Overlooked - Liberty

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>Overlooked</strong>: 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
10 <strong>Overlooked</strong>: Surveillance and personal privacy in modern Britain conviction, it can now take place following arrest for any recordable offence 11 . This has allowed the DNAD to mushroom in size. Roll-out based on arrest has also resulted in the NDNAD disproportionately impacting upon young black men. Figures compiled from Home Office statistics and census data show almost 40% of black men have their DNA profile on the database. That compares with 13% of Asian men and 9% of white men 12 . Concerns have also been raised about the number of children on the NDNAD. Following a series of Parliamentary Questions from the Conservative MP Grant Shapps it emerged in early 2006 that approximately 24,000 children under 16 who had never been convicted or cautioned for an offence had their DNA permanently retained on the NDNAD 13 . Even this figure has been dwarfed by recent reports that the true total might be around 100,000 14 . The growth of the NDNAD has led to fears that the government intends to introduce a compulsory universal national DNA register without having a public debate on its merits or desirability. The greater the proportion of the population on the database, the easier an eventual compulsory roll out becomes. Certainly if everyone were on the NDNAD then allegations that it is disproportionately impacting on young black men would fall away. Similarly the taking of DNA at birth from all would negate suggestions that the holding of innocent children’s DNA was treating them as criminal suspects. There has been little debate on the merits and implications of a national compulsory database. Compared with years of argument over the National ID cards scheme this has been effectively non-existent. This can largely be explained by the progress of the ID card Bill(s) through Parliament providing focus for debate and by the fact that the Government has stopped short of formally proposing compulsory DNA registration. However, the issue does occasionally arise, particularly on occasions where advances in DNA technology allow for the conviction of a person years after the original commission of a crime 15 . Debate arising from such situations is extremely difficult to balance. On the one hand it is clear that the extension of the DNA database has allowed for an extremely serious crime to be detected; a crime that would have otherwise remained unsolved. On the other hand is the apparently more abstract concern that the taking of DNA from all will change the relationship between individual and state and that everyone will be treated as a suspect. The problem in balancing the argument derives from the fact that the benefits of mass DNA retention can be shown in a very case specific manner. In terms of individual rights it is very difficult to argue against the limited impact upon a person that the taking of their DNA will have when pitted against such a benefit. What is more difficult to gauge however, is the wider cumulative societal impact that DNA retention will have. The section on DNA will attempt to suggest the appropriate boundaries of DNA retention. Privacy and the Media The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights introduced privacy rights into domestic UK law. Much of the caselaw under Article 8 has involved litigation by public figures 11 A recordable offence is generally one which is punishable by imprisonment. However, a number of other non-imprisonable offences such as vagrancy are also recordable. 12 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6979138.stm 13 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4720328.stm 14 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.htmlin_article_id=457046&in_page_id=1770 15 For example Graham Derbyshire, convicted in December 2006 for rapes committed 11 years earlier. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6183959.stm
Page 1 and 2: Overlooked: Surveillance and person
Page 3 and 4: Acknowledgements I would like to th
Page 5 and 6: II Overlooked: Surveillance and per
Page 7 and 8: iv Overlooked: Surveillance and per
Page 9 and 10: 2 Overlooked: Surveillance and pers
Page 15: 8 Overlooked: Surveillance and pers
Page 19 and 20: 12 Overlooked: Surveillance and per
Page 67 and 68:
60 Overlooked: Surveillance and per
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
100 Overlooked: Surveillance and pe
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
show all

Overlooked - Liberty

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?