Quake42 said:
Also, if innocent people are not being accused of any crime what is the problem with keeping the information?
Arguments like this are depressingly familiar. Some thoughts:
1. I think that people sometimes forget that the government, police and general state apparatus should be there to serve us, not the other way round. They exist because we allow them to. Not the other way round.
2. Police, bureaucrats and private companies should have to justify to us why they need this data. We should never be in a position where we have to explain why they don't.
Yes but I'm not asking as someone who is seeking to assert their authority or justify the collection of data, I'm just genuinely curious as to what specifically people fear about information being held in this way. Whether it should be held like this or not is another matter but as someone who has no particular brief for either perspective I'd like to know - it seems to produce strong
emotions whilst apparently a rationalisation of the causes of those emotions is not required. The answer that no explanation is necessary is equally depressingly familiar to those who make this enquiry out of an attempt to understand the fears expressed irrespective of whether they want this sort of data collection or not.
In any case those who have expressed the need for data collection (although the specific requests do not neccessarily cross the boundaries between police, bureaucrats and private companies)
have generally attempted to expain why it is neccessary. Whether we think these reasons valid or whether we belive them efficacious is another matter. The problem here is that we simply don't trust the types of people - mainly in government - who will be responsible for the implementation of such schemes.
However, it hardly has to be pointed out that governments are generally profligate wth public cash. In fact ours actually thinks that the more money you spend on something the better it becomes - witness Geoff Hoon's glee today when he specifically mentions how much new money is going to be spent on the railways. Whilst any extra jobs or industrial regenerations are more than welcome you could be forgiven for thinking Hoon would be even happier if he could announce an additional billion pound of spending for the same outcome. Likewise with these grand data collection projects.
Given that the current mantra of Gordon Brown is 'we are doing something, they (the Tories) are not' it's reasonable to suggest that many in the Labour party - though the Tories will no doubt have their own white elephants given the public purse - believe that the intervention and incursions into various aspects of an individal's life is generally a good thing. Combine that with the apparent belief that the abscense of money is at the root of all evil and it's not really surprising they will act, act often and act
generously with other people's money.
And that's before any debate about the potential personal kickbacks involved, of course.
Quake42 said:
3. If my nosy neighbour was keeping records of every journey I took, every visitor I have etc I would feel uncomfortable and - yes - violated. If it's not OK for my nosy neighbour why is it OK for the state to do so?
Because your nosy neighbour is
actively monitoring
you. The fact that they're your neighbour puts them in an entirely different environment - their close proximity means that any fixation, obsession or attempt to find your vulnerabilites is centred on you
as an individual rather than as a collection of meaningless journeys, purchases and medical conditions. And, as an individual, you will probably have to socially interact with them which can be an uncomfortable. Furthermore, the fact that they are not charged with upholding law and order nor are capable of doing so in any way would be suggestive of an undeclared motive, one which may be sinister or one which might be deemed unpleasant or embarrasing to be the subject of.
In the case of devices which can track various aspects of your life - movements, purchases and idiosycracies which will rarely if ever be scrutinised by anyone you know and who will almost certainly have no interest in knowing anything more about you, producing any kind of judgement on you or having any kind of influence over your life - these considerations should be absent.
I have witnessed plenty of people alter their habits,routines and behaviour because they want to avoid or ignore people they find judgemental, manipulative or simply nosy but I have yet to witness anyone refuse to go into a pub, shopping centre or drive down a particular road because there were cameras assembled there. And yet I'll wager that more than a few would express the same misgivings about the Orwellian Britain they happily drink, spend and drive in.
It's also reasonable to point out that we insist on different standards from private citizens than we place upon others, unless we wish to go down the route of the vigilante. I'd no more expect my neighbour to cordon off a stretch of road after what they believe to be an accident than I would allow them to collect a portion of my monthly wage.
Quake42 said:
3. The (now rather old-fashioned) sentiment that privacy is a good thing in itself seems to be dying out. It's now assumed that various public and private sector bodies will want to hold excessive amounts of data on us and that this is just the way things are. Personally, I think that is a great shame.
I can certainly accept that some people guard their privacy on an instinctive psychological level (although quite how anyone can be private in public is another rather confusing matter) and I would certainly do so myself in cases which I believe to be pivate ie involving me and no-one else, out of the sight of everyone else. However, it might be the case that this particular concept of privacy and its desirability is becoming old-fashioned because when asked why it should be so the questioner is informed that it's incumbent upon themself to demonstrate why it is
not desirable. For those who don't understand this view it'unlikely to be changed without at least a little evangelism.