Banalisation of communications surveillance in the debate on Finnish intelligence legislation

Abstract

<p>A case study of both public and non-public debate on civil and military intelligence laws in Finland examined policy documents, news coverage, and interviews with key elite stakeholders to reveal various political and media actors’ connections with the banalisation of communications surveillance. The analysis suggests that debate on Finnish intelligence legislation has been conditioned by governmentalities that have anchored communications surveillance as (1) control of the population for preventing or limiting hybrid threats, (2) care in legitimating trust in the authorities and their oversight, and (3) authorities’ empowerment in control over confidential communication and freedom of the press. Empirical analysis shed light also on how new surveillance powers become difficult to challenge once policymakers and state authorities have obtained consent for communications surveillance. Once banalised in policymaking and mediated debate on civil and military intelligence, that surveillance becomes a commonplace, taken-for-granted, banal aspect of everyday life.</p>