Does the Supreme Court know what's best for us?: potential mediators of public support for three surveillance techniques

Very little experimental work has been done to investigate the psychological underpinnings of perceptions of privacy. This issue is especially pressing with the advent of powerful and inexpensive technologies that allow access to all but our most private thoughts -and these too are at risk (Farah, Smith, Gawuga, Lindsell, &Foster;, 2009). Recently the Supreme Court ruled that the use of a global positioning system (GPS) device to covertly follow a criminal suspect, without first obtaining a search warrant, is a violation of a suspect's fourth amendment right to protection from unlawful search and seizure (United States v. Jones, 2012). However, the Court has also ruled in the past that a law enforcement officer can covertly follow a suspect's vehicle and collect the same information without a search warrant and this is not considered a violation of the suspect's rights (Katz v. United States). In the case of GPS surveillance the Supreme Court Justices did not agree on whether the GPS device constituted a trespassing violation because it was placed on the suspect's vehicle (the majority) or if it violated a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. This incongruence is an example of how the absence of a clear and predictable model of privacy makes it difficult for even the country's highest moral authority to articulate when and why privacy has been violated. This research investigated whether public perceptions of support for the use of each surveillance technique also vary across different monitoring types that collect the same information and whether these differences are mediated by similar factors as argued by the Supreme Court. Results suggest that under some circumstances participants do demonstrate differential support and this is mediated by a general privacy concern. However, under other circumstances differential support is the result of an interaction between the type of monitoring and its cost to employ -not simply type; this differential support was mediated by both perceived violations of private-space and general privacy. Results are discussed in terms of how these findings might contribute to understanding the psychological foundation of perceived privacy violations and how they might inform policy decision.