David Davis' Resignation and fight over civil liberty

[James Firth]

PeteM wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Ian Batten wrote  on 13-06-08 11:57:
>
> ...
>
> > The argument you advance works in the face of law-abiding repressive
> > regimes, which want to do repressive things while maintaining =
complete
> > obedience to legal constraints and constitutional checks and =
balances.
>=20
> Quite. Regimes don't fall into "repressive" and "not repressive"
> categories; there is a continuum. Moreover, different parts of the
> executive may operate in different modes at the same time. The Home
> Office may for example act ostensibly within the law, while ignoring
> breaches of the law by the police and security services. This was in
> fact very much the way Nazi Germany operated in the early 1930s (and =
let
> me here yawn loudly in advance at the inevitable response mentioning
> Godwin).
>=20

More generally it's not about what the act itself allows or proscribes =
but
the legacy of the act, whether it be compiling a data set open to later
abuse, tolerating or fostering a culture within the civil service, =
police,
private companies or security services which does not respect civil =
rights
or setting (reducing) public expectations in order to manage public =
opinion
for later acts.

Whilst it may be true that the "repressive regime" will legislate =
according
to their oppressive needs, the regime has to achieve power in some way.
Coups aside, there is likely be a continuum and the acts and actions of
successive governments will contribute in some way to creating an
environment where ultimately the government will no longer act within =
the
law.

Plain old function creep.

Now I'm not overly alarmed about this prospect right now, and I assert =
that
the problem facing the governments today is I believe unique in history.

I'm not talking about the specific "terrorist" threat, which in itself =
is
nothing new, and the extent of this threat we are unlikely to be privy =
to in
the near future.

The "global information society" has finally reached maturity.  Never =
before
in history has so much in the way of communications technology been =
given to
the general population in such a short timeframe. =20

Two centuries of technological developments have culminated in the =
barrier
to ownership of technology such as strong encryption and data =
warehousing
being almost non-extent.  What was once the preserve of governments is =
now
in public hands, and the differential between the level of technology =
owned
by government and that owned by the average man on the street/radical
terrorist is much narrower.

In a world where anyone* can potentially learn about specific weaknesses =
in
critical structures/infrastructure and then download the recipe for the
weapon to exploit it, surely the government must act in some way to =
mitigate
this threat?

Any preconceptions you may have about human nature (treat people well =
and
they will behave responsibility) are untested in the modern information
society.  Solitary extremists of many descriptions can both grow their =
ego
and learn the techniques necessary to reek havoc.

Previously thought absolute and irrevocable rights may need to be =
restricted
for the common good, but with the situation being unique in history,
parliaments and individual politicians have very little to base their
decisions on other than their instinct.

I doubt any member of parliament, or any person in a position of =
influence
(media, civil and security service etc) wants to foster policy which =
will
lead us down this "continuum".  However I also doubt they want to be
promoting policy which ultimately leads to a preventable terrorist =
atrocity.


Personally I can't see how detention without charge will help the case =
at
all, but I have more mixed feelings about general communications =
monitoring,
central databases of traffic data, identity databases and key disclosure
under RIPA.

As Ian pointed out with governments, the basic problem is that the laws =
will
be ignored or subverted by "terrorists" (for want of a better word) bent =
on
disrupting our cost civilisation.  That's why key escrow on its own =
would
never work.  Fundamentalists are not going to start using "approved"
encryption schemes if the tools and knowledge is already available to =
create
their own "illegal" encryption, and the threat of the law is not going =
to
stop them using illegal encryption in pursuit of their ultimate warped
goals.

So we allow general monitoring to curb the threat of serious 9/11 scale
actions and the creep begins.  Murder and drug trafficking is also a =
serious
threat to society, so SOCA will also have access to the general =
monitoring
apparatus.

VAT fraud was costing the UK chancellor around =A33bn a year, so HMRC =
must
also have access to the data.

And soon, as with the DNA database, the risk of not preventing a =
preventable
crime of any description takes precedence over human rights, general
profiling will help track criminals before they kill (you get the idea).

So we need a proper debate.

Whether or not this opportunity should be limited to the electorate of =
an
East Yorkshire constituency is another matter.

James Firth