Brits happy to ditch civil liberties

The Register August 23 2005

Three out of four Brits would happily hand over their civil liberties in exchange for better security against terrorist attacks, according figures from pollsters ICM.
It is interesting to note that this is the same general public that rails against any attempts to make them drive more slowly, or with more care. This is in spite of the fact that in 2004, 671 pedestrians were killed in traffic accidents, and a further 2,550 people died in other road accidents.

The ICM/Guardian-backed survey found that 73 per cent of Brits overall support a trade-off between liberty and security. Tory voters are even keener than average to do so, with 79 per cent of respond ants backing the idea. Labour voters and Lib Dems came in at 72 per cent and 70 per cent in favour, respectively.

Further, 62 per cent of respondents were in favour of deporting foreign radical Islamists, even if that deportation was to a country that used torture. Only 19 per cent directly opposed this idea.
Similarly only 19 per cent opposed calls for terror suspects to be held for three months without charge, with 62 per cent welcoming the proposal. Currently, the upper limit is 14 days.
However, the poll also revealed that a sizeable minority was still in favour of having an independent judiciary.

Although 52 per cent of those polled said judges should not be able to rule against government measures, 40 per cent said they agreed that judges should "protect our civil liberty and continue to overturn anti-terrorist measures if they feel it is right to do so".
A spokesman for Liberty told The Guardian that the results of the poll were a cause for concern, but cautioned against knee jerk legislation.

He added that people would realise that defending our basic values would be a better way to protect our society, rather than passing "counterproductive" and "superficially attractive" security measures.

ID cards could be used for mass surveillance system

The Government is creating a system of "mass public surveillance" capable of tracking every adult in Britain without their consent, MPs say. They warn that people who have never committed a crime can be "electronically monitored" without their knowledge.

Biometric facial scans, which will be compulsory with ID cards, are to be put on a national database which can then be matched with images from CCTV. The database of faces will enable police and security services to track individuals regardless of whether they have broken the law.

CCTV surveillance footage from streets, shops and even shopping centres could be cross-referenced with photographs of every adult in the UK once the ID cards Bill becomes law. Biometric facial scans, iris scans and fingerprints of all adults in the UK will be stored on a national database. Civil liberties groups say the plans are a "dangerous" threat to people's privacy.

Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said the plans were being brought in by the Government without informing the public. "A new system capable of mass public surveillance is being created with no public debate. The arrival of CCTV cameras which can recognise you and track you without your knowledge means we are stepping into an unknown future," he said.

The monitoring will be possible using the country's four million CCTV cameras - more than any country in the world. Images could be swiftly cross-referenced with the database.

Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, has said that the "facial images national database should be operational by December 2006".

The technology is already used by the police to check for offenders, and for football hooligans. Casinos use it to spot VIPs and to check for gamblers they have barred.

The Home Office said the police would only check a person against the National Identity Register to investigate a specific crime. "The police may request information from the National Identity Register without an individual's consent [or knowledge] if it is necessary for the prevention of further offences or establishing who committed the crime they are investigating," said a spokeswoman. "An internal authorisation process would operate ... so that only officers of a specified rank could apply for information."