Striking the Right Balance between Privacy and Public Protect ion

[Dave Bird]

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

In article <5.1.1.6.0.20021024100113.02fedb98@172.17.1.4> Sergei Lewis:
>At 09:49 24/10/2002 +0100, Simon Watkin wrote:
>>
>> > From: Peter Fairbrother:
>> > You just don't seem to get it:
>> > > Setting aside the example, and taking account of  proportionality, is 
>> it not fair to > > say that someone whose conduct is unlawful (and I'm 
>> specifically _not_ talking > > about a suspect here) will have a lower 
>> ultimate expectation
>> > > of privacy of their communications as criminals acknowledge  the 
>> potential
>> > > risk of detection, investigation and prosecution?
>> > And how is this to be achieved? You can't snoop on people
>> > whose conduct is unlawful but who are not suspects (or even people who are
>> > suspects) without also snooping people who are law-abiding. How do you 
>> tell them
>> > apart?
>
>>"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."
>
>/butting in/
>1. Criminals forfeit their right to privacy; both Peter and Simon appear to 
>accept this, although I don't think Peter has explicitly said so.
>2. Being a suspect does not make one a criminal. Simon specifically stated he 
>was talking about criminals, not suspects, in the mail Peter replied to. 
>However, Peter pointed out (and I think I agree) that snooping on criminals 
>that 
>have already been convicted is pointless, and treating suspects as though they 
>were criminals is unjustified.
>In My Simple World, the *criminal* can indeed be said to have "forfeited his 
>right to privacy";

 Unfortunate turn of phrase.  People convicted of crime lose particular
 areas of particular rights only as necessary and codified in law for
 their lawful punishment,  Where people are suspected of crime, they
 lose particular areas of particular rights as is necessary and 
 proportionate to protect others by investigating crime.  People don't
 lose all rights for being convicted, let alone suspected, of crime.

In article <5.1.1.6.0.20021024132856.02ff3cd8@172.17.1.4>, Sergei Lewis
<slewis@frontier.co.uk> writes
>Nope ^^; I meant that any criminal forfeits the protection society offers - 
>other people's rights, safety and wellbeing are put ahead of his when making 
>decisions such as whether to imprison him (his right to freedom vs someone 
>else's right to not be a victim of crime X) and how much of his life to 
>investigate. Concepts such as bail are "charitable concessions".

 Again, you don't really mean this.  There are no limits to what
 can be done to him in investigation... what, torture?  even 
 for investigation of petty crimes??

 Even bail is not a "charitable concession".  The suspect has the right
 to free movement, while he is still unconvicted, unless you can show
 it is necessary and proportionate to hold him pending trial: for
 example because he will run away, intimidate witnesses, or commit
 further offences.  If you can't show such harm is likely to result,
 then it is wrong to hold him.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article <B9DD7DD6.25427%zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk>, Peter Fairbrother
<zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk> writes
>> "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
>
>John Wadham, apparently. I've never heard of him.

 He will be devastated when I tell him that :-) He's General Secretary
 of NCCL / Liberty.  His statement is much more sensible and 
 limited, though:  when you go out to harm others [admittedly it's
 not properly shown and proved yet], you lose the right to get on
 with your own business and be left alone.  You have made it other
 people's business, by intruding on others.  

In article <20021024100958.GA25000@himalia.ftel.co.uk>, Ian G Batten
<I.G.Batten@ftel.co.uk> writes
>The spooks think it's a communist front organisation. 

 Hmm. Today it seems to be weighed down by tedious Blairites.  

 For example, my suggestion of inviting Paul Foot to the AGM got
 very short shrift. It does not deal with anyone who plays a prominent
 part in opposing injustice, regardless of their political sympathies
 (Paul Foot has political affinities which would not go down well
 with Blairite Labour).  I hasten to add that it has never shut 
 the door on MPs and peers from non-Labour political parties, but....

 This is not a massive criticism. I'm a long-time member,
 former and maybe-again EC/Council member. I just point this out
 to show how un-communist it now is.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article <3DB7DDB3.22511.58979D@localhost>, David Hansen
<davidh@spidacom.co.uk> writes
>On 24 Oct 2002 at 11:09, Ian G Batten wrote:
>
>> The spooks think it's a communist front organisation.  Here's a letter
>> from them to the Home Office in 1951, but the policy was clearly
>> pursued into the 1970s and 1980s.  Remember: it's people like this
>> that the Home Office listens to.
>
>It's also interesting how members of the current Westminster 
>government used to believe in freedom, but now believe in taking it 
>away. For example Harriet Harman was involved in Liberty at one time 
>(under its old name). This change is undoubtedly due to the malign 
>influence of those who believe in protecting their secret empires. 
>The U-turn from a well thought out and sensible policy on encryption 
>to RIP is a spectacular example.  
>
>Another example is those who were the first to benefit from student 
>grants shafting those who would benefit from them now.

 Jack Straw was a radical leader of NUS.  Peter Hain was leader 
 of the Young Liberals digging up cricket pitches when the 
 South African team was coming; there was an attempt by the
 security services to frame him for a bank robbery.  (see books
 like The Pencourt File and Inside B.O.S.s.).

 So it is not just former NCCL officials who have changed their
 line a bit.  




- --                                                            .---.
  It was once believed that a million monkeys at a million   { o o } 
  keyboards would eventually type the works of Shakespeare,  _(---)_
  but the Internet has since disproved this theory.         /       \     

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

iQA/AwUBPbg/gnpGxv7MBb4WEQJQiACg6zrukBpA744bJlPmk0XMDedYe0oAoNAd
crQXKqRxRLDviQMWTCKiZ6b5
=Tq1B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----