Privacy, security and public opinion

[Owen Lewis]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Gladman" <brian.gladman@btinternet.com>
To: <ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk>
Sent: 02 June 2000 11:36
Subject: Re: Privacy, security and public opinion


> Our democracy is 'skin deep' because politcal parties and forced votes
have
> completely undermined the ability of Parliament to control the behaviour
of
> the executive arm of government who can pretty well do what they like
> irrespective of the true wishes of citizens.

I think that there is much in that. Where does a cure lie? Surely not in
trial by media, as unfair and twisted a process as almost any other?
Strengthening the powers of the Select Committes might be one way ahead.
Most particularly, were their exercise of investigatory powers to be
augmented by ad hoc sub-committees of co-opted experts, with the executive
have only very curtailed powers of challenge to the co-option of any person.
>
> ... it is only
> too evident that pretty well all of the issues raised here have not been
> considered by the Home Office in preparing for the RIP Bill. In
consequence
> any answers that we do get are 'ad hoc' and not well researched and do not
> stand up under detailed scrutiny.  And once the weaknesses become evident
> the Home Office response is not to accept these and work with us to
overcome
> them but rather to shut down the dialogue and hope that they can simply
> ignore our concerns.

> In the area I have been concentrating on - the safety, security and cost
> issues - there have been no serious attempts by the Home Office to meet
the
> issues that I have raised and it is now obvious that their intention is to
> simply ignore them.  And they clearly can ignore them since there are
> sufficient Labour MPs in Parliament who will follow the government line in
a
> completely unthinking way.


I agree. But do you suppose that the situation would be markedly different
if the Labour govt had a smaller majority - or if the Tories were in  govt?

I also think that this response is perhaps inevitable where open and even
handed debate is not considered to be permissible. As set out elsewhere, I
understand the reasons why matters such as RIP cannot be debated fully and
openly in public. However, that does not mean that, in this day and age,
they should not be subject to closer scrutiny from those outside of
government service that has been the case to now. My suggestion of
strengthening the powers and expertise of the sub-committees is is one way
that improved scrutiny might be effected. Are there others?
>
> But while the Home Office can win the battle by behaving in this way, they
> can't win the war since their unwillingness to meet many of the genuine
> concerns being expressed will only serve to alienate the very people who
> have the real power to ensure that GAK in RIP will fail.  If the Home
Office
> were truly interested in a safe and just society they would be working
with
> us rather than seeking to undermine our rights as honest citizens.

I agree insofaras the bunker, 'Us and Them' mentality is not the perogative
of just one side in this or other similar debates.


Owen Lewis