Patterns of Surveillance Legitimization. The German Discourse on the NSA Scandal

Abstract

This paper conceptualizes scandals as a special type of discourse in which the legitimacy of institutions or practices like surveillance is in question. This forces surveillance advocates to engage in legitimacy management (Suchmann 1995). They therefore adopt legitimization strategies that can be observed. This paper presents a framework for the study of surveillance legitimizing strategies in scandal discourses that can be used for future cross-case comparisons. The aim is to analyze how the legitimacy of surveillance practices is maintained or repaired by surveillance advocates when it is contested in times of a scandal. The research questions are, what rhetorical strategies are used to legitimize surveillance and to prevent the scandal from escalating? The case that is studied is the reaction by the German federal Government between June and October 2013. Because of the Federal Election in September that year and the strong notions about privacy and data protection within Germany, this discourse is especially relevant. The surveillance legitimizing practices follow an escalation logic: from denial of knowledge, denial of participation, acknowledging of limited participation to complaining about the monitoring of Angela Merkel’s cellphone.

Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty: how the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowden’s revelations

“…Both sides also refer to authority legitimisations such as the law or conventionality and deny authority of or ascribe authority to Snowden, respectively. Similarly, Schulze (2015) shows that referring to the law is a dominant authorisation strategy in the German debate around the NSA-surveillance scandal, which refers to the embassies and world leader snooping case in this study.…”

“…van Leeuwen and Wodak (1999) and van Leeuwen (2007) distinguish four sub-categories of justifying strategies, namely (1) authorisation through personal or impersonal institutionalised authorities (e.g., experts, parent, teacher, the law, through conformity ['everybody does it', use of statistics]), (2) instrumental or theoretical rationalisation through purposes (e.g., intrusion into privacy is justified 'to protects rights and freedom of others ' [van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999, p. 106]), (3) moral abstractions and evaluations that link activities to values such as leadership and governmental control, economic values (economic interest of a country), values of public interest, national security or public order, and (4) mythopoesis through telling stories. Similar legitimation strategies were also used in Schulze's (2015) analysis of the surveillance discourse of German politicians. In addition, van Dijk (2006, p. 380) describes various forms of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation through 'enhancing the power, moral superiority and credibility of the speaker(s), and discrediting dissidents, while vilifying the Others, the enemy; the use of emotional appeals; and adducing seemingly irrefutable proofs of one's beliefs and reasons'.…”

(De)legitimating electronic surveillance: a critical discourse analysis of the Finnish news coverage of the Edward Snowden revelations

“…Due to the high level of controversy surrounding the Snowden affair, the case offers a particularly rich site for an analysis of the legitimation of surveillance (cf. Schulze 2015). Research on the topic is needed since, although important studies have been conducted on the discussion of surveillance in (mostly Anglo-American) public and media discourse (e.g.…”

Intelligence Reform and the Snowden Paradox: The Case of France

“…In this regard, the legitimation strategies of policy-makers, which denied that French agencies were engaging in the same practices as their Five Eyes counterparts-a strategy also observed in Germany (Schulze, 2015)-, were successful. But even more than denials, it was a no-comment policy that dominated the French government's response to the unfolding scandal.…”