Dijital Gözetimden Tersine Gözetime: Toplumsal Güven, Yurttaş Kanıtı ve Hesap Verebilir Kamusal Açıklık

Abstract

Günümüz bilgi toplumu çağında dijital teknolojiler, kurumların veri toplama ve izleme kapasitesini genişletirken bireylere de kamusal olayları akıllı telefonlar ve sosyal medya aracılığıyla kaydetme olanağı sunmaktadır. Türkiye’de internet kullanımının yaygınlığı, kişisel verilerin korunmasına ilişkin hukuki düzenlemeler ve gündelik kayıt-paylaşım pratikleri, bu çift yönlü açıklık düzenini güncel bir sosyal bilim problemi haline getirmektedir. Gözetim yazını çoğunlukla denetim ve mahremiyete, tersine gözetim çalışmaları ise yurttaş gazeteciliği ve hesap verebilirliğe yoğunlaşırken iki hattın toplumsal güven içindeki ortak işleyişi sınırlı ölçüde ele alınmaktadır. Bu teorik çalışma, ölçüt temelli kaynak seçimine dayalı amaçlı teori sentezi ve kavramsal çözümleme yoluyla gözetim, tersine gözetim, güven, mahremiyet ve yurttaş kanıtı yazınını bir araya getirmektedir. Çalışma, kurumsal izleme pratiklerinin meşruiyetinin orantılılık ve denetlenebilirlik koşullarına, yurttaş kayıtlarının kanıt değerinin ise teknik doğrulama, bağlamsal bütünlük, kamusal erişim ve gerekçeli kurumsal yanıta bağlı olduğunu savunmaktadır. Makalenin katkısı, kurumsal, epistemik ve prosedürel güven katmanlarını kayıt-kanıt ayrımıyla birleştiren “orantılı ve hesap verebilir kamusal açıklık” modelini önermesidir.

Keywords

• Dijital Gözetim
• Tersine Gözetim
• Toplumsal Güven
• Mahremiyet
• Hesap Verebilirlik
• Vatandaş Kaynaklı Kayıt

Ethical Statement

Bu makale, insan katılımcılarla yapılan herhangi bir süreç içermemektedir. Bu yüzden etik kurul izni alınmasına gerek yoktur.

From Digital Surveillance to Sousveillance: Social Trust, Citizen Evidence, and Accountable Public Scrutiny

Abstract

In today’s information society age, digital technologies expand institutional capacities for data collection and monitoring while enabling individuals to document public events through smartphones and social media. In Türkiye, widespread internet use, the legal framework for personal data protection, and routine practices of recording and sharing make this bidirectional structure of public scrutiny an increasingly relevant social-science issue. Surveillance research generally focuses on control and privacy, whereas sousveillance studies foreground citizen journalism and accountability; however, their intersection in relation to social trust remains underexplored. This theoretical study brings together scholarship on surveillance, sousveillance, trust, privacy, and citizen evidence through purposeful theory synthesis and conceptual analysis based on criterion-guided source selection. It argues that the legitimacy of institutional monitoring depends on proportionality and auditability, whereas the evidential value of citizen records rests on technical verification, contextual integrity, public accessibility, and a reasoned institutional response. The article contributes a model of “proportionate and accountable public scrutiny” that connects institutional, epistemic, and procedural trust with the distinction between records and evidence.

Keywords

• Digital Surveillance
• Sousveillance
• Social Trust
• Privacy
• Accountability
• Citizen Evidence

Ethical Statement

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

1. Akyüz, S. S., & Öztat, F. (2025). Yurttaş gazeteciliği ve sosyal medya kavramları üzerine bibliyometrik bir analiz. Kritik İletişim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 7(1), 182-211. https://doi.org/10.53281/kritik.1682623
2. Albrechtslund, A. (2008). Online social networking as participatory surveillance. First Monday, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v13i3.2142
3. Allan, S. (2013). Citizen witnessing: Revisioning journalism in times of crisis. Polity Press.
4. Amnesty International. (2019, December 11). Amnesty International updates Citizen Evidence Lab for cutting-edge open-source human rights investigations. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2019/12/amnesty-international-updates-citizen-evidence-lab-for-cutting-edge-open-source-human-rights-investigations/
5. Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973-989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645
6. Andrejevic, M. (2004). The work of watching one another: Lateral surveillance, risk, and governance. Surveillance & Society, 2(4), 479-497.
7. Baier, A. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96(2), 231-260. https://doi.org/10.1086/292745
8. Bakir, V. (2010). Sousveillance, media and strategic political communication: Iraq, USA, UK. Continuum.

