UK

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 6° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

Peers warn surveillance state is threat to freedom

Lords committee seeks dramatic reduction of intrusion into private life

By Ben Russell, Home Affairs Correspondent

Banksy's London mural may not be so far from the truth, according to the report

PA

Banksy's London mural may not be so far from the truth, according to the report

The vast growth of surveillance and data collection risks undermining freedoms vital to the British way of life, a group of eminent peers is warning today.

In a devastating critique of the spiralling use of CCTV, databases and information sharing, they warn that the growth of information collected about every man, woman and child in Britain is a "serious threat" to principles at the heart of the constitution. The Lords Constitution Committee, which includes the former law lord, Lord Woolf, and the former attorney generals, Lord Lyell and Lord Morris of Aberavon, call in a report for new safeguards to prevent government and private databases damaging historic rights to privacy and civil liberties.

Committee chairman Lord Goodlad, a former Conservative minister, warns: "The huge rise in surveillance and data collection by the state and other organisations risks undermining the longstanding traditions of privacy and individual freedom which are vital for democracy."

He adds: "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 a situation where every detail about us is recorded and pored over by the state."

The peers warn that the "collection and processing of personal information has become pervasive, routine, and almost taken for granted."

The report is being published as ministers prepare proposals to gain unprecedented access to details of every email, internet connection and telephone call made in Britain. Proposals to allow ministers to sanction the sharing of confidential personal data across Whitehall and beyond are also being debated by MPs.

But peers warn that the expansion of surveillance "represents one of the most significant changes in the life of the nation since the end of the Second World War."

They write: "There has been a profound and continuous expansion in the surveillance apparatus of both the state and the private sector."

The report calls for a dramatic slimming of the national DNA database, arguing samples should not be kept if people are not charged or convicted, and insisting the law should be changed to ensure DNA samples given by volunteers are removed.

The peers call for senior judges to oversee surveillance. They say ministers should review the powers of local councils to authorise surveillance and say compensation should be paid if people are monitored unlawfully by police or the security services. They also demand that a powerful committee of MPs and peers be established to oversee the data powers of the state.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow Justice Secretary, said: "This is a damning indictment of the reckless approach of this Government to privacy. Ministers have sanctioned a massive increase in surveillance over the last decade, at great cost to the taxpayer, without properly assessing its effectiveness or protecting the privacy of innocent people."

David Howarth, the Liberal Democrat justice spokesman, said: "This highlights how the Government has ridden roughshod over our freedoms in establishing its surveillance state. Ministers would do well to remember the British state belongs to the British people, not the other way around."

Shami Chakrabarti, director of pressure group Liberty, said: "Our postbag suggests the House of Lords is more in touch with public concerns than our elected Government."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

TFL - TOO @#$%%^& LATE
[info]psmith42 wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 06:05 am (UTC)
Mind the gap ... Oops. You are already at the bottom of a five mile deep abyss.
It began under Atlee
[info]ptstroud wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 09:42 am (UTC)
This government will never relax on personal data collection and surveillance, and worryingly I doubt if the Tories will either. Snooping, as it was called, began during the Atlee government and the practice has evolved over time. Now as technology advances so the degree of snooping increases.
"risks undermining the longstanding traditions of privacy"
[info]not_hp wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 09:56 am (UTC)
How can they suggest that the surveillance state *risks* undermining privacy, etc.? The damage is already done: the state has already unilaterally the relationship between the state and the citizen so that the citizen is assumed guilty before being charged.

The bogey-man threat of terrorism is pulled out and waved in front of our noses at every opportunity to render us docile and passive, good for nothing except keeping the economic wheels turning.

