Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 18:2 (2019) ► pp.207–230

Negotiating digital surveillance legislation in post-Snowden times

An argumentation analysis of Finnish political discourse

ORCID logo | University of Jyväskylä

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 and Fairclough’s (2012) 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.

Keywords: digital surveillance, political discourse, critical discourse studies, argumentation, privacy
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
Published online: 18 April 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.18004.tia
References
Audi, Robert
2006 Practical Reasoning and Ethical Decision. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allmer, Thomas
2012 Towards a Critical Theory of Surveillance in Informational Capitalism. New York: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnard-Wills, David
2011 “UK News Media Discourses of Surveillance.” The Sociological Quarterly 52 (4): 548–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
1992 Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Isabela, and Norman Fairclough
2012 Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
2013 “Argument, Deliberation, Dialectic and the Nature of the Political: A CDA perspective.” Political Studies Review, 11(3): 336–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finlayson, Alan
2013 “Critique and Political Argumentation.” Political Studies Review, 11(3): 313–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel
1972 The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1977 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Penguin Books.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
Fuchs, Christian
2015 “Surveillance and Critical Theory.” Media and Communication 3(2): 6–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gee, James Paul
2014 An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haggerty, Kevin D., and Richard V. Ericson
2000 “The Surveillant Assemblage.” The British Journal of Sociology 51(4): 605–622. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, Colin
2013 “Political Discourse Analysis: The Dangers of Methodological Absolutism.” Political Studies Review, 11(3): 321–327. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyon, David
1994 Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.Google Scholar
2014 “Surveillance, Snowden, and Big Data: Capacities, Consequences, Critique.” Big Data & Society 1(2): 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Surveillance after Snowden. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Mathiesen, Thomas
2013 Towards a Surveillant Society: The Rise of Surveillance Systems in Europe. Sherfield on Loddon: Waterside Press.Google Scholar
Marx, Gary T.
2002 “What’s New about the ’New Surveillance’? Classifying for Change and Continuity.” Surveillance & Society 1(1): 9–29. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pietikäinen, Sari, and Anne Mäntynen
2009 Kurssi kohti diskurssia [Course towards discourse]. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
Scheinin, Martin
2015 “The State of Our Union: Confronting the Future.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 13(3): 559–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schulze, Matthias
2015 “Patterns of Surveillance Legitimization: The German Discourse on the NSA Scandal.” Surveillance & Society 13(2): 197–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scollon, Ron, and Suzie Wong Scollon
2004 Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tréguer, Félix
2017 “Intelligence Reform and the Snowden Paradox: The Case of France.” Media and Communication, 5(1): 17–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen E.
2003 The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Walton, Douglas
2006 Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2007 Media Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer
(eds.) 2016 Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar