too much information
The two most menacing bogeys in the world at the moment are Terrorists and Pornographers. Just mentioning the existence of either of these is a shortcut argument which the government is using repeatedly to sneak in all sorts of measures and policies which could never otherwise be taken seriously. Oh, I forgot Yobs, but that's a story for a different day.
For example, it's the existence of Terrorists which means that we have to start carrying ID cards and having fifty-odd categories of personal details stored on a national register, with leaky rules about who could access the information and the ways they'd be allowed to use it. Never mind that the House of Lords thinks that the government is being unconstitutional in the way they're introducing them, the London School of Economics says they should be scrapped, the Tories call them unBritish, and the Lib Dems are opposed on principle. (That last bit may sound like an oxymoron, but bear with me.) It is back-to-front that the government should expect us the people to answer to them: they are in fact the ones who we should be monitoring and holding accountable and keeping tabs on, not the other way round. That is one of the fundamental principles of a free society; it's yet to be explained how undermining it can help to defend our freedoms from Terrorists.
Next up - Google is getting slated in the US for refusing to provide information about what people search for on the internet. But their stance does make sense - even if it's harmless to provide this particular batch of data that's being asked for, there's no guarantee that the next request won't be more sinister - if people were able to be traced from the information they can't help leaving behind them on the internet, for example. It's not that we shouldn't find things out to catch criminals (and it's not just any old criminals you see, we're talking Pornographers here) - the issue is about how much data can be collected about a person, like you or me, with or without their knowledge, in a way that makes it impossible for them to go about their daily lives without being spied on (with or without their knowledge). To qualify further - I'm not even talking about being able to do things without being observed; the issue is that when you are observed, it's important that won't be a way for someone to use what they know about your movements in a potentially harmful way.
The way that information is used: that's the problem with a blanket ban forbidding people to work in schools if their name has been on the sex offenders list, to pluck an example from the air. Having this list enabled decisions to be made about job applicants and the risk they posed to the rest of society, on a case by case basis. So that if you were on the register for indecent exposure because a policeman was passing when you used a doorway as a urinal one weekend night (just say), it would have been possible to assess whether that offence disqualified you from working somewhere like a school. But Paedophiles (that's equivalent to Pornographers in most people's minds) have to be stopped from working in schools, don't you see - so anyone that's remotely connected with a sex crime has to be excluded - just in case.
Finally, if I'd written this rant yesterday as I'd intended, it wouldn't have included this mention of the government's database of DNA collected from juveniles. That's young people who haven't necessarily committed a crime, or been charged with anything, or even been cautioned, but because they were arrested (say, because of being mistaken for someone else), the government can take DNA samples and keep them. Claims from the Home Office that "proper safeguards" are in place are somehow less than reassuring. But presumably these youths would have turned out to be Yobs anyway, so it probably shouldn't worry us overmuch.
For example, it's the existence of Terrorists which means that we have to start carrying ID cards and having fifty-odd categories of personal details stored on a national register, with leaky rules about who could access the information and the ways they'd be allowed to use it. Never mind that the House of Lords thinks that the government is being unconstitutional in the way they're introducing them, the London School of Economics says they should be scrapped, the Tories call them unBritish, and the Lib Dems are opposed on principle. (That last bit may sound like an oxymoron, but bear with me.) It is back-to-front that the government should expect us the people to answer to them: they are in fact the ones who we should be monitoring and holding accountable and keeping tabs on, not the other way round. That is one of the fundamental principles of a free society; it's yet to be explained how undermining it can help to defend our freedoms from Terrorists.
Next up - Google is getting slated in the US for refusing to provide information about what people search for on the internet. But their stance does make sense - even if it's harmless to provide this particular batch of data that's being asked for, there's no guarantee that the next request won't be more sinister - if people were able to be traced from the information they can't help leaving behind them on the internet, for example. It's not that we shouldn't find things out to catch criminals (and it's not just any old criminals you see, we're talking Pornographers here) - the issue is about how much data can be collected about a person, like you or me, with or without their knowledge, in a way that makes it impossible for them to go about their daily lives without being spied on (with or without their knowledge). To qualify further - I'm not even talking about being able to do things without being observed; the issue is that when you are observed, it's important that won't be a way for someone to use what they know about your movements in a potentially harmful way.
The way that information is used: that's the problem with a blanket ban forbidding people to work in schools if their name has been on the sex offenders list, to pluck an example from the air. Having this list enabled decisions to be made about job applicants and the risk they posed to the rest of society, on a case by case basis. So that if you were on the register for indecent exposure because a policeman was passing when you used a doorway as a urinal one weekend night (just say), it would have been possible to assess whether that offence disqualified you from working somewhere like a school. But Paedophiles (that's equivalent to Pornographers in most people's minds) have to be stopped from working in schools, don't you see - so anyone that's remotely connected with a sex crime has to be excluded - just in case.
Finally, if I'd written this rant yesterday as I'd intended, it wouldn't have included this mention of the government's database of DNA collected from juveniles. That's young people who haven't necessarily committed a crime, or been charged with anything, or even been cautioned, but because they were arrested (say, because of being mistaken for someone else), the government can take DNA samples and keep them. Claims from the Home Office that "proper safeguards" are in place are somehow less than reassuring. But presumably these youths would have turned out to be Yobs anyway, so it probably shouldn't worry us overmuch.
posted by cath at
8:05 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home