About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Britain is 'surveillance society'

From the BBC.

Thursday, 2 November 2006, 15:40 GMT

Fears that the UK would "sleep-walk into a surveillance society" have become a reality, the government's information commissioner has said. Richard Thomas, who said he raised concerns two years ago, spoke after research found people's actions were increasingly being monitored. Researchers highlight "dataveillance", the use of credit card, mobile phone and loyalty card information, and CCTV. Monitoring of work rates, travel and telecommunications is also rising.

There are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain - about one for every 14 people. But surveillance ranges from US security agencies monitoring telecommunications traffic passing through Britain, to key stroke information used to gauge work rates and GPS information tracking company vehicles, the Report on the Surveillance Society says. It predicts that by 2016 shoppers could be scanned as they enter stores, schools could bring in cards allowing parents to monitor what their children eat, and jobs may be refused to applicants who are seen as a health risk. Produced by a group of academics called the Surveillance Studies Network, the report was presented to the 28th International Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners' Conference in London, hosted by the Information Commissioner's Office. The office is an independent body established to promote access to official data and to protect personal details.

The report's co-writer Dr David Murakami-Wood told BBC News that, compared to other industrialised Western states, the UK was ‘the most surveilled country’. "We have more CCTV cameras and we have looser laws on privacy and data protection," he said. "We really do have a society which is premised both on state secrecy and the state not giving up its supposed right to keep information under control while, at the same time, wanting to know as much as it can about us." The report coincides with the publication by the human rights group Privacy International of figures that suggest Britain is the worst Western democracy at protecting individual privacy. The two worst countries in the 36-nation survey are Malaysia and China, and Britain is one of the bottom five with "endemic surveillance". Mr Thomas called for a debate about the risks if information gathered is wrong or falls into the wrong hands.

"We've got to say where do we want the lines to be drawn? How much do we want to have surveillance changing the nature of society in a democratic nation?" he told the BBC. "We're not luddites, we're not technophobes, but we are saying not least don't forget the fundamental importance of data protection, which I'm responsible for. Sometimes it gets dismissed as something which is rather bureaucratic, it stops you sorting out your granny's electricity bills. People grumble about data protection, but boy is it important in this new age. When data protection puts those fundamental safeguards in place, we must make sure that some of these lines are not crossed."

The Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) said there needed to be a balance between sharing information responsibly and respecting the citizen's rights. A spokesman said: "Massive social and technological advances have occurred in the last few decades and will continue in the years to come. We must rise to the challenges and seize the opportunities it provides for individual citizens and society as a whole." Graham Gerrard from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said there were safeguards against the abuse of surveillance by officers. "The police use of surveillance is probably the most regulated of any group in society," he told the BBC. "Richard Thomas was particularly concerned about unseen, uncontrolled or excessive surveillance. Well, any of the police surveillance that is unseen is in fact controlled and has to be proportionate otherwise it would never get authorised."

[At least its nice to see my paranoia confirmed from the horses mouth……]

7 comments:

Juggling Mother said...

Actually I quite like the idea of knowing what Mstr A ate at school. all i get out of him is "I can't remember", "bread" or a description of the dessert! Along with, "not enough"!!!

There is a nursery in London tht allows parents to log onto their webcams which I think is a fantastic idea too. Chck in on the kids, the staff, whether they are napping etc would be great.

Since the Gov't has decided to make parents responsible for everythig their kids do, while simultaneously eradicating our ability to stay at home & bring them up properly, technology is the only option.

CyberKitten said...

[chuckle]...

I'm never going to convince you that a surveillance society is a bad thing am I JM?

Juggling Mother said...

Nope, I see it as a natural & expected progression of technology. Both inevitabke & in most cases useful. I'm looking forard to a number of things that you find worrying - although oviously i'm all for laws and saeguards that ensure it is used "properly"

JR said...

I met people years ago while doing some research for a paper who had "dropped off the grid" because they were concerned about all the ways the country kept track of them and believed their privacy was being invaded. The part I was researching was them not registering their childrens' births (they were homebirths) and not sending them to public school or registering as homeschooled, not getting social security cards or paying taxes. I at first couldn't conceive how this could be done. But through one person's identity being used, pooling cash and large amounts of property, large numbers of people have managed to live all over the U.S. anonymously and barter for things they need. I thought they were extreme at the time, but now their adage "they can't come get us if they don't know who or where we are" doesn't seem quite as crazy. :-)

CyberKitten said...

V V said: I thought they were extreme at the time, but now their adage "they can't come get us if they don't know who or where we are" doesn't seem quite as crazy. :-)

Exactly....

Paranoia is just another word for heightened awareness....

Juggling Mother said...

"they" most certainly can come & get you, and they undoubtedly know who you are, if not specifics in generalisations: rough numbers and locations at the very least.

I's rather stay on the grid, and use the system thanks.

JR said...

JM, you're probably right that the U.S. government is aware of the large groups of people living in rural areas even if they don't know the identities of each one. Just a few people might be able to slip by, the the people I interviewed were large organized groups. If you get enough people living on the land, and only one person's name is on the deed, only one person works outside and pays taxes, someone's going to notice.