finland has had a different approach: it has conducted no large-scale surveillance of citizens’ online activities. Now, however, the country is planning such a vast expansion of state surveillance that the constitution itself must be altered. The present article examines one key point in this legislative process to see how the new surveillance measures are argued for and criticized, and how the differing points of view are negotiated to ultimately enable political action. Drawing particularly on Fairclough, Isabela, and Norman Fairclough. 2012. Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar approach to argumentation in political discourse, the article finds that surveillance is promoted as essential for national security, and criticized especially for its economic risks, consequences for civil rights and questionable effectiveness. Despite this range of critical perspectives, only economic considerations become a topic of extended deliberation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Digital surveillance and the case of Finland
    • 2.1Surveillance in the digital age
    • 2.2Developing Finnish intelligence legislation
  • 3.Critical discourse studies: Political discourse and argumentation
  • 4.Data
  • 5.Analytical process
  • 6.Arguing for and against digital surveillance
    • 6.1The argument for digital surveillance
    • 6.2Constructing, questioning and negotiating the means-goal premise
    • 6.3Questioning and negotiating economic consequences
    • 6.4Questioning and negotiating civil rights consequences
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
References (40)
References
Audi, Robert. 2006. Practical Reasoning and Ethical Decision. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allmer, Thomas. 2012. Towards a Critical Theory of Surveillance in Informational Capitalism. New York: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnard-Wills, David. 2011. “UK News Media Discourses of Surveillance.” The Sociological Quarterly 52 (4): 548–567. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Isabela, and Norman Fairclough. 2012. Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Argument, Deliberation, Dialectic and the Nature of the Political: A CDA perspective.” Political Studies Review, 11(3): 336–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Finlayson, Alan. 2013. “Critique and Political Argumentation.” Political Studies Review, 11(3): 313–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuchs, Christian, Kees Boersma, Anders Albrechtslund, and Marisol Sandoval. 2012. “Introduction: Internet and Surveillance.” In Internet and Surveillance. The challenges of Web 2.0 and Social Media, ed. by Fuchs, Christian, Kees Boersma, Anders Albrechtslund, and Marisol Sandoval, 1–30. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuchs, Christian. 2015. “Surveillance and Critical Theory.” Media and Communication 3(2): 6–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gee, James Paul. 2014. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Abingdon: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haggerty, Kevin D., and Richard V. Ericson. 2000. “The Surveillant Assemblage.” The British Journal of Sociology 51(4): 605–622. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hay, Colin. 2013. “Political Discourse Analysis: The Dangers of Methodological Absolutism.” Political Studies Review, 11(3): 321–327. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hintz, Arne, and Ian Brown. 2017. “Enabling Digital Citizenship? The Reshaping of Surveillance Policy After Snowden.” International Journal of Communication, 11(20): 782–801.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jokinen, Arja. 1999. ”Vakuuttelevan ja suostuttelevan retoriikan analysoiminen [Analysing persuading and convincing rhetoric].” In Diskurssianalyysi liikkeessä [Discourse analysis in motion] ed. by Jokinen, Arja, Kirsi Juhila, and Eero Suoninen, 126–159. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kakkuri-Knuuttila, Marja-Liisa. 1998. Argumentti ja kritiikki. Lukemisen, keskustelun ja vakuuttamisen taidot [Argument and critique. The skills of reading, conversation and convincing]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lischka, Juliane A. 2017. “Explicit Terror Prevention Versus Vague Civil Liberty: How the UK Broadcasting News (De) Legitimatise Online Mass Surveillance Since Edward Snowden’s Revelations.” Information, Communication & Society 20(5): 665–682. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyon, David. 1994. Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “Surveillance, Snowden, and Big Data: Capacities, Consequences, Critique.” Big Data & Society 1(2): 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Surveillance after Snowden. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mathiesen, Thomas. 2013. Towards a Surveillant Society: The Rise of Surveillance Systems in Europe. Sherfield on Loddon: Waterside Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marx, Gary T. 2002. “What’s New about the ’New Surveillance’? Classifying for Change and Continuity.” Surveillance & Society 1(1): 9–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ministry of Defence. 2015. “Guidelines for Developing Finnish Intelligence legislation: Working Group Report”, accessed December 14, 2017, [URL]
Ni Loideain, Nora. 2015. EU Law and Mass Internet Metadata Surveillance in the Post-Snowden Era. Media and Communication, 3(2): 56–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pietikäinen, Sari, and Anne Mäntynen. 2009. Kurssi kohti diskurssia [Course towards discourse]. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scheinin, Martin. 2015. “The State of Our Union: Confronting the Future.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 13(3): 559–566. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schulze, Matthias. 2015. “Patterns of Surveillance Legitimization: The German Discourse on the NSA Scandal.” Surveillance & Society 13(2): 197–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scollon, Ron, and Suzie Wong Scollon. 2004. Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simone, Maria A. 2009. “Give Me Liberty and Give Me Surveillance: A Case Study of the US Government’s Discourse of Surveillance.” Critical Discourse Studies 6(1): 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steiger, Stefan, Wolf J. Schünemann, and Katharina Dimmroth. 2017. “Outrage without consequences?: Post-Snowden Discourses and Governmental Practice in Germany.” Media and Communication 5(1): 7–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tiainen, Minna. 2017. “(De)legitimating Electronic Surveillance: a Critical Discourse Analysis of the Finnish News Coverage of the Edward Snowden Revelations.” Critical Discourse Studies, 14(4), 402–419. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tréguer, Félix. 2017. “Intelligence Reform and the Snowden Paradox: The Case of France.” Media and Communication, 5(1): 17–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen E. 2003. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Gulijk, Coen, et al. 2014. “Paper Assessing Surveillance in the Context of Preventing a Terrorist Act.” Seventh Framework Programme. Surveillance: Ethical Issues, Legal Limitations, and Efficiency, Accessed December 14, 2017, [URL]
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2007. “Legitimation in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse & Communication 1(1): 91–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin, Lucy Bennett, and Gregory Taylor. 2017. “The Normalization of Surveillance and the Invisibility of Digital Citizenship: Media Debates after the Snowden Revelations.” International Journal of Communication, 111: 740–762.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Media Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer (eds.). 2016. Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue