In August 2004 the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas warned against the possibility of the UK sleepwalking into what he referred to as a “surveillance society” in which the tools of mass surveillance have become ubiquitous and individual privacy a thing of the past. In particular, he expressed concern about a raft of new Government proposals, including the establishment of a national identity card scheme, and the creation of a database containing the name and address of every child under the age of 18.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee’s report ‘Surveillance: Citizens and the State,’ after detailing specific concerns about the current situation, had this opinion in mind when making over 40 recommendations. Some relate to the Information Commission itself. There should be an expansion of its remit and more consultation by the Government. Before introducing any new surveillance measure, the Government should endeavour to establish its likely effect on public trust and the consequences for public compliance in conjunction with the Information Commissioner’s Office. The committee recommend that DNA profiles should only be retained on the National DNA Database (NDNAD) where it can be shown that such retention is justified or deserved. “We expect the Government to comply fully, and as soon as possible, with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom, and to ensure that the DNA profiles of people arrested for, or charged with, a recordable offence but not subsequently convicted are not retained on the NDNAD for an unlimited period of time.”

The Government are enjoined to propose a statutory regime for the use of CCTV by both the public and private sectors, introduce mandatory encryption of personal data and undertake post-legislative scrutiny of key statutes involving surveillance and data processing powers, including those passed more than three years ago. There are several recommendations stressing the role of individuals, concluding with “We believe that the Government should involve non-governmental organisations in the development and implementation of surveillance and data processing policies with significant implications for the citizen.”

Britain does not have a written constitution, which make the twin pillars of executive restraint and individual freedom all the more important for the rule of law. Unbridled surveillance disturbs both pillars and the members of the Constitutional Committee, with their impeccable credentials, have done great service in warning of the risks undermining the fundamental relationship between the state and citizens. Very effectively they have nailed the canard that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

The report is worth a read and you can see the full text at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldconst/18/1802.htm

“We regard privacy and the application of executive and legislative restraint to the use of surveillance and data collection powers as necessary conditions for the exercise of individual freedom and liberty.” Not the words of a committed civil liberties’ campaigner but the considered opinion of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, charged with an inquiry into “the impact that government surveillance and data collection have upon the privacy of citizens and their relationship with the State.”

In its report ‘Surveillance: Citizens and the State’, published last week, the cross party committee recognise that mass surveillance has the potential to erode privacy, which is an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom. So to what extent should surveillance and data collection be permissible within the current constitutional framework of the UK?

Britain leads the world in the use of CCTV. Surveillance technology is used to achieve specific ends, such as maintaining public order, anticipating and meeting social needs, and responding to market trends and consumer demand. National security, public safety, the prevention and detection of crime, and the control of borders lead to the use of a wide range of surveillance techniques and the collection and analysis of large quantities of personal data. As a result, surveillance has become an inescapable part of life. Every time you make a telephone call, send an email, browse the internet, walk down the local high street, your actions may be monitored and recorded.

The committee recognises that there are advantages. Protecting the public is a duty of government. The potential of being able to obtain public services from central or local government quickly, reliably, and efficiently is some justification for “electronic government”. But there are disadvantages. “Privacy, trust in the state, and the security of our personal information [are] all now at risk owing to the growth in surveillance, and there [is] a pressing need to take the potential pitfalls of surveillance seriously.” The report is particularly critical of the current arrangements that allow the state to store and retain indefinitely the DNA data of anyone questioned by the police. The committee are disturbed that there are few restrictions and no clear legal limit to the use of public area CCTV cameras and the data collected by them.

The report quotes police evidence that “citizens are very happy to support the
development of surveillance and of data acquisition mechanisms that achieve a
balance between privacy and safety.” But where does that balance lie? The report is concerned that the long standing traditions of privacy and individual freedom, which are vital for democracy, are being undermined, an echo of President Obama’s words: “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.”