Striking the Right Balance between Privacy and Public Protect ion

[Ian G Batten]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Watkin Simon wrote:
> For example, a peek at the last three months of my current account or my ISP
> log account is justified when?

I don't know what crimes you're suspected of committing, so it's hard to
tell.  The answer in my case is `never', because I'm not a criminal:
I've never even had a parking ticket.  If you believe I have information
to assist in a criminal investigation, ask me for it, and I'll give it
if I believe it is justified (I have been served with a DPA S.29 notice,
and I did comply with the request).  That the Home Office prefer to
draft legislation to intrude on the privacy of law abiding citizens
rather than encourage them to co-operate is symptomatic of the
contemptuous view that civil servants have of their employers.

I recall that the Home Office people at SfS 2 referred through out to
the targets of surveillance as `criminals'.  The words `suspect' and
`alleged' appeared not to be in their vocabulary.  Obviously, if the
Home Office position is that everyone whose privacy is to be breached is
a criminal, because otherwise there wouldn't be a need to breach their
privacy, the question you ask is very easy to answer.  For those of us
who believe that there are law abiding citizens outside Simon Watkin's
office, it's a little trickier.

ian