The Dynamics of Impersonal Trust and Distrust in Surveillance Systems

Abstract

Empirical research concerned with the trust that individuals may or may not have in surveillance systems has largely been gauged through opinion poll and survey type research. Although these may be useful in augmenting broad patterns of trust based attitudes, this article argues that they tend to harbour theoretically weak conceptualisations of trust which may produce misleading results. We draw on relevant concepts related to notions of ‘impersonal trust’ (for example, ‘access points’, ‘facework’ and ‘suspension’) to facilitate a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews which concerned Londoners’ trust related experiences, perceptions and understandings of living in a so called ‘surveillance society’. We form a number of preliminary conclusions which are of interest to sociological research on trust and surveillance studies: contrary to prior research on trust and surveillance, trust related positions may be neither static nor polarised, but processual and situational; the suspension of certainty bridged by impersonal trust is particularly problematic in surveillance systems as they especially lack access points; and impersonal trust related positions are likely to be considerably weak as information about the systems requires specialist information.

Beyond ‘nothing to hide’: When identity is key to privacy threat under surveillance

“…Thus, the facilitation of the relationship between surveillers and surveilled is not direct. Ellis et al (), drawing on Giddens () notion of access points, argue that surveillance resistance might be created by giving ‘faces’ to surveillance systems. In line with this, one suggestion we make to social psychologists is to develop surveillance resistance interventions by drawing on the social psychology of leadership and identity.…”

“…For example, Facebook justifies experimenting on people as one of the conditions that they consent to upon signing up for their service (Kramer et al, 2014), despite criticism that such experiments are unethical (e.g., Chambers, 2014). Privacy advocates and academics have been keen to promote an alternative story that claims that people do care about their privacy and that the inconsistencies arise from measurement problems (e.g., Dienlin & Trepte, 2015) and misunderstanding impression management strategies (boyd & Marwick, 2011), social exchange negotiations (Tufekci, 2008), or situational factors (Ellis, Harper, & Tucker, 2013b;Joinson, Reips, Buchanan, & Paine Scholfield, 2010).…”

Policing nightlife areas: comparing youths’ trust in police, door staff and CCTV

“…In fact, the few studies that go beyond the seemingly positive picture painted by general polls and surveys on public support, seem to suggest that people's perceptions of CCTV may also proliferate distrust in terms of the system being (in)capable to prevent crime (Ellis et al 2013). As argued by Neyland (2006, p. 10): 'trust in CCTV may involve the drawing together of multiple claims, based on multiple forms of information, forming ongoing assessments and decisions regarding what CCTV is doing, what it could do and whether or not it works'.…”

“…In Ellis et al (2013), research participants also raised concerns about the ways CCTV c/would be used for generating income through fining minor violations, and that the extensive power asymmetry between watcher and watched may be an important source of distrust in CCTV (see also Koskela 2002). In a more general sense this signals that public discussions of trust in CCTV are also closely related to issues of privacy (Neyland 2006).…”

Compromised Trust: DHS Fusion Centers’ Policing of the Occupy Wall Street Movement

“…2.3 Trust is an underexplored concept in surveillance studies (Ellis, Harper, and Tucker 2013). Those studies that do examine the connection between surveillance and trust are most often based on surveys measuring the public's perception of surveillance systems (Chan et al 2008; Dimock et al 2013; Gallup 2008; Yougov 2006).…”