Security is preferable to liberty for the majority

DESPITE being widely publicised and beset by criticism people just don't seem that concerned about the level of government surveillance on their lives.

While civic rights groups have condemned proposals for an increase in official monitoring of phone calls and social media figures showing people's opposition to the concept reflect a lack of interest by the majority of those polled.

Last week former Defence Secretary Liam Fox called for an increase in the level of surveillance to protect against British nationals fighting in Syria returning and causing problems in the UK.

 There are those who say if we don't get involved, if we hunker down then we will be fine. There will be no backlash. That is utterly, utterly wrong because the jihadists don't hate us because of what we do. They hate us because of who we are. We can't change that. It is our values and our history that they detest more than anything else," said Mr Fox.

"The whole area of intercept needs to be looked at. We have got a real debate, and it is a genuine debate in a democracy, between the libertarians who say the state must not get too powerful and pretty much the rest of us who say the state must protect itself.

"If required it is the first duty of the state to protect its citizens … it is a real worry and it is a problem that is going to be with us for a very long time. At heart it is an ideological battle and we have to realise that we have to win the ideological battle as well."

Civil liberties groups immediately hit back at the idea, calling for more transparency and an independent review of current legislation.

Emma Carr, acting director of Big Brother Watch, said: “It would be reckless to attempt to to legislate on further surveillance powers before a comprehensive, independent review of the existing legal framework has taken place.

“A broad political consensus has emerged in support of a review, with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Shadow Home Secretary and the Home Affairs Committee all recognising that the public should know more about how our surveillance laws are being used and whether the current oversight mechanisms are adequate.

“We know from examples in the US that there is far more information that could be published without jeopardising security. Greater transparency would build trust and improve accountability yet the data being recorded by the police and agencies is seriously inadequate. This does not require legislation and should be addressed by the Home Secretary without delay.”

Instead of backing the calls as wished by Ms Carr Home Secretary Theresa May has made it clear that she wants to see changes to the law making it easier for the government to carry out surveillance on individuals.

"I know some people like the thought that the internet should become a libertarian paradise, but that will entail complete freedom not just for law-abiding people but for terrorists and criminals," she told the attendees at the Lord Mayor's Defence and Security Lecture at Mansion House, in the City of London.

“I do not believe that is what the public wants. Loss of capability, not mass surveillance nor illegal and unaccountable behaviour, is the great danger we face.

“The real problem is not that we have built an over-mighty state, but that the state is finding it harder to fulfil its most basic duty, which is to protect the public,” she said.

With a YouGov poll carried out late last year showing a majority stating that the current level of surveillance was either just right or not enough it seems as though Mrs May could have her supporters.

The poll, released long after the revelations from former NSA analyst Edward Snowden as to the level of government intrusion into people's lives, had 42 per cent agreeing with the current balance and 22 per cent wanting more surveillance. Only 19 per cent of those polled actually said that they supported a reduction in monitoring.

With scare stories hitting the press on an increasingly regular basis those fighting for civil liberty at find out the they are in a losing battle as people opt for security.  

Wikileaks threatens to put information ahead of lives

DESPITE warnings that it may put lives at risk the website Wikileaks has confirmed that it intends to go ahead with the release of further details of American spying.

Following reports that the United States National Security Agency has been recording and archiving the majority of every mobile phone call made in the Bahamas the website has said that it will reveal details of a second country which is facing the same level of surveillance.

News agencies had already said they would not release the name of the second country fearing that to do so would lead to potential increases in violence which could lead to loss of life.   

Wikileaks has never shied from publishing controversial or potentially harmful information, arguing that it is doing so to ensure freedom of information. In the past, releases about military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been held accountable for increases in hostilities, allegedly leading to a rise in the number of deaths.

If Wikileaks follows through on its threat then it could mean that it has access to documents taken by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who led journalists originally to the news that the US was conducting a massive surveillance operation against a number of countries, including allies Britain and Germany.

According to news website ‘The Intercept’, which was set up in February by a group of journalists including Glenn Greenwald, the release of the information had previously been halted due to “credible concerns that doing so could lead to an increase in violence.”

Wikileaks announcement has led to a discussion on social media site Twitter between the group and Greenwald, who was one of the first to break the news of Snowden’s files. Greenwald highlighted that the website has withheld information in the past when it considered that there may be a risk to life: @ggreenwald “@wikileaks also withheld info when they were convinced it could harm innocents - we were very convinced this 1 (one) would"

The story has also highlighted the potential harm which can be caused by some ‘netizens’ who claim that the internet should be completely open with free speech to all. Unlike professional news organisations they can publish stories without thought to the context, or the potential ramifications which the information could lead to.

Several Non-Governmental Organisations, including Reporters Without Borders, have previously raised concerns that information released by Wikileaks could prove dangerous. In response to allegations by the site that it was taking part in censorship Reporters Without Borders published the following comment: Should we be blamed for pointing out that the information provided by Wikileaks could be used by the Taliban and could serve as grounds for reprisals? Is it contrary to a humanitarian organisation’s vocation to draw attention to the possible impact on human lives of high-risk information? Is it wrong to point out that Wikileaks’ recent actions could backfire not only on itself but also on the independent researchers and journalists who cover these subjects online?

This latest release could prove once again that Wikileak’s self defined agenda to provide completely free access to information fails to take into account the human cost which such action can lead to.