I have spent a considerable amount of time in the UK as well as being raised
around British family and friends and I am not convinced that the author of
this article is giving everyone the "Big Picture". I also don't believe that
he is making a fair comparison of circumstances between the US and the UK.
Kristin, please don't interpret this as an attack against you, I just
personally feel that the author of the article has slanted the article with
the presentation and omission of some crucial information and background.
I'll make these points, but not necessarily in the order they appeared in
the article.
I think that DNA sampling and cataloging is going to be a fact of life in
the near future. Certainly the information gathered could be used for
unscrupulous purposes, but as with anything, there has to be a set of
controls and rules to be followed. I would support DNA cataloging for
identification purposes, but not for "genetic profiling" by insurance
companies or employers. Clearly a set of rules would have to be established
and rigidly enforced. As for the Police Officers that were asked to give a
DNA sample, what the author doesn't say is that while DNA sampling in not
necessarily common for people that enter a crime scene, it is not totally
unprecedented either. Again, I think that DNA sampling, probably at birth,
is going to be a fact of life. If I am not mistaken, I think that mandatory
DNA samples are a requirement in the US armed forces today.
As for the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIP), I briefly read over
the text of the act, it can be found at:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000023.htm
I am in no way an expert at interpreting the legalese in these types of
documents, but it does appear that probable cause must exist to request
approval for surveillance and interception. Also, the rules and conditions
of surveillance and interception seem to be very clearly defined. Honestly,
they don't appear to be radically different from those of the US.
It has been 15 years since I have been in the UK, but while I was there, the
threat of terrorist attack was very real, all over England. There were signs
everywhere that instruct people to walk away and report any unattended
packages (I have no idea if they are still there). The threat of terrorist
activity from the IRA has been significantly reduced, but now the threat of
terrorism from other parties has increased ten-fold. People demanded that
the Government protect them from terrorist activity, and that is a
reasonable demand. Here is the irony, what can the government do to protect
it's citizens that does not infringe on their freedom or liberty? Searching
people (or goods) that enter the country is in no way a complete solution,
especially for a very large island like the UK. So what is the next step?
Put surveillance cameras up and look for suspicious people or activity. The
next step as we move into the electronic age is to create laws that govern
and allow electronic surveillance and interception.
Protection and personal freedom do not always walk hand in hand. Here is an
example, the authorities intercept an electronic communication indicating
that terrorist are going to release a biological agent in the subway system
of a major city. They stop the biological attack and save millions of people
from death or serious illness. Technically the rights and freedom of the
terrorist have been infringed upon, as well as thousands of non related
communications that were monitored to catch the one that allowed authorities
to stop the attack. Is anyone going to complain that the rights of the
terrorist were violated? Probably not. Is anyone going to argue that the
rights of the thousands of people that were also monitored were violated?
You bet. Protection and absolute freedom and liberty can not co-exist.
Certainly there can be cases of abuse, but that is why we create laws that
limit surveillance and interception and well as set specific conditions that
must be met for that to happen.
My favorite line in the article is this one: "In coming years, we will need
to confront new threats to liberty."
If you want absolute liberty, freedom and privacy, then you have to give up
other things like government protection from criminals and terrorists. The
real challenge here should be finding the balance that serves both purposes.
While Mr. Gillmor is raising his glass to liberty with other journalist, we
should all bow our heads and mourn the rampant growth and proliferation of
manipulative journalism.
<stepping down from soapbox>
Gary
_____________________________________________
Gary L. Nunn
Delaware Ohio
A good way to threaten somebody is to light a
stick of dynamite. Then you call the guy and
hold the burning fuse up to the phone.
"Hear that?" you say. "That's dynamite, baby."
Kristin wrote:
> first look on www.bayarea.com for the most recent by local (San
> Jose) technology columnist Dan Gillmor. He talks about how liberty (as he
> defines it) is being undermined in the UK by things like public
> surveillance cameras (having read The Transparent Society, I can't say I
> am agains this) andthe RIP law (which I think does go too far.) I think he
> believes it is a slippery slopee and that the British are selling their
> freedom for what Gillmor says is temporary security. So are people in the
> UK selling themselves into a kind of serfdom? From the US perspective (if
> Gillmor speaks for most Americans, and I think he does) this is so. Do we
> have ANYONE from the UK on this list anymore? I think people in both
> countries should read his column.
>
> Kristin
>
>
