The policy field of freedom, security and justice has been an arena that was observed by only a very few specialists, however this has changed. Due to ongoing discussions, particularly with regard to data retention and – more recently – passenger name records (PNR), the tensions between security and freedom are no longer exclusively dealt with by specialists.
Most prominently, the case of data retention has provoked national constitutional courts to overrule the member state implementations several times; the harmonisation of data retention policies has arguably failed. Furthermore, there seems to be a growing gap between EU policy reform aims and citizens’ willingness to accept new digital security measures, an effect aggravated by (not only) EU-driven policies of data transfer between member states and supranational institutions.
This raises several questions. Does a new obstacle in EU policy reforms arise here? Is there adistrust in digitalised security measures as a consequence of EU’s policy-making?
We aim to connect the EU’s moves towards further technology-based surveillance measures with the population’s acceptance thereof – undertaken in two analytical steps: firstly, we give a brief analysis of data retention and PNR policy making processes. The main argument is that there now is a convergence in this process by using EU guidelines as an instrument of close harmonisation. Following on from this, it will be argued that there is no institutional learning concerning the problems mentioned above.
Secondly, we analyse two recent representative surveys. Comparing the British and German surveys, we are able to connect attitudes towards specific policies in domestic affairs with trust in political institutions. As a result, we show that any further harmonisation of digital security measures on a European or supranational scale will likely be problematic – as a result of institutional/legal restrictions and the population’s refusal of these new measures.
