Abstract
This dissertation examines the tension between public safety and the protection of civil liberties in the context of modern surveillance technologies. Across three studies, it evaluates how policies governing the use of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) and public attitudes towards privacy–security trade-offs shape crime prevention and the legitimacy of state action. The first paper investigates whether mandatory disclosure of ALPR usage by U.S. law enforcement agencies affects crime rates. Leveraging agency level data on crime and Vermont’s transparency law, the study finds that public disclosure of ALPR use can reduce property crime, suggesting that increased accountability does not undermine law enforcement effectiveness. The second paper extends this inquiry by examining how specific regulatory features — such as data retention limits and restrictions on private-sector ALPR use — shape the balance between individual privacy rights and crime-fighting efficiency. The analysis shows that well-designed safeguards can protect civil liberties without significantly constraining enforcement outcomes. The final paper turns to the African context, using nationally representative survey data to explore how security concerns, political trust and freedom, and perceptions of government performance influence citizens’ willingness to accept trade-offs in civil liberties. Findings underscore that acceptance of privacy intrusions is strongly mediated by institutional trust, and perceptions of political freedom. Taken together, the dissertation highlights the importance of designing surveillance policies that are both effective and socially legitimate. It provides evidence-based insights for policymakers navigating the complex trade-offs between security, privacy, and democratic accountability.