Surveillance seminar 2016: The rhetoric of the terrorist packages
This year's seminar puts the recent terrorist preventive ban in a historical, international and rhetorical context. Join to discuss current monitoring and rule of law issues with leading scientists and lawyers. The seminar is free and open to all. Requires registration.
On 8.June this year,the Norwegian Parliament adopted amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act which involves radical extensions of police opportunities to use covert coercive measures. The purpose is to prevent and avert terrorism. This amendment of the law comes as the latest in a long series of legislative changes in the aftermath of 11 September 2001.
These legislative changes have come as clusters of changes, often referred to as terrorist packages. The proposition of the Prime Minister's office called it this time that one wants "expanded opportunities to use the communication control, searches, covert audio surveillance, technical tracking, camera surveillance and coercive measures in preventive and prophylactic purposes. It is further proposed that the possibility of using a new hidden coercive, data sampling ".
Today's technology is regarded both as contributing to terrorism and that the possibility of fighting this. The police must be able to use more radical methods because the criminals are using these methods, it says. We talk about promised helpful rooms grows. One must adjust the law to keep pace with the criminals, it says. What kind of rhetoric is this? Despite historical insights considered purpose of the monitoring to trump its social consequences.
Monitoring seminar has previously highlighted how terrorist acts creates support for stronger state control and monitoring, as well as what could be considered the cost of this monitoring.
This year's seminar we will use to dig deeper and ask more fundamental and underlying questions about the situation and the future.
What is the rhetoric of the terrorism package's ?
Which popular cultural and technological performances contribute to the support for increasingly enhanced surveillance?
What rhetoric used politically to belittle the potential costs of monitoring?
Why are there not more protests against these changes?