It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state.
Quote by Dame Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5, about the increase in state surveillance in the UK
On Thursday 21st May 2009, there was an interesting court case relating to photography, resulting in the police being required to delete photographs.
The emphasis should be on “required” rather than “forced”.
The case revolves around pictures being taken of Andrew Wood, a member of a group which protests against the arms trade – Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) – peacefully, without the violence associated with direct action groups.
Mr Wood was photographed as he left a meeting, by police photographers; they came very close to him to take his picture, the impression given is they were almost “paparazzi style” photographs. Mr Woods who has never been charged, arrested, or apparently linked to any violence, felt that the police should not retain this data. A case with clear echoes of the S and Marper v UK case.
Mr Wood the took a series of legal actions to get the photographs deleted, which the police initially refused to. Unlike the Marper case, where the UK courts supported the police and the case had to go to the ECHR before the DNA was deleted, the case was decided in favor of Mr Woods by the appeal courts in the UK.
Two out of three judges agreed there had been a disproportionate interference in the human right to privacy by the police, and so were ordered to destroy the photographs. The right to privacy in the UK is guaranteed by Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
The police don’t have to delete the data for a month, while they have the chance to consider an appeal to the House of Lords.
Mr Wood as photographed as he left the AGM of Reed Elsevier PLC, the parent company of Spearhead Exhibitions Ltd which runs the arms fairs for the industry. As Andrew Wood had a share in the company he was allowed to attend the meeting, and so was not committing any crime by being there.
Lord Justice Dyson stated that “The retention by the police of photographs taken of persons who have not committed an offence, and who are not even suspected of having committed an offence, is always a serious matter…..The only justification advanced by the police for retaining the photographs for more than a few days after the meeting was the possibility that the appellant might attend and commit an offence at the Defence Systems and Equipment International fair several months later…..But in my judgment, even if due allowance is made for the margin of operational discretion, that justification does not bear scrutiny …”
Lord Collins of Mapesbury, the other agreeing judge, stated that ”There was a very substantial police presence. When I first read the papers on this appeal, I was struck by the chilling effect on the exercise of lawful rights such a deployment would have …It is plain that the last word has yet to be said on the implications for civil liberties of the taking and retention of images in the modern surveillance society….This is not the case for the exploration of the wider, and very serious, human rights issues which arise when the State obtains and retains the images of persons who have committed no offence and are not suspected of having committed any offence.”
The Met response to the photography was “Overt photography helps us build a picture of who is involved in planning and organising any potential disorder or crime. It may also provide us with evidence that would be beneficial to any legal proceedings.
“There is nothing secretive or covert about the way we do this, and this practice is very well known and understood in protester circles. The Metropolitan Police will continue to do everything necessary to maintain order on London’s streets.
“The findings of this judgment provide a valuable set of guidelines for us to continue to work within and we are pleased that the Court of Appeal has found our use of overt photography to be lawful.”
If the police will delete the data, even if they are ordered to by the court, is a different matter.
Since 2007 the House of Lords select committee on the constitution has been hearing evidence, and collecting information, about the issues of privacy and surveillance in the UK. This investigation has come under the heading The Impact of Surveillance and Data Collection upon the Privacy of Citizens and their Relationship with the State.
This inquiry, originally Chaired by Lord Holme of Cheltenham (who died in 2008), completed its report on 21st January 2009. The report, entitled Surveillance: Citizens and the State Volume I: Report was published on 6th February 2009.
During the investigation into privacy issues, there have been several major incidents relating to data and privacy, which have effected the final report. These include:
Despite all of these problems, the government has still been pushing for more information sharing, a Centralized Government Database, and monitoring of all emails and internet access.
In addition to the major events highlighted above the House of Lords made a “Call for Evidence” on the subject of privacy and surveillance, in 2007. Numerous bodies responded, including:
Virtually all of the evidence submitted, and certainly those highlighted above, stated that UK was already, or at risk of, becoming a “surveillance society”, with all the apparatus for a police state, even if that was not the aim of the government.
The report by the House of Lords, Surveillance: Citizens and the State , is clearly against the pernicious use of surveillance, with recommendations on a range of areas, including:
While the report is critical of the government, it is written in a very diplomatic style, which would be expected from the second house. However far stronger words have come directly from the Chairman of the committee, Lord Goodlad, who stated:
“The UK now has more CCTV cameras and a bigger National DNA Database than any other country. There can be no justification for this gradual but incessant creep towards every detail about us being recorded and pored over by the state”
This report, is the most influential report that can be provided to a government, and comes on the back of a year of data loss and data misuse, with numerous reports into privacy and data mis-handling issues. From the ICO reports about privacy to Government appointed reports of MoD and the HMRC data loss; from the ECHR cases against the UK, to the House of Lords reports on the Prum Convention.
Every one of these report’s shows that UK is the most monitored country on earth, clearly states that this bad for the citizens of the UK, or shows the government has failed to secure out personal data. In fact despite the infringements of privacy, the costs to tax payer, and the costs to freedom, all of the additional surveillance has not really stopped the criminals committing crime, and just limited freedoms of the every day citizien
If the House of Lords report does not effect the government’s stance on survelliance, no amount of information, media reporting, or mild activism will.
Ironically, any form of direct action against the governments surveillance state is also likely to fail; either because the surveillance already in place would prevent it, or direct action would be counter productive because the government would use it to show how more surveillance was required.
So, if the government does not change tack, what could be the solutions:
In 2007 the House of Lords called for evidence as part of their investigation into privacy, for a report entitled “The Impact of Surveillance and Data Collection upon the Privacy of Citizens and their Relationship with the State” several different bodies and individuals provided their expertise, including Royal Academy of Engineering, and GeneWatch, BCS and ARCH.
On 8th July 2007 Richard Thomas of the ICO submitted a report to House of Lords on the issue of privacy.
Highlights from the report include:
In 2007 the House of Lords called for evidence, as part of their investigation into privacy entitled “The Impact of Surveillance and Data Collection upon the Privacy of Citizens and their Relationship with the State” several different bodies and individuals provided their expertise. One of these was the Royal Academy of Engineering.
In the Royal Academy of Engineering Report, submitted in June 2007, the conclusions where similar, to though more muted, to those of others who submitted evidence (e.g GeneWatch, ICO, and ARCh)
The report made several statements that the balance of privacy and surveillance of the state is swinging in favor of the state. They found that the public cannot avoid CCTV, that “optional systems” like Oyster cards, which track peoples movements around London, were not optional, and that there was no clear line between beneficial surveillance and constitutionally improper surveillance.
Highlights from the report include:
This report, like the others submitted to the House of Lords Select Committee, showed that UK government is on a direct path to have all the apparatus in place for a police state – even if that was not what they intend.
