This is the text of this morning's Thought for the day on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
In a previous life I worked as a Russian linguist at GCHQ in Cheltenham. As everybody knows, this is an institution now under public scrutiny because of its power to hold enormous amounts of information about any and all of us, usually without us being remotely aware of it.
I don't know about you, but the mere mention of the word surveillance triggers memories of George Orwell's 1984 or the world of the KGB and Stasi. Surveillance can only be bad or sinister, can't it? But, here we hit on a fundamental problem at a time when serious concerns are being raised about the limits that should be imposed on surveillance agencies as to the nature and quantity of data they should be allowed – or required – to hold.
The basic conundrum here is that we live in a society that wants – nay, demands – total security from threat, injury or conflict at the same time as demanding total privacy from any sort of unwanted intrusion. But, this circle simply can't be squared. If we want security from threat – for example, from terrorists on our streets or snoopers in our computers – we must accept a certain loss of privacy. In a world of technological complexity – in which the sinister experts in the field do their plotting in the dark places most of us don't even know exist – there is no alternative but for those whose job it is to protect us to have access to data.
There are two problems here, it seems to me. First, it is inherent to the nature of intelligence that any data might potentially be useful, and, therefore, should be collected and stored. But, who discriminates between what is useful and what is not? And how? Secondly, in a society that wants protection, we also have obligations that then impinge on what we sometimes lazily think of as rights. That is in the nature of a society – that we accept curbs on rights in order to protect the common good.
This goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve have grasped for power, they discover they are transparent and hide. Like them, we don't want to be seen through. Perhaps that's because many don't trust those who do the seeing – even if, as in Eden, this transparency is supposed to set us free from fear.
I am one of those who thinks that intrusion by the State or large corporations should be minimal, that surveillance services should be watched, scrutinised and held to account, and that the benefit of doubt should always be given to the individual. But, I can't then complain if something goes wrong on the social field because of my demand for privacy. There is always a cost either way.
This balance of individual rights with societal obligations is difficult to achieve. It seems to me, however, that fundamental to our judgement on the boundaries of privacy is the recognition that we can't have it both ways.
November 24, 2014 at 10:44 am
now I’m picturing the garden of Eden with surveillance cameras…
aside from that mental picture, thanks for sharing this!
November 24, 2014 at 11:53 am
Reblogged this on Davidsja's Blog and commented:
Big Brother or Guardian state – rights vs defence from wrongs
November 24, 2014 at 11:54 am
Thank you + Nick – I appreciated your insights on the balance between our ‘rights’ vs the common good.
November 24, 2014 at 12:57 pm
we live in a society that wants – nay, demands – total security from threat, injury or conflict
There are very many of us who know from experience that this is impossible, and that we simply have to get up and get on.
The more accurate way of putting it is that society is told at every opportunity that it wants – nay, demands – total security. But that’s not the same thing.
November 24, 2014 at 4:07 pm
I heard you live, and thought you struck the balance exactly right. Also heard Theresa May live on Sky News, and I think she deserves all-party support on these measures, if only until after the General Election. I Remember Birmingham, 1974. I was at the Cathedral earlier that night, and later in the Wimpy Bar an hour above the Tavern in the Town. Got home half an hour later to hear the explosion from three miles away (Edgbaston). They only needed to get through once, they said. They were right. We must never let this happen again through wishy-washy liberalism. I had student friends who were detained under the PTA afterwards, but it was a price worth paying, temporarily. Here in Hungary, there is far more surveillance by government, but where is the threat coming from and who is being threatened. In the UK, it’s pretty clear… so let’s all be more transparent… including governments.
November 24, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Reblogged this on hungarywolf.
November 30, 2014 at 4:08 pm
A good summary of the issue, but no answers or new ideas. God is the ultimate spy I guess
January 8, 2015 at 5:05 pm
If we want less surveillance then we need to build trusting communities. Where everyone knows everyone and you share everything then you are far less likely to have internal threats and external threats are easier to spot. However, you would have to work hard to avoid the “them and us” scenario. Let’s work towards building closer, more caring and resillient communities, then maybe we’ll need a little less spying.