Overlooked - Liberty

Overlooked: Surveillance and personal privacy in modern Britain 9
and subject to wider dissemination, nor can it be said that conversations or actions which take place
in a private home will always be entirely private and immune from any public scrutiny.
Just as privacy in different contexts is valued in different ways, people might similarly expect that in
every context where privacy was highly valued the law would provide similar controls and
safeguards. This is regrettably not the case in the UK, largely as a result of the piecemeal,
inadequate, ad hoc system of privacy protection in existence.
The Scope of Work
Surveillance
Much of the work covered by this privacy study relates to the post September 2001 and July 2005
legal landscape in Britain. It is axiomatic that when societies feel under threat, at times of flux, fear
and uncertainty, governmental powers are often quickly expanded and civil liberties can suffer. This
has occurred throughout history and across the world at times of epidemics and wars, with the
introduction of temporary, emergency measures and the use of prerogative powers by the Crown.
‘Wars on terror’, however, differ as there is no clear enemy to be defeated and ‘temporary’,
‘emergency’ measures can subside irrevocably into permanent governmental policies.
The right to privacy can be particularly vulnerable at such times. This has been evident in the
legislative shifts which took place in response to 9/11, which deployed ‘nothing to hide, nothing to
fear’ rhetoric at times of suspicion, and the view of privacy as a more ‘individual’ right, pitched
against the collective ‘interest’ in public security from terrorist attack.
The Government’s response to the July 7 attacks in London focused through the Terrorism Act 2006
on the creation of new criminal offences and strengthening of police detention powers rather than
on privacy. However, much of the language used during the passage of the Identity Cards Act 2006
demonstrated a belief that an enhanced need to hold and share information is integral to national
security. The years between 2001 and 2006 have seen a rapid acceleration in the surveillance
society. Advances in technology mean that levels of surveillance would have increased in any event.
However, the political environment allowed this development at greater speed than might otherwise
have occurred.
Following the arrival of a new Prime Minister, this is an opportune moment to take stock and consider
the context in which recent developments in intrusive and mass surveillance have occurred.
Genetic Privacy and DNA
The United Kingdom National DNA Database (NDNAD) is proportionately the largest in the world.
Nearly 4 million people have their DNA permanently retained on the NDNAD representing 5.2% of
the country’s population. To put this into context, Austria (the country with the second largest
proportion of its population with DNA retained) has 1% of its population in its database 10 .
The legislative framework permitting DNA retention has been changed several times in recent years.
Where once permanent DNA retention was limited to a limited number of offences following
10
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/6209970.stm