Striking the Right Balance between Privacy and Public Protect ion

[Dave Bird]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <7A22BCE2D43E9D46B2D0FB6E2071C45201553A@pc1-swin1-4-cust84.ox
f.cable.ntl.com>, David_Biggins@usermgmt.com writes
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Watkin Simon [mailto:Simon.Watkin@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk]
>> Sent: 24 October 2002 09:49
>> To: 'ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk'
>> Subject: RE: Striking the Right Balance between Privacy and Public
>> Protect ion
>
>> "I recognise also that policing by definition involves an 
>> intrusion into the
>> privacy of the individual suspect, and that those who engage in crime
>> forfeit their right to be left alone."
>> 
>> And who wrote that?  See 
>> http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/mhrp6f.html
>
>Which brings us very largely back to the question of abuse and sanction.
>
>The problem is one of what constitutes a LEGITIMATE suspect.
>
>What ensures that the intrusion is only into the privacy of LEGITIMATE
>suspects, and that those not engaging in crime do not similarly forfeit
>their rights, both to be left alone, and to the "respect for privacy
>(YUCK!)" of their communications.

 While what John said makes sense, I wish he had not quite phrased 
 it in that way --- because he is founding practical actions on 
 what cannot be properly known or proved at the time of action.  


 The only way you can found public policy is on the idea that
 "the right to privacy is limited to the extent which is necessary
 and proportionate to investigate crime harming others, where 
 there is a reasonable suspicion grounded in evidence."  

 You can only decide on action intruding into someone's privacy
 based on the seriousness of the suspicion, and normally with a
 warrant decided by a court.


In<012438016373D411A0F300508BBD04A5022EB866@L01EB006>, Watkin Simon: 
>
>And if you look back to the start of this thread, I wrote:
>"The existence of the balance is, I think, widely acknowledged - and often
>spoken and written about - but the forces that act on it and cause it to
>move either way in favour of intrusion into privacy in the public interest,
>for the purposes of crime detection or public safety, or in favour of
>asserting and protecting privacy rights, are less clear.  

 Even then, it would be better to say "the extent to which it justified
 to interfere in the right to privacy of some individuals, to protect 
 the welfare and safety of other individuals, is less clear."
 Both are the public. 

>Achieving a broad
>consensus about how the balance should be struck and when it should move one
>way or the other is something I would like to explore ......".


- -- 
   ^-^-^-@@-^-;-^   http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
        (..)__u     news:alt.smoking.mooses

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBPbhCm3pGxv7MBb4WEQJqygCeJD/bdrew5tdVJ4NJ8jJGlk0a3MIAoOVM
1zZtTHJGNGv/4hpJJ5BTAV9T
=sQkm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----