Big Brother could not have dreamed of this
.1984, the George Orwell novel, wrote about a society where at all times "Big Brother is watching you". Even someone with his imagination could not have envisaged the type of surveillance available to modern government.
Last week I commented further on grounds to oppose any extension of the DNA database. However another reason for concern is how this is linked with an ever increasing intrusion. Last November the Surveillance Studies Network reported on international detection of privacy. Its world league table ranked Britain alongside Russia for poor protection of individual privacy. Britain was the worst ranked EU country and the only one in the categories specified in the report as "black", reserved for countries showing "endemic surveillance".
Nor were they alone in their concerns. At about the same time Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, spoke about his renewed concerns that Britain was sleepwalking into a surveillance society, and called for debate about where the lines should be drawn. He was not disputing that surveillance can be important, possibly crucial on security grounds. His concern was that there needed to be public debate about where the line should be drawn, and why.
Part of the problem is that all of the pieces of information collected by government are like a jigsaw. There may be grounds for concern about the individual pieces, but it is the whole picture which is truly damaging. Whilst recognising the need for surveillance measures, those must be seen in a context where terrorists will be taking active steps to conceal their activities. Ordinary members of the public do not. Therefore all embracing surveillance will actually build up a terrifyingly accurate picture of every aspect of the ordinary person's life. The acid tests of any extension of power must always be, is the power necessary on security grounds, is it no more than is necessary on security grounds, will there be adequate safeguards against misuse, and will it only be disseminated to those who require it for security purposes?
Matters have proceeded apace with the introduction from October 2007 (pursuant to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) of astonishing levels of access to telephone records. Under the regulations telecommunications companies will have to retain information for 12 months about all telephone calls, both landline and mobile. This data, covering all calls by members of the public, will have to be handed over to a specified number of "public bodies". This will include the police , government, local councils and various other bodies and so-called "quangos". Astonishingly, the list of relevant bodies extends to over 650. A Home Office spokesman stated that all that would be considered was the place from where people made a call/text message, and to which number, not the content. In what was presumably unintentional humour, the additional statement was ''We are not intruding into people's private lives.". The usual justification was given, the fight against terrorism.
I for one had not appreciated that over 650 bodies, including local councils, were involved in the fight against terrorism. The fight against terrorism is important, but should not be a mantra that is trotted out every time the government wants more powers or more intrusion. Test the extent of dissemination againstthe test I suggested above, and it is immediately apparent that this net has been cast far too widely. The fears expressed by the Information Commissioner a year ago are proving remarkably prescient. With no sign that the debate he encouraged is ever likely to take place.