Striking the Right Balance between Privacy and Public Protect ion

[Ian G Batten]

On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Watkin Simon wrote:
> Why didn't we publish it on our web site?  Oh that we had!  Quite simply -
> and someone has made this point in the thread - we didn't anticipate the
> reaction we got. 

Which is the whole point of the discussion.  At a senior level, Home
Office policy wonks and administrative staff believed that there would
be no objection to a massive invasion of personal privacy, and that the
degree of interest would be so low than explaining what they were doing
was superfluous.  They drafted orders that would provoke a firestorm,
failed to inform or brief the ministers correctly, and assumed that we'd
all just trust the man in Whitehall.  It never occurred to them that the
general population, some of them possibly even from comprehensive
schools, might have some views on their privacy.

The assumption that there was no need to explain or justify their
actions is the root of the assumption by those of us outside government
that they acted with high-handed arrogance.  We know this is how
government works, and we know that the Civil Service has the interests
of government and its departments well ahead of the interests of the
population.  However, having our noses rubbed in it hurts.  If the Home
Office is now feeling some pain, they should consider it cathartic.

ian