The surveillance conducted by state and government, also
known as "hard" surveillance, has been debated in both Parliament
and the public. On the other hand, "soft" monitoring - concerning
the use of this material by commercial and non-commercial actors
and how the public relies on it - has been discussed to a lesser
extent. That is what the iAccept project intends to
When we use services such as Facebook or Google, we allow that
these companies may store information, adapt our content to it,
transfer it to the United States, and disseminate it to third
parties for promotion. This also applies to a variety of materials
coming from our smartphones (including GPS information), credit and
customer card usage, and action patterns on the internet. This, as
an individual, can be perceived in different ways - that it is
fully legitimate, or that it is considered to be an infringement of
The scope of available information, from a variety of sources
that can be linked, makes it possible to interpret and analyze a
person's actions, living patterns, relationships with other people,
etc. And as we know, in the wake of the so-called Snowden affair,
this information has also been used by security services and
government agencies in several countries. However, such information
is also used to a varying extent by other non-state actors.
In recent years, the surveillance discussion has been nuanced
from the fact that it should only be seen from above, to be seen as
something constantly present in all layers of society.
The project is based on three research
1) How is this monitoring performed by (i) commercial and (ii)
non-commercial actors? How do you reason and how do you legitimize
2) How is the monitoring of (iii) the public and of (iv)
resistance groups perceived? How do these groups act in relation to
this type of monitoring?
3) What reasons and arguments are presented, for and against
soft surveillance within and between these four groups? On what
grounds is supervision considered legitimate or illegitimate.