A 2007 report by the UK’s Information Commissioner's Office highlighted the need for the public to be made more aware of the "creeping encroachment" of surveillance apparatus into their civil liberties. A year earlier Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, warned that Britain was "sleepwalking into a surveillance society".
Alongside the long-running identity card debacle and the debate about the length that those suspected of terrorism can be detained without being charged, the government has now floated proposals to create massive databases to record every phone call (including around 57 billion text messages a year) and all e-mail communications (presently running at 3 billion a day).
Maybe this kind of thing should be seen as inevitable. In a mass, complex, fluid society, we may need these new ways of maintaining law and order – and who could argue against the need to deal with the threat of terrorism and tackle organised crime? Indeed, for the law-abiding citizen, such innovations are surely to be welcomed. As the saying goes "if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear."
In an immediate, personal sense this may be true. But when we consider the broader implications of surveillance on democracy, human rights and public trust, we have much to be worried about.
We seem to have a lot of faith in science delivering new technologies to keep us safe (from each other!). Methods available for 'intelligent policing' now include: registration plate recognition, shop RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tags, mobile phone triangulation, store loyalty cards, credit and debit card transactions, Oyster travel cards, smart cards, embedded chips, satellites, car SatNavs, electoral rolls, NHS patient records, worker call monitoring, worker clocking-in, mobile phone cameras, internet cookies - and much more.
Although the UK also holds the dubious distinction of having the largest DNA database in the world, it is the ubiquitous CCTV camera that serves as the most visible symptom of our condition. The UK has 1% of the world’s population but 20% of its CCTV cameras - that's 4.2 million cameras or one for every 14 people. The average person is captured 300 times a day on CCTV. Although it is estimated that up to 90% of CCTV cameras are illegal and breach the data protection act, we can expect further expansion of new high-definition digital cameras that can work in sync with facial recognition technology to track individuals in busy environments. It is perhaps this integrated use of these new technologies by government and business that presents the greatest threat to civil liberties.
Software is being developed that can identify "deviant" behaviour by looking for particular types of body movement or particular clothing or baggage. The theory is that in public spaces people behave in predictable ways. People who are not part of the "crowd", in particular those up to no good, do not behave in the same way. The computer can identify their movements and alert the operator that they are acting "out of the ordinary".
Ears are being added to eyes. Listening to the public via directed microphone technology is on the horizon and would no doubt be a valuable addition to the "talking" CCTV cameras that tell people off for dropping litter or committing anti-social behaviour. Already in use in a pilot scheme in Middlesborough, they are to be extended to 20 areas across England.
Where is this 'progress' taking us? In the Chinese city of Shenzen, a pilot scheme that links cameras and transactions to a central database is successfully monitoring its 12 million citizens around the clock, each one individually "trackable". As the technology develops, it is anticipated that "Golden Shield" will be rolled out across the whole of China, centrally administrated to preserve the "harmonious society".
Surely that couldn't happen here? We have great liberal prophets, like John Stuart Mill and George Orwell, to protect us. Yet, in spite of 1984's chilling warning of the perils of state repression, we still see mission creep today. The cases of local authorities using laws designed for tackling terrorism to monitor school admissions and rubbish collection are as astonishing as they are predictable.
People are resisting. A recent report by the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended that government should adopt a guiding principle for public policy of "least data for least time". Welcome though this is, to address properly the dangers posed by surveillance, we need to have a wider, more positive vision for society.
Even as a short term social benefit, the installation of each CCTV camera needs to be seen as symbolic of the demise of democracy. They represent the failure of communities that should have the moral courage and aptitude to police themselves. Sadly, we seem to be interested in what other people are doing, but not really interested in other people - so we defer responsibility to the state or the market. The truth is that no political party knows how to manage a diverse and fragmenting public square - so they just police it.
The slow development of debate on these issues is indicative of a worrying public apathy. And perhaps it is also a failure of our moral imagination. We simply can't envision a society in which we trust one another and offer hospitality to strangers rather than just tolerating their presence. We don't have that kind of faith in each other today or hope for a good future. We need to rediscover these urgently, and start to dream about a society in which the only place for a CCTV camera is in a museum.
Dr David Landrum is an Senior Parliamentary Officer for Bible Society.
