Privacy, security and public opinion

[Owen Lewis]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Mitchell" <pete@dmed.demon.co.uk>
To: <ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk>
Sent: 31 May 2000 09:43
Subject: Re: Privacy, security and public opinion


> Owen Lewis wrote:

> Essentially the authorities are saying, "We need these powers. But we
> can't tell you why we need them, even though we may use them against
> you, citizen, at some time. You must just trust us to use them in a way
> of which you would approve."
>
> That attitude is not appropriate in a supposedly democratic society.

You may say so. Now come up with an alternative.

I'd be among the first to say that it is not perfect but I'm darned if I can
suggest more that marginal improvements. If we had some ruling class, self
perpetuating and hermetically sealed off from the rest of us, then yes there
would be a real danger. However, I believe that any real danger is very
largely nullified by the fact that anyone who is bright enough, determined
enough and does not have a serious criminal record, can get themselve into a
position where they either know what does go on or else even get to direct
what does go on. In short, there should be nothing to hide in a system which
is open to operation and management by the people in some ever
changing set of combinations.

If by 'democratic society' you mean a society in which every person should
be informed of every detail in regard to their governance, I point out that
to evaluate meaningfully information in many different areas may take years
of training and some experience. What is the value of an opinion based on
ignorance? I don't know how a refuse collection, recycling and disposal
facility works. I therefore would not wish to push any opinion of mine in
regard to whether such facilities should operate in this that or the other
way. If you like, I place a limited trust in those who should know more
about
it to make those decisions for me, the limits of the trust being reasonably
assured by an unfettered right to elect and un-elect, and at not infrequent
intervals, those who do make the decisions.

>If they do not explain to us exactly why they want these powers, then they
> cannot obtain our informed consent, and so they have no right to ask for
> them.

Then how do you propose that the informed consent of the populace entire
shall be given to each and every matter affecting their governance? It never
has been so in any modern nation on this Earth and I do not see a way of
making it happen in future.

>Particularly since we know that the authorities have so often
> abused the trust we put in them.

I'd put the boot on the other foot. What is remarkable is not that some
abuse
occurs from time to time but that so little abuse occurs overall. There is
an analogy between the British body politic and the public services with
that of a teenager, bursting with health and hormones and who get the
occasional zit. One may be right to point out the zits but don't make the
mistake of claiming that they are a sign of some deep corruption and
possibly terminal ill health.

Owen Lewis