9. Binark, M., & Bayraktutan, G. (2013). Ayın karanlık yüzü: Yeni medya ve etik. Kalkedon Yayınları.
10. Bock, M. A. (2016). Film the police! Cop-watching and its embodied narratives. Journal of Communication, 66(1), 13-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12204
11. Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
12. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
13. Brighenti, A. M. (2007). Visibility: A category for the social sciences. Current Sociology, 55(3), 323-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392107076079
14. Brucato, B. (2015). The new transparency: Police violence in the context of ubiquitous surveillance. Media and Communication, 3(3), 39-55. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v3i3.292
15. Chesney, R., & Citron, D. (2019). Deep fakes: A looming challenge for privacy, democracy, and national security. California Law Review, 107(6), 1753-1820.
16. Clarke, R. (1988). Information technology and dataveillance. Communications of the ACM, 31(5), 498-512. https://doi.org/10.1145/42411.42413
17. Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity. (2025). C2PA technical specification (Version 2.2). https://spec.c2pa.org/specifications/specifications/2.2/specs/C2PA_Specification.html
18. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
19. Dolgun, U. (2008). Şeffaf hapishane yahut gözetim toplumu: Küreselleşen dünyada gözetim, toplumsal denetim ve iktidar ilişkileri. Ötüken Neşriyat.
20. Dubberley, S., Koenig, A., & Murray, D. (Eds.). (2020). Digital witness: Using open source information for human rights investigation, documentation, and accountability. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198836063.001.0001
21. Erdinç, G. H. (2020). Ölçülülük ilkesi ve açık rıza kapsamında biyometrik verilerin işlenmesi. Kişisel Verileri Koruma Dergisi, 2(1), 1-19.
22. Fallis, D. (2021). The epistemic threat of deepfakes. Philosophy & Technology, 34(4), 623-643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00419-2
23. Farrell, N., & Allan, S. (2015). Redrawing boundaries: WITNESS and the politics of citizen videos. Global Media and Communication, 11(3), 237-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742766515606291
24. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975)
25. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford University Press.
26. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
27. Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editors' comment: So, what is a conceptual paper? Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 127-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115576425
28. Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. The British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605-622. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071310020015280
29. Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. Russell Sage Foundation.
30. Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693-708. https://doi.org/10.2307/2027007
31. İsmayılov, E. K., & Sunal, G. (2012). Gözetlenen ve gözetleyen bir toplumda, beden ve mahremiyet ilişkisi: Facebook örneği. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18, 21-41.
32. Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10, 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
33. Karasar, N. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar, ilkeler, teknikler. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu. (2016). 6698 sayılı Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu. Resmî Gazete, 29677, 7 Nisan 2016.
34. Küzeci, E. (2020). Kişisel verilerin korunması (4. baskı). On İki Levha Yayıncılık.
35. Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Wiley.
36. Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance studies: An overview. Polity Press.
37. Lyon, D. (2018). The culture of surveillance: Watching as a way of life. Polity Press.
38. Mann, S., & Ferenbok, J. (2013). New media and the power politics of sousveillance in a surveillance-dominated world. Surveillance & Society, 11(1/2), 18-34. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v11i1/2.4456
39. Mann, S., Nolan, J., & Wellman, B. (2003). Sousveillance: Inventing and using wearable computing devices for data collection in surveillance environments. Surveillance & Society, 1(3), 331-355. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v1i3.3344
40. Marx, G. T. (2002). What is new about the new surveillance? Classifying for change and continuity. Surveillance & Society, 1(1), 9-29. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v1i1.3391
41. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
42. Mohler, M., vd. (2022). Policing in an era of sousveillance: A randomised controlled trial examining the influence of video footage on perceptions of legitimacy. Policing and Society, 32(1), 52-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2021.1878169
43. Monahan, T. (2006). Counter-surveillance as political intervention? Social Semiotics, 16(4), 515-534. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330601019769
44. Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Pearson.
45. Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119-157.
46. Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press.
47. Origgi, G. (2012). Epistemic injustice and epistemic trust. Social Epistemology, 26(2), 221-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2011.652213
48. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE.
49. Reilly, P. (2015). Every little helps? YouTube, sousveillance and the “anti-Tesco” riot in Stokes Croft. New Media & Society, 17(5), 755–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813512195
50. Richards, N. M. (2013). The dangers of surveillance. Harvard Law Review, 126(7), 1934-1965.
51. Rini, R. (2020). Deepfakes and the epistemic backstop. Philosophers’ Imprint, 20(24), 1-16.
52. Rousseau, D. M., vd. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926617
53. Solove, D. J. (2008). Understanding privacy. Harvard University Press.
54. Sperber, D., vd. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359-393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x
55. Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393788
56. Thompson, J. B. (2005). The new visibility. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(6), 31-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276405059413
57. Thomsen, F. K. (2019). The concepts of surveillance and sousveillance: A critical analysis. Social Science Information, 58(4), 701-713. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018419884410
58. Trottier, D. (2012). Social media as surveillance: Rethinking visibility in a converging world. Ashgate.
59. TÜİK. (2025). Hanehalkı bilişim teknolojileri kullanım araştırması, 2025. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu.
60. Vaccari, C., & Chadwick, A. (2020). Deepfakes and disinformation: Exploring the impact of synthetic political video on deception, uncertainty, and trust in news. Social Media + Society, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120903408
61. van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
62. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490-495. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308371
63. Wilson, D., & Serisier, T. (2010). Video activism and the ambiguities of counter-surveillance. Surveillance & Society, 8(2), 166-180. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v8i2.3484
64. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (12. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
65. Ziller, C., & Helbling, M. (2021). Public support for state surveillance. European Journal of Political Research, 60(4), 994-1006. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12424
66. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.