Overlooked - Liberty

16 Overlooked: Surveillance and personal privacy in modern Britain
So how much have things changed in recent years Upon waking up today it is unlikely any of us
felt more subject to surveillance than we did yesterday. This makes the societal shift difficult for
individuals to comprehend. Added to this is the fact that, by its very nature, much surveillance takes
place without our being aware of it. Even that most obvious symbol of surveillance, the ubiquitous
CCTV camera, is so often seen as to fade into the background. It is unlikely that many people
register the fact that each camera will be recording their movements for the time they are in range.
If we were to jump 10 years into the future however, we would most likely be able to identify some
dramatic changes. We might even be surprised by the extent of public indifference to them.
In November 2006 the Office of the Information Commissioner produced its ‘A Report on the
Surveillance Society’ 24 . This provided a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the nature and
extent of surveillance in 2006. Part of the report contrasts a week in the life of a family living in 2006
and 2016. The projection into the year 2016 imagined a society of Identity Cards, private security,
mobility tracking and remote controlled spy planes. All the predictions are either the culmination of
current plans or new generations and developments of existing technology. While far from the realm
of science fiction, the world of 2016 imagines days spent in constant surveillance to a degree that
makes uncomfortable reading for anyone concerned with values of privacy.
In order to gauge the nature and extent of surveillance in the present it is necessary to categorise
two broad types. Reference has already been made to ‘mass surveillance’. This can be broken
down into mass informational surveillance (essentially databases) and mass visual surveillance (such
as CCTV). These are not targeted at any particular individual but store information in anticipation of
possible use at some future point. Of course this does not have to relate to crime or national security
purposes. The justification for information collection and dissemination powers created by the
Children Act 2004 to be contained on the ‘children’s index’ was child protection. The proposed NHS
central data spine of patient’s records is intended to allow easier nationwide access to information
for health service providers. This might be obvious but demonstrates the simple-mindedness of the
often cited comment, ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’. Conflation of privacy and criminality
presumes that those who are not criminals do not need to place a value on their privacy. This is
clearly nonsensical as it is difficult to imagine any situation where a person would be comfortable
with unfettered access to his or her medical records or the information about their children that will
be contained on the children’s index.
The other main type of surveillance is targeted surveillance by agents authorised by the state. The
legal framework permitting targeted surveillance is set up under the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). RIPA identifies different forms of surveillance such as communication
interception, the use of undercover operatives and the capture of communication traffic data. The
Act creates differing authorisation procedures according to the type of surveillance, while secondary
legislation lists those public bodies that can use each power.
The focus of targeted powers under RIPA is criminality. Many of the agencies who are authorised to
use targeted surveillance powers are not ‘policing’ bodies. Local Authorities, food and fishing
agencies, the Charity Commission and many other bodies have RIPA authorisations (although many
of these only have less intrusive powers such as access to communications data). However, in
24
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/surveillance_
society_full_report_2006.pdf