The Lords Constitution Committee has spent over a year undertaking an inquiry into the impact of government surveillance and data collection and the effect it has on the privacy of individuals and their relationship with the state.
The report, Surveillance: Citizens and the State, is a substantial one, both quantitatively and qualitatively. It draws on extensive evidence, runs to 495-paragraphs and makes over forty recommendations. It is being published tomorrow. The chairman, Lord Goodlad, and I will be doing various interviews to explain its contents. I will provide further information, and a link, once it is published.
Well, I am very much looking forward to the report. I have the feeling that the government has created more and more surveillance, without actually giving a plausible reason for it. Sometimes I wonder whether it is just about power – although I agree that in some cases surveillance can make a big difference.
Is the report also going to touch on the National Identity Register and fingerprint database? It seems that a few changes will be necessary there, too.
I look forward to reading and commenting on this report.
N.B. there is an all too easy to make spelling mistake in the title of this blog post
“Survelliance” should be “Surveillance”
Even online spell checking software, like that built into the Firefox web browser (which also has a British spelling dictionary available), tends to concentrate on the bulk text of a blog posting, and ignores errors in the title field.
Watching Them, Watching Us: Well spotted. Correction made.
Dear Lord Norton,
It would seem even your spelling is under surveillance!
Howridiculous.
There is far too much access creep in all of these surveillance and records databases with the subjects of the records themselves having the least access of all groups. For example health records where a huge and diverse group have ‘legitimate’ access for quite supficial reasons.
The sheer volume of data being collected on the grounds of ‘security’ would seem to infer that we live in an essentially lawless country unless of course the agencies collecing this data can claim that we are safe because of it. We have a massive DNA record set including records of people innocent of anything, more CCTV coverage than any other country in the world, more active road use survellance.
Personally I would give no creedance to the second notion that we are safer because these recording systems are in place having little faith in most of these bodies. My most cited reasoning being based on the long running ‘speed kills’ campaigns which are clearly contradicted by the statistics issued by the same agencies using the arguement. If the government and its agencies cannot be trusted on such a basic interpretation of their own published facts and statistics then how the hell can we trust them on such an important issue.
I am very much looking forward to the report as well.
It was high time the House of Lord looked into the ‘issue’ of surveillance in Great Britain and its effects on privacy…
Does the potential risk justify such an extended surveillance apparatus?
The report is avaialable from:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldconst.htm
It’ll take a while to read…
What are the odds that it will go the way of all the other reports, and be ignored regardless 🙂 ?
10:1 on, but I hope this is the one that breaks the camel’s back.
Matt Wardman: I think there is a head of steam behind the report and we are able to ensure that the Government responds not only in writing but also has to justify itself in the House. It is an issue that will not go away and we can ensure that we keep returning to it.
I’m totally with you on that one, but I’m getting tired of something being swatted for illiberality or intrusion and it then reappearing 2 days or 2 months later in a more pernicious form.
I’m not backing off either, but I think it’s one for the next Government.
Lord Norton
Would you be willing to do a short email interview about the report for publication on the Wardman Wire? I’m thinking of perhaps 10 questions.
We do regular interviews – most recently Lynne Featherstone MP and Tom Harris MP.
Rgds
Matt Wardman: Yes, happy to.
Thanks. I’ll be in touch.
I have worked in trading standards formerly weights and measures since 1965 and surveillance has always been a small part of our work. Surveillance of a coal man removing the top 2 kilogrammes of fuel from each bag or a market trader helping down the goods plate of his weighing machine was going on 40 years ago. As time passed we kept watch on second hand car dealers, itinerant furniture dealers and pathway resurfacers and the trade sellers at car boot sales. Today all these activities require authorisation under RIPA with the several hours of paperwork which goes with each application.
Widespread use of covert surveillance is not made by local authorities it is too time consuming but there are occasions when it is the only way of obtaining the necessary evidence. Some offences such as dog fouling can be very difficult to prove if covert surveillance is not used. Ask any mother whose child has returned from a play park with dog excrement over his clothes whether she thinks covert surveillance is proportionate to the crime and she will not have to think long about it. Ask the same question to a parent whose child has not been given a place at their chosen school because another parent has lied about their place of residence.
Seeking security at the expense of freedom is as they say risking the loss of both. Preventing local officials collecting evidence of certain types of low level crime but allowing business databases to contain much more intrusive material is less than logical.