Tonight:
7°c
Privacy sacrificed in war on terror, says spy chief
Nicholas Cecil, Chief Political Correspondent25.02.09
A FRESH privacy row erupted today after a former security chief warned innocent people's rights may have to be sacrificed to fight terrorism.
Sir David Omand, the Cabinet Office's former security and intelligence co-ordinator, said the security services would need access to a wide range of personal data, including phone records, emails and travel information.
"Finding out other people's secrets is going to involve breaking everyday moral rules," he said in a research paper on national security strategy.
Sir David stressed that tracking terrorists by using the growing number of databases would also mean going through the details of some innocent people.
"Modern intelligence access will often involve intrusive methods of surveillance and investigation, accepting that, in some respects this may have to be at the expense of some aspects of privacy rights," he wrote in his document for a public policy research think tank.
"This is a hard choice, and goes against current calls to curb the so-called surveillance society - but it is greatly preferable to tinkering with the rule of law, or derogating from fundamental human rights. Sir David said that if the public were to agree on the importance of increasing intelligence capability, "being able to demonstrate proper legal authorisation and appropriate oversight of the use of such intrusive intelligence activity may become a major future issue for the intelligence community".
"Intrusive" surveillance techniques could involve mining databases for information on airline bookings and other travel data, passport and biometric data, immigration, identity and border records, criminal records and other government and private sector data, including financial and telephone and other communications records.
However, Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, warned that Sir David's comments could undermine public trust.
She added: "His suggestion that the authorities should 'break everyday moral rules' is misconceived and contradicts other parts of his argument.
"The public well understands the need for proportionate privacy interferences for security objectives.
"But we will never sacrifice our privacy altogether and rightly seek greater rather than less protection from abuses of surveillance."
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne also warned against creating a "Big Brother" state.
He said: "Just because you can do something technologically does not mean you should do it in the intelligence area any more than in genetics or cloning."
Sir David, who left the Cabinet Office in 2005 but whose views are believed to be shared by current high ranking civil servants, said information which could be key in deterring terror strikes may be held in national records, covered by Data Protection legislation, but it might also be held offshore by other nations or by global companies.
He added: "Access to such information, and in some cases to the ability to apply data mining and pattern recognition software to databases, might well be the key to effective pre-emption in future terrorist cases."
The dispute comes just a day after Justice Secretary Jack Straw vetoed the release of Cabinet papers on the decision to invade Iraq.
Reader views (8)
All this stems from Tony Blairs illegal war on Iraq, it created a furious back lash from the Muslim world and brought terrorism to England, he then compounded it further with his total obedience to Bush over Israel to make the situation even worse.
- Mark Devries, Bangkok Thailand
Here we go again.....any excuse to poke thier nose's into peoples live's, if they are so concerned about terroists why dont they start deporting the ones we already have?
- Charles, London
Let's be honest. There is a fine line to walk when it comes to security and privacy. Did Bush's warantless surveillance measures prevent another 9/11 in the U.S. The truth is that we will never know....
http://tinyurl.com/dhb2tk
- Matt, Manchester
This is all very well, but is there going to be a tightenning up of the governments security so that innocent peoples personal date isn't left on a USB stick on a tube train?
- Derek, Bradford
The so-called "War on Terror" has been invented by politicians in order that they can enact repressive legislation which will be used to keep we, the British public, "in our place". If we all went out and photographed the police there isn't very much they can do about it. One problem, one doesn't see many uniformed police about the steets these days. I expect they are all in plain clothes keeping an eye open for train spotters photographing trains, or tourists photographing public buildings and other terrible unlawful activities.
- Neil, Gloucestershire, England.
They have invented a war on imaginary terror in order to pass these disgusting laws and invade our privacy,
- John Smith, London , England
We must ignore this fascistic law and take as many pics as we like. They cannot jail us all.
- Neil M., london uk,
The Police can film me if I take part in a protest and I was indeed photographed many years ago while standing on a picket line but we are not allowed to photograph them at any time, especially whilst driving the wrong way down a one way street to collect the bacon butties, or indeed any Public Building.
Just who is going to explain this to the tourists that visit London and the rest of the country especially in 2012 for the Olympics. After all the London Bobby is very popular and photogenic as are the Guards outside Buck House. And as for taking piccies of the Tower of London, a national fortification, that must be totally out of bounds.
Or will this all be at the discretion of PC Plod or some Council Jobsworths?
- Ayliff Mcnab, Spain
