Surveillance Society: The question we should be asking

Today, as has been trailed across the news, the Information Commissioner has basically said we're living in an Orwellian reality and if we don't put the brakes on soon then the dystopia of IngSoc will have a fair more penetrating feel. OK, he wasn't quite so colourful with his description, but that was the underlying implication of his comments. Strangely though no one is asking "why?" or "how?" Britain got to where we are. If we fail to address that question then the creeping nature of surveillance will continue as rapidly as it has done thus far.

The answer, for me at least, begins within our overall attitude toward new technologies. We have, it seems, a tendency to embrace new technology far too easily without thinking about the consequences. The Government is very good at this when it comes to massive IT projects. At the same time there is a tendency for these new technologies which involve some aspect of surveillance to pitched to us in isolation.

Thus, a DNA database is pitched in isolation as a crime fighting tool. A tax credit form is pitched in isolation as a means test for benefits. CCTV is pitched as means of reducing low level crime and increasing detection. On street speaker systems coupled with CCTV are pitched as tools for affecting anti-social behaviour. The Census form changes are pitched as being about historical data collection. Speed cameras are about tackling speeding. Road user pricing is about tackling climate change not tracking vehicles. Pay as you go car insurance is about reducing premiums. Loyalty cards are about loyalty benefits. RFID tags are about stock control. Oyster cards reduce ticket queues. Cross-government data sharing is about streamlining government to make it more efficient.

Each and every one of these is pitched as a separate standalone activity and framed within terms of it's unique benefit. Never do we hear the argument of how each one interlinks to create a massively sinister reality that is only 20 years later than the date Orwell predicted. The only difference between Orwell's prediction and now is the presence of democracy, but that is only balance on the understanding of convention.

We often hear about how there will be "safeguards" with these systems. No one ever tells us what they are. We are told that Government would never use them for sinister means, "trust us" is the message. Yet at the same time polling shows that we don't trust politicians, but still we accept and embrace because at the root is the isolated pitching of each new initiative or proposal that involves them watching us. We need to start talking about new technologies in a holistic way, only then will we avoid the affronts to liberty and democracy that we are currently creating.