All British email correspondence and web visits will be stored for a year, just in case... What's that like when there's Big Brother all around anyway?
All British email correspondence and web visits will be stored for a year, just in case... What's that like when there's Big Brother all around anyway?
The news last week that the British Government was planning to monitor all internet use in this country to combat serious crime didn't cause me much concern. For a start, given the prospect of a flu pandemic as well as global economic collapse, I was too busy worrying I might not live that long.u00a0u00a0
On top of this, the most exciting thing I do online every week is order a box of organic vegetables, so I don't feel in danger of arrest or embarrassment.
|
|
One of the 110 CCTVs (the black, bowl-object) aimed at watching the streets for traffic and criminal information in London |
Most of all though, there is so much "surveillance" in every day life now, I probably assumed that my e-mails had been tracked for years. Almost every moment of my day is recorded. At the Tube station in the morning I see myself on security TV, my journey is noted when I enter and exit ticket barriers, CCTV follows me to the office. My use of the computer at work or in public places is monitored. When I shop online, the supermarket records my choices. My use of credit is tracked and a file compiled on my creditworthiness. Whenever I use the internet, I expect I am leaving my footprints. The increase in credit card fraud means I have to inform my bank if I plan to use my card abroad. In so many situations, I have got used to trading privacy and personal freedom for convenience or security.
I only hope that any monitoring of communications will be more effective than the monitoring of my credit card. My bank flags up any spending that it thinks looks suspicious, and so far it has always been wrong. Once I sent a bunch of flowers to my grandmother and my card was stopped.
It stands to reason that as the internet is used for criminal activity the police have to deal with it somehow. Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, said: "It is essential that the police and other crime-fighting agencies have the tools they need to do their job."
The actual content of e-mails or postings on websites won't be recorded. What the police want is the ability to identify who is communicating with whom to prevent or investigate appalling crimes such as murder or paedophilia. But this still causes concern about privacy boundaries. Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, was quoted in newspapers as saying: "Communication records can be highly intrusive even if no content is collected. You can tell an awful lot about some people's personal circumstances from the people they are talking to and the websites they visit. It is important that the proposals are tightly defined and minimise the level of intrusion with appropriate safeguards in place."
You can't help but worry that the most innocent internet use could be misconstrued. I am reminded of an elderly woman I know who was given a budgerigar as a present. To learn whether this bird might be male or female, she typed "sex" and "budgie" into a search engine. The websites weren't quite what she expected.
As one contributor to a newspaper messageboard pointed out, it might not be you on the net. "I have a large extended family and associated circle of friends who might drop by and surf the web at any time," she wrote.
The plan for a central database has been abandoned as too "Big Brother". Instead, communications companies will hold records of e-mail correspondence and website visits for 12 months.u00a0
This did little to placate some. One reaction on the Independent's messageboard was: "I don't see how having several databases rather than one big one does anything to reduce the level of invasion of privacy and government snooping."
"Welcome to Stasi Britain," wrote a Times reader.
