Hybrid Threats and the Erosion of Democracy from Within: US Surveillance and European Security

Abstract

Democratic governments have argued that their ability to counter hybrid threats—threats that come from irregular agents such as violent extremists, criminal networks, and cyber attackers—depends on their ability to monitor all forms of online communication. This presents a conundrum for democratic citizens: either governments surveil their communications or they risk endangering the security of their societies. To assess the tradeoffs people make between freedom, privacy, and security, we analyze survey data from seven NATO countries in Europe to assess whether, to what extent, and why European citizens are willing to trade privacy for security. We find that women (rather than men) and the internationalists (rather than the nationalists) are the people who most sharply draw a distinction between targeted surveillance, which is acceptable to them, and blanket surveillance, which is not. We also find that favorable views of the United States and confidence in President Obama make European citizens more willing to support US surveillance programs targeting not only terrorist suspects but also ordinary people and their political leaders. Pro-US attitudes may ease US statecraft, but they do not necessarily foster a healthy balance between freedom and security in the age of asymmetric threats.