The surveillance complex
Deputized law and order in advanced democracies
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20508481 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Isadora Borges Monroy (0000-0001-7834-7168, Independent researcher, Montreal, Canada, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Pages | 1-23 |
| Publication date | 2025-05-19 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Information Communication & Society (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1369-118X • E-ISSN: 1468-4462 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/1369118x.2025.2505696 |
| OpenAlex | W4410496009 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 13 |
Can a nation remain democratic while engaging in undemocratic behaviors? I describe the concept of deputized surveillance as a central mechanism of data gathering in US policing. After outlining its inception and development across administrations, I focus on governmental efforts to insulate digital mass surveillance from political and economic costs by curtailing public deliberation of deputation. I argue that America’s pursuit of marketplace surveillance is designed to minimize, if not elude, democratic accountability. Independent of how the state subsequently uses mass surveillance data, deputizing surveillance onto firms erodes democratic rule. The historical account of America’s technological capacity development evidences how these institutional changes in law and order policies contributed to democratic backsliding. This article provides an alternative perspective to digital mass surveillance studies, focusing on (1) democracies, (2) ascribing prominent agency and motivation to the American state (e.g., surveillance deputation) against market-centric narratives (e.g., surveillance capitalism), and (3) I argue that democracies’ deputation embeds unaccountability to safeguard mass surveillance. Systematizing the government’s pursuit of whistleblowers and surveillance journalism is evidence of the resource mobilization to maintain or restore deputation’s secrecy. Prosecuting journalists reporting on surveillance undermines citizens’ ability to be informed; the information available is endogenous to the state’s willingness to chill speech, an undemocratic trait. This mechanism supports my main argument: pursuing digital mass surveillance requires states to engage in undemocratic behavior. Mass surveillance practices erode privacy rights and due process, and the presumption of innocence further erodes democracy. But that is additional and independent of its undemocratic origin
Business · Law and economics · Political science · Sociology · European Criminal Justice and Data Protection · Global Security and Public Health · International Law and Human Rights · Law
Remix
Regulating the European Data‐Driven Economy
A Cross of Iron
Trust and Transparency in an Age of Surveillance
Competitive Authoritarianism
An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy
Democracy in Exile
Governing through non‐enforcement
The Anatomy of Democratic Backsliding
On Democratic Backsliding
Unwelcome Change
Surveillance deputies
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |