Loss of Privacy

Right now, if you report a crime in the UK, your name and information is being placed into a secret database. So far, the police have logged at least 18,000 names. If you call 999 for any reason, be it to report a crime, as a witness or to any other incident, you will be asked for your ethnicity and date of birth. That information is then being placed into a database that also contains information on suspected criminals.

On the database of one force alone, the personal details of 180,000 people who phoned police were recorded  -  four times more than the number of suspected criminals listed on the site.

North Yorkshire Police’s information management system contained data on 181,917 innocent informants, 38,259 suspects and 107,566 victims recorded as aggrieved or ‘vulnerable aggrieved’.

The information is held for a minimum of 15 years, and can be stored for up to 100 years in the most serious cases.

Personal details can also be passed from North Yorkshire Police to other forces.

The police defend their actions by stating that the collection of personal information is done to accurately identify repeat callers, possible fraudsters, and those who participate in anti-social behavior. The police have seemingly crossed the line from protector to enforcer of political agendas. Now that this information is in the public hands, the public will probably stop reporting crimes. It will also further remove the police from the public it claims to protect.

British police intend on keeping track of and gathering personal information suspected radicals and political activists in the UK. The initiative was intended to gather data on radicalization and recruitment into Islamic terrorist groups, but has now spread to other organizations.

Political activists who have no association with terrorism could now find themselves monitored by authorities mandated to discover information about their friends, family, neighbours, political beliefs, use of the internet and even psychological traits.

Police and security agencies have agreed to monitor “agents” who adhere to ideologies potentially involving violence. The documents define targets for the surveillance as people involved in “extreme right/left, Islamist, nationalist, anti-globalisation” groups.

Europol, a EU law enforcement agency, has been asked to produce a list of people involved in either promoting such groups, or in trying to recruit members.

The problem with these measures is that anyone can be identified as someone with ideologies potentially involving violence. It is far too broad a category.

The UK government has also been criticised over Prevent, a programme aimed at stopping Muslims being lured into violent extremism. The initiative was branded a mass surveillance project after it was found it was being used to gather intelligence on innocent people who were not suspected of involvement in terrorism.

Essentially, Prevent received a lot of bad press, as it should have, and the British government is now doing the same thing just under an EU directive.

Under the new, approved, EU scheme, states have acquired a 70-question list on “agents of radicalisation” under their watch. Much of the information presumes a high-degree of intrusive monitoring, obtainable only via covert surveillance techniques, such as phone tapping.

It is assumed, for example, that law enforcement agencies will obtain information about a person’s “feelings” about a group that could be “considered as the enemy”. One section asks for information about “oral comments” made by targets, while others ask about religious knowledge, behaviour, and socio-economic status.

Under “relevant psychological traits”, law enforcement agencies are asked to collate and share information on “psychological disorders, charismatic personality, weak personality, etc”. Another question asks: “Is there a prior relationship between the agents? Schoolmates, friends, relatives, shared time in prison, etc.”

Really? They’re going to ask about your feelings? If they do that, I would be added to the list because my answers would put me on a list of people who want to destroy the government.

This system, like so many others, will be set forth as a means to prevent terrorism and it will be abused. It’s been done in the past and it will continue to be done. British citizens need to continue to point out how these schemes only alienate communities, just as they did with Prevent. It can be stopped and, hopefully, governments will stop trying to implement such ridiculous programs.

The National DNA Database is already the largest of its kind in the world. It is used by the police as a tool to solve crimes but has been criticised by some who argue that innocent people should not have their profile kept on it.

Watch the video to hear some different views about whether we should all be added to the database from Anna Fairclough at Liberty and Clare Wilson at New Scientist magazine.

Created to support Big Picture on Genes, Genomes and Health, a free educational resource from the Wellcome Trust.

Erasing David is a documentary about privacy, surveillance and the database state.

David Bond lives in one of the most intrusive surveillance states in the world. He decides to find out how much private companies and the government know about him by putting himself under surveillance and attempting to disappear a decision that changes his life forever. Leaving his pregnant wife and young child behind, he is tracked across the database state on a chilling journey that forces him to contemplate the meaning of privacy and the loss of it.

Made with The Channel 4 BRITDOC Foundation, the film will be in cinemas from April 29th, and screened on the UK’s More 4 on 4th May.

Erasing David trailer from Green Lions on Vimeo.

I wonder if the RFID chip from the ID card interfere with the Oyster card?