Since nearly two decades threats to public security through events such as 9/11, the Madrid (2004) and London (2005) bombings and more recently the Paris attacks (2015) resulted in the adoption of a plethora of national and EU measures aiming at fighting terrorism and serious crime. In addition, the Snowden revelations brought the privacy and data protection implications of these public security measures into the spotlight. In this highly contentious context, three EU data retention and access measures have been introduced for the purpose of fighting serious crime and terrorism: The Data Retention Directive (DRD), the EU-US PNR Agreement and the EU-US SWIFT Agreement. All three regimes went through several revisions (SWIFT, PNR) or have been annulled (DRD) exemplifying the difficulty of determining how privacy and data protection ought to be protected in the context of public security. The trigger for this research is to understand the underlying causes of these difficulties by examining the problem from different angles. The thesis applies the theory of 'New Institutionalism' (NI) which allows both a political and legal analysis of privacy and data protection in the public security context. According to NI, 'institutions' are defined as the operational framework in which actors interact and they steer the behaviours of the latter in the policy-making cycle. By focusing on the three data retention and access regimes, the aim of this thesis is to examine how the EU 'institutional framework' shapes data protection and privacy in regard to data retention and access measures in the public security context. Answering this research question the thesis puts forward three main hypotheses: (i) privacy and data protection in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) is an institutional framework in transition where historic and new features determine how Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) are shaped; (ii) policy outcomes on Articles 7 and 8 CFREU are influenced by actors' strategic preferences pursued in the legislation-making process; and (iii) privacy and data protection are framed by the evolution of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) from a 'legal basis arbiter' to a political actor in its own right as a result of the constitutional changes brought by the Lisbon Treaty.

<p>Abstract</p><p>Title: Watching eyes – for better or worse (Vakande ögon – på gott eller ont?)</p><p>Number of pages: 34 (41 including enclosures)</p><p>Author: Josefine Nyberg</p><p>Tutor: Göran Svensson</p><p>Course: Media and Communication Studies C</p><p>Period: Autumn term 2007</p><p>University: Division of Media and Communication, Department of Information Science, Uppsala University.</p><p>Purpose/Aim: The aim of this essay is partly to make a study about how people understand camera supervise, and partly discuss what their opinions are concering the subject.</p><p>Key Questions: Which or what is the mainpurpose of camerasurveillance? What does the public think about the subject? When can there be an insult against the integrity while using the cameras? What is private and what is public? What is the posibilities and threats in the future?</p><p>Material/Method: A qualitative method has been used. Four interviewes, one personale interview with a policeofficer from Uppsala and three focusgroupinterviwes with people from Stockholm, have been done. Then the results from the interviewes have been compared with earlier theories and reaserches. By reading publicdocuments, press releases and reports from the government, I have gather information for the essay.</p><p>Main results: Even if the public are aware of the cameras and knows that they allmoust allways are whatched by the electronic eye, they don´t seem to care that much about the constant surveillance. Even if they observe the cameras at first they quickly forget about them. The cameras real purpose is working fairly good, even if the public thinks that thecameras should obstruct all the crimes. Allthough the cameras are preventing manycrimes and discourage people from committing minor crime, just by its appearance.</p><p>Keywords: Attitudes, opinions, interviews, Panopticon, public, camera supervise, privacy and public.</p>

Abstract Title: Watching eyes – for better or worse (Vakande ögon – på gott eller ont?) Number of pages: 34 (41 including enclosures) Author: Josefine Nyberg Tutor: Göran Svensson Course: Media and Communication Studies C Period: Autumn term 2007 University: Division of Media and Communication, Department of Information Science, Uppsala University. Purpose/Aim: The aim of this essay is partly to make a study about how people understand camera supervise, and partly discuss what their opinions are concering the subject. Key Questions: Which or what is the mainpurpose of camerasurveillance? What does the public think about the subject? When can there be an insult against the integrity while using the cameras? What is private and what is public? What is the posibilities and threats in the future? Material/Method: A qualitative method has been used. Four interviewes, one personale interview with a policeofficer from Uppsala and three focusgroupinterviwes with people from Stockholm, have been done. Then the results from the interviewes have been compared with earlier theories and reaserches. By reading publicdocuments, press releases and reports from the government, I have gather information for the essay. Main results: Even if the public are aware of the cameras and knows that they allmoust allways are whatched by the electronic eye, they don´t seem to care that much about the constant surveillance. Even if they observe the cameras at first they quickly forget about them. The cameras real purpose is working fairly good, even if the public thinks that thecameras should obstruct all the crimes. Allthough the cameras are preventing manycrimes and discourage people from committing minor crime, just by its appearance. Keywords: Attitudes, opinions, interviews, Panopticon, public, camera supervise, privacy and public.