As the Times report says:
Some immigration officials with knowledge of the plans admit there is likely to be public concern. “A lot of this stuff will have a legitimate use in the fight against crime and terrorism, but it’s what else it could be used for that presents a problem,” said one.
“It will be able to detect whether parents are taking their children abroad during school holidays. It could be useful to the tax authorities because it will tell them how long non-UK domiciled people are spending in the UK.”
I am continually amazed at the lengths the government goes to to gather ever more information about what we get up to. I am also amazed at the lengths they will go to to not tell us what they are up to.
Just like the issue yesterday, this is a question of balance - what are we prepared to give up for what gain?
The travel database tells us that, in the opinion of the government, we are prepared to give up our privacy with regards to where and when and with whom we travel, because in return we gain a tool we are told will assist in the fight against various forms of criminality.
Have we got the balance right here? As I said yesterday:
The question is not an idle one. If we or the government have got the balance wrong, ultimately our society will suffer. The judges in the Binyam Mohamed case quoted Henry Hallam:“Civil liberty in this kingdom has two direct guarantees; the open administration of justice according to known laws truly interpreted, and fair constructions of evidence; and the right of Parliament, without let or interruption, to inquire into, and obtain redress of, public grievances. Of these, the first is by far the most indispensable; nor can the subjects of any State be reckoned to enjoy a real freedom, where this condition is not found both in its judicial institutions and in their constant exercise.”
In addition to this, at least for me, the ability to raise public grievances should be added - without the ability for the general population to agitate, protest, and complain, Parliament's right to "inquire into, and obtain redress of" public grievances becomes pointless.
I am not arguing that the travel database in and of itself damages the ability of the populus to protest. However, I would argue that it is another symptom of the growing tendency of government to see the population as a many numbered beast to be monitored, catalogued, observed and controlled. Taken in conjunction with the (to be charitable) unintended effects of some laws, a lack of effective redress against the police when they overstep their bounds, and mass surveillance that "risks undermining the fundamental relationship between the state and citizens", I believe it does have the effect of further dissuading people from protesting in a state with a steadily increasing and pervasive surveillance culture.
So have we, and has the government, got the balance right?
In the case of the various databases and monitoring of the population, we appear to have crossed a threshold, one which has a bearing on the relationship between the citizen and the Executive (the government of a State). The Executive has an obvious need and right to gather information to carry out services for the people of that state. This includes, to an extent, the gathering of information to fight crime. However, the unwilling and automatic gathering of data (as opposed to that handed over willingly, such as for the receipt of services) for the purposes of crime prevention or detection should be kept to a minimum.
Is it not better to require there to be suspicion of criminality before data can be gathered this way? Consider it as analogous to a system of requiring warrants for searches and communication intercepts. A reasonable level of suspicion (this level would obviously vary depending on the data that is being sought) must surely be reached before data is taken without agreement? Instead, we have a system where all must provide information, either as a consequence of wishing to pursue a lawful act, or by inappropriately sharing data provided for one purpose (such as receiving a service) without consent.
This is purely a land-grab for data. And once your personal data is in the hands of others, you cease to have control over what use it is put to - now, and in the future.
Because you need to be happy not only to have the current government have this information about you, about what you do, where you live, who you travel with, but also to be happy to have every possible government afterwards holding this data about you.
And I'm just not that trusting.
No comments:
Post a Comment