An examination of the discursive construction of bulk surveillance as a societal issue in the UK (2013 – 2021)

Abstract

The aim of this thesis is to investigate the discursive construction of the issue of bulk surveillance as a societal topic in the UK after 2013, by focusing on the stakeholders involved in this process. Analysing and bringing to light the existent discourses on bulk surveillance is a way to understand how the relationship between democracy and security in the UK is being reconfigured in the context of new and emerging technologies of surveillance. The debate on bulk surveillance at society level in the UK, provides a ground-breaking framework for researching the dynamics between intelligence and its democratic oversight in an advanced democracy. The study employs the tool of critical discourse analysis in order to map the discursive landscape of the public debate on bulk surveillance and approaches the topic from the normative angle of democratic intelligence governance. As explained in Chapter 1, the thesis operates within a critical theory framework, aiming to make a theoretical contribution to an emerging corpus of research known as critical intelligence studies. Chapter 2 investigates the proliferation of bulk surveillance regimes in the post-Snowden age by focusing on their historical, conceptual, operational and regulatory aspects. Chapter 3 explores how an intelligence agency, i.e. GCHQ, has mobilized a discourse on bulk surveillance, assembled around the ideas of uniqueness of expertise and knowledge authority. Chapter 4 argues that intelligence oversight expert bodies, i.e. IPCO, could play a pivotal role in democracies, by shaping the public understanding of intelligence practices. Chapter 5 represents the empirical section of the thesis, involving a process of discourse mapping with the help of a qualitative text-processing software. The debate on bulk surveillance had a transformative impact on the way intelligence community in the UK construe themselves in the public space, as part of the democratic framework. In the case of the intelligence discourse, we found that bulk surveillance is framed as a legitimate solution to security threats. By employing a discourse featuring references to oversight and human rights, the intelligence actors manage to defuse the critique from civil society. Another finding is that in the intelligence discourse, democracy and human rights are now taking precedence over more traditional references to national security. The empirical analysis revealed significant discursive compatibility between civil society organisations, academia and intelligence oversight. We also found that references to human rights and democratic principles, are a common discursive ground for all the stakeholders taking part in this debate. The overall results of the research indicate that the debate on bulk surveillance in the UK has been the driving force behind some important transformations of intelligence and its oversight, with significant implications for the democratic norms and mechanisms.