The concepts of surveillance and sousveillance: A critical analysis

The concept of surveillance has recently been complemented by the concept of sousveillance. Neither term, however, has been rigorously defined, and it is particularly unclear how to understand and delimit sousveillance. This article sketches a generic definition of surveillance and proceeds to explore various ways in which we might define sousveillance, including power differentials, surreptitiousness, control, reciprocity, and moral valence. It argues that for each of these ways of defining it, sousveillance either fails to be distinct from surveillance or to provide a generally useful concept. As such, the article concludes that academics should avoid the neologism, and simply clarify what sense of surveillance is at stake when necessary

The teleological account of proportional surveillance

This article analyses proportionality as a potential element of a theory of morally justified surveillance, and sets out a teleological account. It draws on conceptions in criminal justice ethics and just war theory, defines teleological proportionality in the context of surveillance, and sketches some of the central values likely to go into the consideration. It then explores some of the ways in which deontologists might want to modify the account and illustrates the difficulties of doing so. Having set out the account, however, it considers whether the proportionality condition is necessary to a theory of morally justified surveillance. The article concludes that we need and should apply only a necessity condition, but notes that proportionality considerations may retain some use in in practice, as a form of coarse‐grained filter applied before assessing necessity when deliberating the permissibility of potential forms of surveillance

The Ethics of Police Body-Worn Cameras

Over the past decade, police departments in many countries have experimented with and increasingly adopted the use of police body-worn cameras. This article aims to examine the moral issues raised by the use of PBWCs, and to provide an overall assessment of the conditions under which the use of PBWCs is morally permissible. It first reviews the current evidence for the effects of using PBWCs. On the basis of this review the article sets out a teleological argument for the use of PBWCs. The final two sections of the article review two deontological objections to the use of PBWCs: the idea that use of PBWCs is based on or expresses disrespectful mistrust, and the idea that the use of PBWCs violates a right to privacy. The article argues that neither of these objections is persuasive, and concludes that we should conditionally accept and support the use of PBWCs

Vaccineskepsis, forældreautonomi og ytringsfrihed

Denne artikel skitserer en alvorlig udfordring for folkesundheden: utilstrækkelig vaccinationsdækning på grund af vaccineskepsis. Den argumenterer for, at liberale stater kan tillade sig og bør indføre juridiske begrænsninger for at løse problemet. Den præsenterer først et argument for at gøre det til et krav, at børn følger det anbefalede vaccinationsprogram for at kunne indskrives i skoler og institutioner, begrundet ved at denne politik med stor sandsynlighed vil øge vaccinationsdækningen og derved forhindre, at børn lider skade. Artiklen undersøger de to mest indlysende indvendinger mod dette argument – at en sådan politik vil være urimeligt paternalistisk, og at den på problematisk vis vil gribe ind i forældres ret til at bestemme over deres børn – og konkluderer, at indvendingerne ikke er overbevisende. Artiklen præsenterer dernæst et ækvivalensargument for, at vaccineskeptisk misinformation ikke bør beskyttes af ytringsfriheden, eftersom den gør skade på samme måde som konventionelt forbudte former for ytringer. Den undersøger fem potentielt moralsk relevante forskelle mellem vaccineskeptisk misinformation og sammenlignelige former for konventionelt forbudte ytringer og argumenterer for, at ingen af dem udgør en egentlig relevant forskel. Artiklen konkluderer, at såfremt der ikke dukker overbevisende indvendinger op, så er begge restriktioner både tilladelige og ønskelige

Stealing Bread and Sleeping Beneath Bridges - Indirect Discrimination as Disadvantageous Equal Treatment

The article analyses the concept of indirect discrimination, arguing first that existing conceptualisations are unsatisfactory and second that it is best understood as equal treatment that is disadvantageous to the discriminatees because of their group-membership. I explore four ways of further refining the definition, arguing that only an added condition of moral wrongness is at once plausible and helpful, but that it entails a number of new problems that may outweigh its benefits. Finally, I suggest that the moral wrongness of indirect discrimination is best accounted for in terms of the harm it does to discriminatees, and sketch three ways in which it may do so. I conclude that the analysis provides both a clearer understanding of the concept of indirect discrimination as well as indirect support for a harm-based account of the wrongness of discrimination, while suggesting that our moral obligations qua non-discrimination may be more extensive than is frequently assumed

Why Should We Care What the Public Thinks? A Critical Assessment of the Claims of Popular Punishment

The article analyses the necessary conditions an argument for popular punishment would need to meet, and argues that it faces the challenge of a dilemma of reasonableness: either popular views on punishment are unreasonable, in which case they should carry no weight, or they are reasonable, in which case the reasons that support them, not the views, should carry weight. It proceeds to present and critically discuss three potential solutions to the dilemma, arguing that only an argument for the beneficial effects of coherence between popular views and penal policy is persuasive, but that it makes popular punishment less important than proponents claim, and offers a justification proponents will find it difficult to advance

Algorithmic Indirect Discrimination, Fairness, and Harm

Over the past decade, scholars, institutions, and activists have voiced strong concerns about the potential of automated decision systems to indirectly discriminate against vulnerable groups. This article analyses the ethics of algorithmic indirect discrimination, and argues that we can explain what is morally bad about such discrimination by reference to the fact that it causes harm. The article first sketches certain elements of the technical and conceptual background, including definitions of direct and indirect algorithmic differential treatment. It next introduces three prominent accounts of fairness as potential explanations if the badness of algorithmic indirect discrimination, but argues that all three are vulnerable to powerful levelling-down-style objections. Instead, the article demonstrates how proper attention to the way differences in decision-scenarios affect the distribution of harms can help us account for intuitions in prominent cases. Finally, the article considers a potential objection based on the fact that certain forms of algorithmic indirect discrimination appear to distribute rather than cause harm, and notes that we can explain how such distributions cause harm by attending to differences in individual and group vulnerability