The state capacity-civil society tradeoff model tends to treat the “state” and “civil society” as separate entities who move to constrain one another. However, this modeling technique leaves out the nuances of individual action within a collective setting by treating each as a relative black box. This article explores this balance in the context of the surveillance state that has arisen in the 20th and 21st century. As state capacity in surveillance increases it better allows the state to respond to threats to citizens from citizens. However, the increased capacity also lessens the ability of societal pressure to check authoritarian advances even in a nation with a thriving civil society presence.
State Capacity of Secret Surveillance
The state capacity-civil society tradeoff model tends to treat the “state” and “civil society” as separate entities who move to constrain one another. However, this modeling technique leaves out the nuances of individual action within a collective setting by treating each as a relative black box. This article explores this balance in the context of the surveillance state that has arisen in the 20th and 21st century. As state capacity in surveillance increases it better allows the state to respond to threats to citizens from citizens. However, the increased capacity also lessens the ability of societal pressure to check authoritarian advances even in a nation with a thriving civil society presence.
Opinion | Surveillance: A Threat to Democracy (Published 2013)
Security can be achieved by less-intrusive or sweeping means, without trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights.
To Repress or to Co‐opt? Authoritarian Control in the Age of Digital Surveillance
This article studies the consequences of digital surveillance in dictatorships. I first develop an informational theory of repression and co-optation. I argue that digital surveillance resolves dicta...
Pluralistic: Surveillance is inequality’s stabilizer (26 Jun 2025) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
The "dictator's dilemma" pits a dictator's desire to create social stability by censoring public communications in order to prevent the spread of anti-regime messages with the dictator's need to know whether powerful elites are becoming restless and plotting a coup:
"Pushed into the Shadows": Evidencing Digital Surveillance Chilling Effects and the Erosion of the Rights to Freedom of Assembly and of Association
SummaryThe United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Gina Romero, presents "Pushed into the Shadows: Evidencing digital surveillance chilling effects and the erosion of the rights to freedom of assembly and of association". This Global Study documents the profound impact that pervasive digital monitoring exerts on fundamental public freedoms. Moving beyond traditional privacy-centric narratives, the Study details how contemporary surveillance ecosystems induce serious chilling effects.
Looking Through the Eyes of China’s Surveillance State (Published 2018)
A rare chance to try on a tool of a would-be surveillance dystopia gave a glimpse of the wariness that a closely watched populace can’t hide.
Watch the Watchers: Surveillance technologies for political control in Venezuela
Despite changes in leadership, Venezuela's extensive surveillance infrastructure remains fully operational.
The Dangers of Surveillance in the Age of Populism
The dangers of surveillance might seem hypothetical—but history shows us we have a lot to fear.
From Democracies to Autocracies: How AI Systems Enable Authoritarianism by Design
AI-enabled authoritarianism is not confined to autocracies. In this paper, we provide greater transparency by investigating and mapping the lifecycles of six AI systems deployed in different political regimes, ranging from the US to China. By drawing on an extensive range of sources (academic publications, investigative research reports, third-party evaluations, media interviews, government procurement notices), we conduct a systematic, qualitative comparison across systems to identify the critical technical and operational features that enable authoritarianism within their respective political contexts. We find that enabling features include the centralization and co-optation of administrative data for law enforcement and political punishment, regulatory gaps that fail to deter misuse, weak user compliance that nullifies human oversight mechanisms, and the encoding of protected group traits that identify members of vulnerable populations. We find that these features are present across systems deployed in autocratic and democratic regimes, albeit in varying configurations. We also find that both centralized and fragmented AI systems can contribute to authoritarianism by exploiting governance gaps: centralized systems directed by executive authorities, particularly within security and military institutions, are often not subjected to formal oversight mechanisms, while fragmented systems diffuse accountability between stakeholders, paving the way for entrenchment. These findings reveal that AI-enabled authoritarianism is distributed, resulting from design and operational choices made by developers, administrators, and users alike. We conclude with recommendations for developers and policymakers to mitigate these risks.
From Democracies to Autocracies: How AI Systems Enable Authoritarianism by Design
AI-enabled authoritarianism is not confined to autocracies. In this paper, we provide greater transparency by investigating and mapping the lifecycles of six AI systems deployed in different political regimes, ranging from the US to China. By drawing on an extensive range of sources (academic publications, investigative research reports, third-party evaluations, media interviews, government procurement notices), we conduct a systematic, qualitative comparison across systems to identify the critical technical and operational features that enable authoritarianism within their respective political contexts. We find that enabling features include the centralization and co-optation of administrative data for law enforcement and political punishment, regulatory gaps that fail to deter misuse, weak user compliance that nullifies human oversight mechanisms, and the encoding of protected group traits that identify members of vulnerable populations. We find that these features are present across systems deployed in autocratic and democratic regimes, albeit in varying configurations. We also find that both centralized and fragmented AI systems can contribute to authoritarianism by exploiting governance gaps: centralized systems directed by executive authorities, particularly within security and military institutions, are often not subjected to formal oversight mechanisms, while fragmented systems diffuse accountability between stakeholders, paving the way for entrenchment. These findings reveal that AI-enabled authoritarianism is distributed, resulting from design and operational choices made by developers, administrators, and users alike. We conclude with recommendations for developers and policymakers to mitigate these risks.
Where did the principle of secrecy in correspondence go?
In the age of surveillance, it is easy to forget that governments weathered robust privacy protections for centuries. But secrecy is central to the vitality of democracy
Vigilantism comes for Flock
More Americans than ever are destroying Flock license plate cameras amid rising backlash against the company. Is the tide turning on intrusive U.S. mass surveillance, and where does the privacy fight go next?
The Internet is a surveillance state | CNN
Bruce Schneier says our surveillance state is efficient beyond the wildest dreams of George Orwell, and consumers are given little chance to opt out
Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’
What’s the problem with ubiquitous surveillance? Don’t think Orwell; think Kafka.
Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’
What’s the problem with ubiquitous surveillance? Don’t think Orwell; think Kafka.
Shoshana Zuboff: Secrets of Surveillance Capitalism
Governmental control is nothing compared to what Google is up to. The company is creating a wholly new genus of capitalism, a systemic coherent new logic of accumulation we should call surveillance capitalism. Is there nothing we can do?surveillance capitalism
