Tecnologías de la vigilanciauna mirada hacia la violencia legítima del Estado en cuestiones de seguridad y control

  1. Santiago Gómez, Elvira 1
  2. Rodríguez Rodríguez, Carmen 1
  1. 1 Universidade da Coruña
    info

    Universidade da Coruña

    La Coruña, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01qckj285

Journal:
Encrucijadas: Revista Crítica de Ciencias Sociales

ISSN: 2174-6753

Year of publication: 2018

Issue Title: Control, castigo y sociedad

Issue: 16

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Encrucijadas: Revista Crítica de Ciencias Sociales

Abstract

In the post 9/11 western societies, there has been a large deployment of surveillance technologies in a context marked by a sense of fear and uncertainty about the changing nature of global security threats. These technologies seek to strengthen security by focusing on protection, prevention and the fight against crime.Thus, while the need for these new technologies is justified by a trade-off arguing that individuals must be willing to sacrifice part of their freedom and personal privacy in exchange for higher security, this way of exercising control and surveillance in the 21st century open numerous questions about the usefulness and risks that the use of these technologies are associated with. This article aims to address the social implications of this paradoxical situation in which surveillance technologies have gone from being applied in prisons to the streets, configuring the expansion of a disciplinary society in the manner of Foucault.Through an approach that trusts in the advantages of the co-production of social order and that tries to identify and question the social, political and technical imaginaries from which surveillance technologies are implemented, the arguments of their acceptance and rejection are identified and alternative solutions are proposed.

Bibliographic References

  • Baldwin, D.A. 1997. “The concept of security”, Review of international studies, 23(1): 5-26.
  • Beccaria, C. 2011 [1764]. De los delitos y las penas. Madrid: Trotta.
  • Bentham, J. 1989 [1787]. El Panóptico. Barcelona: La Piqueta.
  • Bourdieu, P. 1999. Meditaciones pascalianas. Barcelona: Anagrama.
  • Cochrane, A. 2007. Understanding Urban Policy: A critical approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Davis, D. W. y B. D. Silver. 2004. “Civil liberties vs. security: Public opinion in the context of the terrorist attacks on America”, American Journal of Political Science, 48(1):28-46.
  • de Arquellada, V. 1801. “Apéndice. La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, FAF”. Noticia del estado de las cárceles de Filadelfia.
  • Fyfe, N. R. 1998. Images of the street: Planning, identity, and control in public space. Londres: Routledge.
  • Foucault, M. [1975] 2009. Vigilar y castigar. Nacimiento de la prisión. Madrid: Siglo XXI.
  • Foucault, M. [1981] 1995. Tecnologías del yo y otros textos afines. Barcelona: Paidós.
  • Foucault, M. 1989. “El ojo del poder. Entrevista con Michel Foucault”, en El Panóptico de J. Bentham. Barcelona: La Piqueta.
  • Gaskell, G., N. Allum, W. Wagner, N. Kronberger, H. Torgersen, J. Hampel, y J. Bardes. 2004. “GM foods and the misperception of risk perception”, Risk analysis, 24(1):185-194.
  • González, I. 2015. “Neoliberalismo y expansion del sistema penal: apuntes sobre una relación no anunciada”, Encrucijadas. Revista Crítica de Ciencias Sociales, 9:v0901.
  • Hempel, L., L. Ostermeier, T. Schaaf, y D. Vedder. 2013. “Towards a social impact assessment of security technologies: A bottom-up approach”, Science and Public Policy, 40(6): 740-754.
  • Howard, J. 2003 [1777]. El estado de las prisiones en Inglaterra y Gales. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  • Ibañez, B. 2014. “Reinventando el Panóptico: de la prisión benthamiana al espacio cultural en España”, E-rph. Revista electrónica de patrimonio histórico, 14: 34-58.
  • Jasanoff, S. (ed.). 2004. States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order. Routledge.
  • Jasanoff, S. y S. Kim. 2009. “Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea”, Minerva, 47: 119-146.
  • Knights, D., F. Noble, T. Vurdubakis, y H. Willmott. 2001. “Chasing shadows: control, virtuality and the production of trust”, Organization studies, 22(2): 311-336.
  • La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, F.A.F. 1801. Noticia del estado de las cárceles de Filadelfia. Madrid: Imprenta real.
  • Lodge, J. 2005. “eJustice, security and biometrics: the EU's proximity paradox”, European Journal of Crime Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 13(4):533.
  • López, M.A. 1832. Descripción de los mas célebres establecimientos penales de Europa y los Estados Unidos: seguida de la aplicación práctica de sus principios y régimen interior a las Casas de Corrección, Fuerza y Reconciliación (Vol. 2). Valencia: Benito Monfort.
  • Lucas, C. 1828-1830. Du système pénitentiaire en Europe et Aux États-Unis. París: Timothée Dehay.
  • Marshall C. y G.B. Rossman. 2011. Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Muller, B.J. 2008. “Securing the political imagination: Popular culture, the security dispositif and the biometric state”, Security Dialogue, 39(2-3): 199-220.
  • Pavone, V. y S.D. Esposti. 2012. “Public assessment of new surveillance-oriented security technologies: Beyond the trade-off between privacy and security”, Public Understanding of Science, 21(5):556-572.
  • Pavone, V., E. Santiago-Gomez y D.O. Jaquet-Chifelle. 2016. “A systemic approach to security: beyond the tradeoff between security and liberty”, Democracy and Security, 12(4):225-246.
  • Presidencia del Gobierno. 2017. Estrategia de Seguridad Nacional. Boletín Oficial del Estado.
  • Salter, M.B. y E. Zureik. 2005. Global Surveillance and Policing Borders, Security, Identity, Devon, UK: Willan.
  • Sagra, R. de la. 1836. Cinco Meses en los Estados Unidos de la América del Norte, desde el 20 de Abril al 23 de Septiembre de 1835. París: Imprenta de Pablo Renouard.
  • Strickland, L.S., y L.E. Hunt. 2005. “Technology, security, and individual privacy: New tools, new threats, and new public perceptions” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 56(3):221-234.
  • Tocqueville, A. y G. Beaumont. 1837. Système pénitentiaire aux États-Unis et de son application en France : suivi d’un appendice sur les colonies pènales et de notes statistiques. Bruxelles: R. Remy.
  • Wright, D., y M. Friedewald. 2013. “Integrating privacy and ethical impact assessments”, Science and Public Policy, 40(6):755-766.
  • Van Lieshout, M., M. Friedewald, D. Wright, y S. Gutwirth. 2013. “Reconciling privacy and security”, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 26(1-2): 119-132.
Data source: Dialnet