David Howarth's comment should be emblazoned on every wall in the Houses of Parliament. The government should remember that they are only there by the grace of the citizens' participation in the farce of modern "democracy". If this govt needs to be reminded more directly of this fact the growing resentment and anger, alienation and desperation that is the prevailing mood of the citizens will be all the impetus required to issue such a stark reminder, and to put the govt back in its place: as a servant of the people - not our bosses, chiefs, lords, or above accountability.
big brother
[info]johnwearne wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 12:43 pm (UTC)
The huge rise in surveillance and data collection by the state is an infingement of human rights. The state claims that the greater use of cctv, etc is to allow for a more secure and safer society; the real reason for this is for this is to achieve greater control and, similar with the intended micro-chip, or should I say mark of the beast, this is designed to control each and every persons ability to buy and their fundamental freedom.. john wearne
Liberty
[info]chrisp666 wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 10:28 pm (UTC)
But what did that broken reed which masquerades as our government have to say about this? It is mostly their fault. I wonder how one achieves a vote of no confidence?
It's not a party issue.
[info]richardjeff wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 12:55 pm (UTC)
Trust has been lost. Not just in the UK but in much of the west. We see all foreigners as terrorists or out to steal our jobs, all motorists as dangerous speeders, all teenagers as irresponsible yobs, all Lords as corrupt and all MPs as dishonest. Of course it is not true except for a small minority, but we react that way. We put up cameras, collect data, we avidly report the most minor oversights with the relish of scandal.

Is it that we are less trustworthy? Probably not but we have a media that wants a story and a circulation/advertising boost at any cost, whether that cost is to truth, to trust or to objectivity. We have technology that means we can without asking if we should.

And it ratchets itself up. Image the media outcry if it was proposed to remove most speed cameras and CCTV. "Government permits yobs to rampage"; "Death back on our roads", etc. If databases limited and files deleted after a short period of time; "Terrorists allowed to stay in Britain with no proper records". Once these things are put bin place no party risks removing them.

David Davies is disingenuous in trying to portray the Tories as less likely to impinge on civil liberties. Much was introduced by Attlee, as another post has said, and it was during the Thatcher era that the real ramp-up occurred in CCTV, databases, etc. I worked in Telecoms at that time and knew how much info was past to police and government agencies from your fixed , mobile and paging data. A lot more than you think.

But we trusted business and the markets to pursue self interest yet somehow remain ethical with the lightest of regulation, often self regulation - poachers being their own gamekeepers. Bankers ..."Bonus anyone?..never mind the losses, those can be borne by the punters"

Trust???
[info]christo1 wrote:
Sunday, 8 February 2009 at 04:21 am (UTC)
'not_hp' sorry,i thought we were all 'subjects', not 'citizens',and as such will all be treated as 'subjects'.
The Last Days of Freedom and Democracy
[info]beccy1965 wrote:
Sunday, 8 February 2009 at 03:48 pm (UTC)
I am sure by now many britons are waking up to the realisation that our country its soverignty independence democracy and personal freedoms have been eroded almost to extinction over this decade. But we have to go back in history to see where this began. In 1972 Prime Minister Edward Heath signed the European Community Act, announcing to us that joining an European Economic Community was the way forward to forging better relations with our European neighbours and securing the prosperity of Britain for the future. Of course at the time many of us thought this was a great idea, what could be better than free trade between us and europe, we called it a "common market".

However when Edward Heath died, secret government papers came to light showing a completely different picture of the reality of joining europe.

The signing of the European Community Act effectively tied us economically and politically into Europe where new laws were passed such as introducing VAT, Restrictions on Commercial Farming and Fishing including controls on our Environment.

From the EEC was introduced a new and more powerful organisation The European Union, which started to put into place a new system of law and governance with a European Commission, European Court of Justice and European Paliament. Together they formed the apparatus to build a super state.

Today in most cases our laws and policies are implimented and voted on bloc in the European Parliament before a new directive is sent to our parliament and passed legally into british law. Never before has our country passed so many laws, many of which are illegal under the British Constitution The Parliament Act The Bill of Rights and Magna Carta.

From the many treaties signed in the past we have the Lisbon Treaty which is a final and binding contract. Gordon Brown knew that we would never say yes, and his denying of allowing us a referendum is surely proof that he knows we have been lied to and betrayed us by giving away our rights freedoms and way of life to become part of a giant super state with the powers of a dictatorship and the laws of a police state. Ireland has to vote again, our fate rests in their hands.

[info]santinox wrote:
Saturday, 14 February 2009 at 09:11 pm (UTC)
As we (I use we loosely as I now live in central Europe) are the most surveiled country does it also mean we are the most criminally active or most likely to commit some kind of anti-social misdemeaner?

Most popular


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date