A former British spy is advocating that the country use technology to pry deeper into personal data. The former intelligence office is advocating greater use of data mining, which has drawn criticism from human rights groups.LONDON (Reuters) - Security at the G20 summit next week will rest in
part on Britain's pervasive closed circuit cameras, but in future
pre-emptive surveillance could extend to the entire country's personal
data.
That is the vision outlined by former security chief David Omand in
a study of intelligence methods seen by privacy campaigners as a plan
for a vast breach of human rights.
"Finding out other people's secrets is going to involve breaking
everyday moral rules," he said in the paper for the Institute of Public
Policy Research, an influential think tank.
"Application of modern data mining and processing techniques does
involve examination of the innocent as well as the suspect to identify
patterns of interest for further investigation."
In an interview, Omand said: "If you have the advantage of
pre-emptive intelligence, then you are able to use the rapier, not the
bludgeon, of state power."
Law enforcement agencies can already access personal data in a
criminal investigation. What is new is the proposal to examine the data
purely to identify leads for further investigation.
Omand, the cabinet's Security and
Intelligence Coordinator in 2002-05, may be an indicator of the kind of
reforms the security agencies may seek in coming years.
It may also point to changes elsewhere, as British surveillance
practice is often emulated by countries who see Britain as a leader in
using technology to snoop on its own people.
Omand says a growing target for spies is not the street, where an
estimated 4.2 million closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras already
operate throughout Britain, but personal data held on computers that
forms the stuff of personal life.
This means databases of airline bookings, advance passenger
information, financial, telephone, tax, health, passport and biometric
records and phone and internet communications.
"Where I disagree with many who warn of the dangers of the
'surveillance society' is that I think these methods are necessary for
counter-terrorism, provided they are properly regulated," he said.
SACRIFICING PRIVACY
"I think the British public would be on my side given the still
significant threat from terrorism," said Omand, a former director of
the Government Communications Headquarters, an intelligence agency that
intercepts electronic communications.
Omand says the state needs this power because Britain is more
vulnerable to disruption as it becomes more networked and IT-dependent.
Also, he says, sacrificing some privacy is preferable to other ways of
boosting security such as altering the criminal law to make it easier
to convict.
"This is a hard choice," he said. "But...it is greatly preferable to
tinkering with the rule of law, or derogating from fundamental human
rights," he wrote.
Omand says surveillance should be subject to an authorizing process
with clear accountability to safeguard "public trust in the essential
reasonableness" of British security action.
It will be for parliament eventually to decide the limits of such
surveillance, and some analysts fear MPs will permit wide powers.
Britons, with no experience of invasion or occupation in their modern
history, are traditionally tolerant of state power provided it is seen
to be wielded benignly.
Omand's critics have been quick to speak up.
Ken MacDonald, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, said if
spies trawled the data of people suspected of no crime they "would
become, in peoples' eyes, essentially objectionable and oppressive.
They would be viewed with hostility."
"This is because to abolish the distinction between suspects and
those suspected of nothing, to place them in entirely the same category
in the eyes of the State, is an unmistakable hallmark of
authoritarianism."
Omand's paper is available here
(Editing by Angus MacSwan)
© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved.
Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for
their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or
redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or
similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written
consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered
trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies
around the world.