Surveillance Legacies: Change & Continuity of Surveillance in Post-Communist Societies
In the post below, Ola Svenonius and Ekaterina Tarasova reflect on their article, “Now We Are Struggling at Least”: Change & Continuity of Surveillance in Post-Communist Societies from the Perspective of Data Protection Authorities,” which appeared in a recent issue of Surveillance & Society.
///
In 2018, the project Like Fish in Water: Surveillance in Post-Communist Societies edited a special issue in Surveillance & Society trying to tie together surveillance studies and Central and East European area studies (vol. 16, no. 3). The special issue sought to analyze different aspects of what surveillance means in a region with a historical legacy of authoritarian regimes where surveillance was a key mechanism to the perpetuation of political power. To continue this line of inquiry we decided to write a paper with a broad perspective, dealing with a key issue in post-communist studies: the idea of legacies from the past from the perspective of data protection authorities.
In the 1990’s, most countries that had previously been under socialist rule moved towards democracy, albeit at different paces and with varying degrees of success. A key development was the institutionalization of data protection institutions. Data protection is one of the main safeguards against surveillance in democratic societies, which is why this institution has been a popular research topic in the surveillance studies for some years now. However, data protection authorities (DPAs) in post-communist societies face a particularly daunting task, among other things due to cultural and political legacies of the communist systems (such legacies have been identified in previous research, but how important they are is still debated). We were interested in looking at surveillance from the perspective of these authorities, designed to remedy the widespread surveillance practices that were deeply entrenched in the political systems of the previous regimes.
Data protection authorities in post-communist societies face a particularly daunting task.
The study builds on analysis of interviews with sixteen DPAs in the region carried out within the research project Like Fish in Water: Surveillance in Post-Communist Societies. The respondents were asked a rather sensitive question: whether they consider that there is a connection between surveillance nowadays and surveillance in the previous political regime. One of the main takeaways for us as researchers were the varying and interesting reactions to this question. It was sometimes received with a bit of surprise, as some found the question to be rather absurd. Others responded with resignation, highlighting the continuity between then and now. Some almost felt that the question was an affront. Perhaps most interestingly: in some countries where recent surveillance scandals had happened, the DPA officials refused to answer. This shows how politicized the issue is in the region.
Our article’s title draws on a statement from a senior DPA official in Moldova, who said: “…like in Soviet Union there were no… there were no one to regulate this … now we are trying we are struggling at least.” This statement is emblematic for how many DPAs in post-communist societies reacted when asked about possible linkages between surveillance back then and today. As in all societies where such institutions are present, DPAs struggle to enforce data protection effectively. In societies where corruption and low trust in state authorities is wide spread, this is arguably even more difficult. The article shows how senior representatives of DPAs in post-communist societies reflect on their role in the democratic system of government, whether they set themselves in a historical perspective, and how feasible they believe that efficient data protection is in a world of endemic, capitalist surveillance.
