Dominic Grieve and Eleanor Laing for the Conservatives have published a policy paper entitled Reversing the Rise of the Surveillance State. They make a number of worthy contributions to the issues of mass surveillance and the general disregard for liberty in the UK. They propose to remove innocent people’s DNA from the DNA register (unless they were “charged with certain crimes of violence and serious sexual offences”), judicial oversight of RIPA requests by local governments, scrapping of ContactPoint and the Identity Register, and strengthening the powers of the Information Commissioner.
It could go further: remove all innocent DNA samples, ending the surveillance of millions of car journies through ANPR, end mass surveillance of mass transit systems, or an end to the retention in government databases of mobile phone location data.
In terms of the liberty of the citizen, there are few policy suggestions. The ‘Surveillance State’ is simply an expression of, and symptom of, a disregard for individual privacy and liberty. The rollback of the surveillance state cannot be taken without tackling the root cause with a programme for the restoration of freedoms. For example, reigning in the extraordinary powers of the Police or SOCA, or a right for the people ‘to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures’ particularly by council inspectors. Or even restorations of the ancient liberties enshrined in the Magna Carta such as the right to trial by jury or the restoration of the double jeopardy rule.
The policy paper’s narrow focus and lack of political principle renders it in no way ambitious and highlights a cause for concern within the leadership of the Conservative Party. It is certainly true there is a libertarian streak within many Conservative MPs–their political roots are with a small state and individual liberty–but that view is rarely spoken of by the the upper echelons of the party. Recall David Davis–a man who _does_ believe in liberty of the subject–resigning from the shadow cabinet to campaign against the 42-day detention because his party were barely mentioning it.
We should also remember the politicisation of policing and destruction of liberty began with Michael Howard, then Conservative Home Secrary. Keen to prop up a vacuous leader who had few policies and fewer principles (sounds familiar?), picked a fight with the easy target of football hooligans and ravers through mantras of ‘Tough on Crime’ and ‘Law and Order’. The result was the regressive–and a metaphorical shit on the Magna Carta–called the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. Where was the Conservative belief in liberty when the right to silence (without prejudice) was abolished?
The question is therefore whether this policy paper is motivated by principles rooted in English liberty, or whether these policies are designed to appeal to a the growing concern in the public over mass surveillance. Time will tell.
Related posts:
- Fact Checking Charles Clarke Post fact checking Charles Clarke MP's article in the Guardian's...
- “Police are there as Public Servants” Events of the past week in HMP Britain have underlined...
- Kafkaesque Nature of Investigatory Powers Tribunal A mother in court of council's spying of her and...
- The Case Against ACPO Discussion of how the Association of Chief Police Officers have...
- Interception Modernisation Programme, RIPA and EU Directives Clearing up the confusion between the Home Office's 'Intercept Modernisation...