ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN THE PROTECTION OF SOFT TARGETS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2956-333X/2026-6-6Keywords:
soft target protection, ethics, security management, ethical legitimacy, proportionality, fundamental rights, artificial intelligence, AI Act, European regulatory framework, public trustAbstract
This study examines the ethical dilemmas associated with the protection of soft targets within the contemporary European security environment. It seeks to analyse the value conflicts arising from the implementation of modern security measures in publicly accessible spaces, particularly those involving surveillance technologies, biometric systems, and artificial intelligence. The study further aims to develop an analytical framework for assessing the legitimacy of protective measures by integrating security management, the European legal framework, and applied ethics. The study is based on a qualitative research design employing content analysis of scholarly literature, European strategic documents, European Union legislation, and the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. The analysis applies a normative ethical approach to evaluate conflicts between security requirements and the protection of fundamental rights within the European regulatory framework. The findings demonstrate that the principal ethical dilemmas of soft target protection arise from balancing public security with the protection of privacy, non-discrimination, transparency of decision-making, accountability in the use of artificial intelligence, and the preservation of public trust. The study proposes the Integrated Model of the Ethical Legitimacy of Soft Target Protection (IMEL–STP), which conceptualises legitimacy through three mutually dependent dimensions: security effectiveness, legal legitimacy, and ethical acceptability. The proposed model provides a systematic methodological framework for assessing the legitimacy of security measures that extends beyond traditional evaluations based solely on technical effectiveness or legal compliance. By integrating security studies, European law, and applied ethics, the model offers practical guidance for public authorities, security agencies, and operators of publicly accessible spaces while establishing a conceptual basis for future empirical research on the ethical legitimacy of soft target protection.
References
Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom, Applications nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 25 May 2021.
Council of Europe. (2021). Guidelines on Facial Recognition. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v. Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Others, Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 8 April 2014.
Dignum, V. (2019). Responsible Artificial Intelligence: How to Develop and Use AI in a Responsible Way. Cham: Springer.
European Commission. (2017). Action Plan to Support the Protection of Public Spaces. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2017). Commission Staff Working Document on the Protection of Public Spaces. Brussels: European Commission.
European Data Protection Board. (2023). Guidelines 05/2022 on the Use of Facial Recognition Technology in the Area of Law Enforcement. Brussels: EDPB.
European Union. (2012). Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, C326, 391–407.
European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L119, 1–88.
European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonized rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L, 2024/1689.
Floridi, L. (2023). The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Principles, Challenges, and Opportunities. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198883098.001.0001.
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P. and Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People – An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707.
Karlos, V., Larcher, M. and Solomos, G. (2018). Soft Target Protection: Best Practices to Enhance the Security of Buildings. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Kotková, D., Kotek, L., Jenčková, K., Kalvach, Z., Šternová, T. (2021). Hromadné společenské a kulturní akce a jejich ochrana. ISBN 978-80-7678-058-3
Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S. and Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2). DOI: 10.1177/2053951716679679.
OECD. (2019). OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Omand, D. (2010). Securing the State. London: Hurst & Company.
Parasuraman, R. and Manzey, D. H. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52(3), 381–410. DOI: 10.1177/0018720810376055.
