Proving who’s who
Date: 29 June 2009
Authors: John Cooper
Issue: Vol 159, Issue 7375
Categories: Opinion, Data protection
There are an estimated 4.2 million CCTV cameras in operation in this country and it has been said that a person living and working in London is likely to be filmed about 300 times on an average day, at a cost to the taxpayer of several hundred millions of pounds. From this year, identity cards will be issued to British citizens upon any application for a passport or a driving licence.
These were the dual themes of the Lord Williams of Mostyn Memorial Lecture earlier this month, delivered by the eminent former law lord, Lord Steyn.
Justification
In a striking critique of the government’s enthusiasm for the introduction of identity cards in the UK, Lord Steyn clinically deconstructed the rationale of the legislature. On identity cards, he observed that: “Initially, the justification was squarely based on the fight against terrorism. However, the government has been forced to adapt that reasoning.” It now seems that the war on bureaucracy has replaced the war on terrorism as an excuse to force these provisions upon the citizen. Lord West of Spithead put it clearly on 23 April 2009 in the House of Lords: “The prime reason for this scheme is not anti-terrorist. It will provide a single, safe and secure way of protecting personal details and proving identity.” Lord Steyn begs to differ. In his lecture the former law lord cited a catalogue of instances where personal information entrusted to the government has been far from secure, beginning with the incident in May 2007 where a laptop was stolen containing names, addresses and bank details of 10,000 NHS employees, to last September when a computer disc was lost containing thousands of details of justice staff names, dates birth, national insurance numbers and employee numbers of 5,000 prison officers.
On the war against bureaucracy, Lord Steyn is effectively pithy, and begs the question “whether an invasion of English civil liberties is justified on grounds of mere administrative convenience”.
What is notable from Lord Steyn’s analysis is the weakness of the myriad of reasons given by the government for the introduction of identity cards for all citizens over 16 years of age, beginning with the war on terror, through to administrative convenience, via the combating of crime and illegal immigration. On the latter, to enter the UK all foreign nationals already need a passport containing their identity, and on crime, Lord Steyn dismisses it as “Home Office fiction, with no evidence that it will make the slightest difference to crime figures”.
The total cost of these cards is estimated to be £3bn, which will pay for a National Identity Register to store geographical information, biometric data and administration data upon the majority of UK citizens. Lord Steyn concludes that “No further money should be spent on it. The idea should be abandoned.”
Civil liberties’ breach
Conversely, he accepts that the web of CCTV coverage in the UK has, in some cases proved effective in reducing crime. But when balancing this occasional positive with the consequent erosion of the privacy of the law abiding majority, there is significant cause for concern. The Select Committee’s Report, Surveillance: Citizens and the State, published in February, reiterated the freedom of the individual “as paramount” and expressed restraint on the use of surveillance and data collection as “central to individual freedom”.
Lord Steyn expresses the grave concern of many in this field, that the curtailment of the citizen’s civil liberties is accepted by some as a necessary step in order to combat the perceived terrorist threat. Lord Craig of Radley, a former chief of the defence staff, dismissed this dangerous concession in a House of Lords debate on the issue in April: “Terrorism, however ghastly its manifestations, should never be equated with a threat to our national survival. Curtailing civil rights is playing the game by the terrorist’s rules.”
The present fetish of this government to record, categorise and store our daily lives insidiously erodes the privacy of the individual. As the report of the Select Committee concluded, privacy is “an essential prerequisite to the exercise of individual freedom, its erosion weakens the constitutional foundations on which democracy and good governance have traditionally been based in this country”.
For many, the word “privacy” conjures images of so-called “celebrities” who suddenly eschew the camera. This worryingly masks the real issue. We have a right not to be documented and photographed as we conduct our daily lives, arguments that have been eloquently made for some years. This month, a respected former law lord added his closely argued support to these voices. He should not be ignored.
John Cooper, barrister at 25 Bedford Row, London
Share this page
