The current issue of Out-law.com (from the UK law firm Pinsent Masons) has an article entitled Privacy and law: 10 ways to win public trust in a surveillance society.

Its an interesting read for anyone concerned about the issue of public surveillance.

It states: Function creep is very easy for Government to justify. For example, what is the justification to limit access to surveillance data only for anti-terrorism purposes? Why should serious crimes that are not terrorist related – a brutal murder or rape, for instance – be excluded? If other serious crime becomes an acceptable reason for using these retained data, why not all violent crime? After all, surely we want to find the perpetrator who attacked and mugged a pensioner and stole the £10 in her purse?

And if the authorities use these retained data for a £10 theft, why not use access to the personal data to trace a £400 Council Tax arrears, or an £80 fine for dropping litter. Then, if the retained data are used in tracing £100 of debt, why not use the personal data to improve efficiency of service delivery and save £100? It is this kind of reasoning which explains why function creep is inevitable and why the Government chose, contrary to all its public consultation documents and without Parliamentary debate on the subject, to allow the ID Card database to be used for a general administration purpose by all public authorities.

As I’ve said before, I find this trend towards increased surveillance and data collection by government authorities creepy.

Read the Pinsent Masons article