Why are they bothering? I think the answer comes in two parts.

1. Because they can. It’s been some years now since CCTV cameras were installed in public places and no one protested effectively against them. If the State drew the conclusion that people generally valued safety above liberty and privacy, who can blame it? If liberty and privacy are actually concepts that ratchet up fear in people – well, then it’s society that’s sick, and the State is only acting as a mirror.

2. Because they think liberty is a threat to survival. Having read the Grauniad one day least week I was left confused as to whether terrorism, global warming or the economic crisis was going to destroy Western society and culture first. The State will always feel the need to prepare itself for the worst-case scenario and that is no less than the collapse of civil society (if two of the threats materialised simultaneously, in accordance with Sod’s Law, which states that Murphy was an optimist).

A more immediate question is perhaps whether the CBI sees such non-disclosure agreements as useful from a HR point of view, and whether it will therefore encourage its members to impose them more widely. A situation where pretty much everyone on the payroll is technically guilty of a sackable offence strikes me as an HR manager’s dream…

The reason why the Labour party support measures such as CCTV is because we believe that liberty should be more than simply words on paper. You can talk all you like about what ancient liberties we are guaranteed and such but it ain’t worth a thing if people don’t feel safe walking the streets.

You act as if the only agency capable of restricing individual freedom is the state, and that simply isn’t the case.

Thanks for that, Andreas. That’ll be why the UK has the lowest levels of street crime in Europe, is it?

Oh – wait a minute, that’s not actually true, is it?

A more equitable society and less rampant selfish materialism (less swooning over millionaires from the likes of your mate Mandelson, f’rinstance) will do more for people feeling safe walking the streets than any number of tabloid-friendly Big Brother measures, you daft New Labour wonk.

So disingenuous – we are increasingly becoming aware that New Labour *only* believes in liberty as “words on paper.”

The Times articles was classic hysterical journalism. It merged two stories (ID card employees and the Green affair) and invoked silly responses from people who should know better.

When asked whether “government agents are permitted to enter the homes of ID contractors without a warrant”, the answer is a simple “No”.
Signing an employment contract does not sign away your fundamental human rights. Which is what No2ID and Liberty should have said in BOLD LETTERS.

There is no harm in everyone knowing how the ID card system might work. Even down to the details of how information is processed in a government office. Anyone who wants to know that information will be able to read it on Wikipedia next year, anyway.

you daft New Labour wonk.

There’s no need to be nasty – I think Andreas has a point, though I don’t think it applies to New Labour any more.

and invoked silly responses from people who should know better.

I expect that’s because they were asked a response to a specific question without being told what the whole article would look like afterwards…

“Signing an employment contract does not sign away your fundamental human rights. ”

Quite. The idea that the Home Secretary could get away for very long with powers to search people without a warrant because of who they work for is a little fanciful. Not that this will have registered particularly highly at the Home Office, because it never does, but as long as no one decides to do away with, say, the Human Rights Act, there should be sufficient judicial opposition. Is it primary or secondary legislation, by the way?

Andreas may wish to note a) the number of times the Home Office and Home Secretary have fallen foul of the ECHR and b) the fact that it was set up to give early warning when future governments start trying to introduce totalitarianism. In many ways the Green case shows things working just fine, since it’s likely that the shit will adhere and be seen to adhere to the police and Commons authorities – in a real police state we wouldn’t have known. The DNA case last week was much more important, which is why hardly anyone who doesn’t have an existing interest will know the details of it.

I know someone recently employed by one of this Govt’s favoured companies on such a contract. What annoyed me the most was that she spent her first 4 months at her leisure on full pay because that’s how long it took for her security clearance. Evidently the average for her department was 6 months. All paid by us taxpayers.

The reason why the Labour party support measures such as CCTV is because we believe that liberty should be more than simply words on paper.

Labour appears to think liberty is best guaranteed by bequeathing to the future an interlocking set of mechanisms of total state control in order to reduce littering and graffiti today. But then Labour isn’t a rational beast, is it?

You act as if the only agency capable of restricing individual freedom is the state, and that simply isn’t the case.

The state certainly has more opportunity to do so.

Personally, CCTV cameras in public places is not something I tend to get too worked up about. As for the proposals re ID card employees I’m not sure they are neccessarily quite as scary as is being suggested but I would like some clarification about what they will actually mean in practice and I’m not inclined to trust the government’s intentions given their past record.

What I don’t accept is that we should not be too concerned because “as long as no one decides to do away with, say, the Human Rights Act, there should be sufficient judicial opposition”. I would certainly expect that the powers which it is suggested “the authority” may have would be in contravention of the HRA/ECHR but then I would have said the same for putting people under house arrest or locking them up for weeks without charge. Much as I support the HRA and agree that it has on occasions put a brake on the government’s more illiberal tendencies I would much prefer that the government does not pass illiberal legislation in the first place.

” I would much prefer that the government does not pass illiberal legislation in the first place.”

Why don’t you just stop voting for them?

I did. It doesn’t seem to have worked.

I may well be an old cynic, but it did strike me when Blair passed the Human Rights Act that it would serve as cover for the subsequent passage of any amount of populist illiberal legislation (and that’s really what we’re talking about here) which the judges would then strike down – with ministers subsequently saying “it wasn’t me, guv – blame the judges”.

Mike,

I can’t believe they would possibly be that cynical.

Oh…

In an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail, [Jack Straw] says he is ‘frustrated’ by the way the legislation he introduced ten years ago has sometimes been interpreted by the courts. He blames ‘nervous’ judges for refusing to deport extremists and terrorist suspects despite assurances by ministers that their removal is in the national interest.

Mike,

I don’t think that they are that bright. Anyway, an aide would have blabbed about it in en email before now (cf “a very good day to bury bad news”).

Of course they are that cynical; their decisions are based on political expediency, not what is fair or just. That’s why we have on the one hand a Human Rights Act but on the other detention without charge, control orders (and a growth in civil orders to ‘prevent crime’), a number of criminal offences so ridiculous that Archbold criticises it in its preface, and more and more intrusive surveillance and bloated databases. It is why we have a Freedom of Information Act that is really a Freedom of Information We Don’t Mind You Having Act. It is why Tony Blair wrote on a letter requesting from the Egyptian authorities that they give deportees a fair trial and no torture that “this is a bit much, why do we need these things?” It is why Home Secretary after Home Secretary (and now Justice Secretary) has a go at judges because of some adverse judgement in order to curry favour with the public, is criticised for doing so by various Parliamentary committees, promises that it won’t happen again, and then does it again.

The argument that government is cynical wrt human rights legislation assumes that they are conscious of their illiberalism. HRA and FoIA were passed in post election hubris and before the cabinet was purged of liberal souls. The gut response legislation thereafter indicates that they don’t understand “liberty”.

The argument that government is cynical wrt human rights legislation assumes that they are conscious of their illiberalism.

That’s a fair point; either way, we need to get rid of them.

Charlieman – dead right.

Well highlighted Jennie.