Mal Fletcher comments

Mal Fletcher

Is there any such thing as a "private citizen" any more? In an age of ID theft and vastly increased public surveillance, is privacy dead?

These were among the questions put to me in a radio interview earlier this week.

There's no doubt that, if we are to live in a safe and lawful society, we will need to compromise some aspects of our privacy - especially as the potential for technology-based crime increases.

Most of us are willing to pay such a price to enjoy the benefits of a globalised, interconnected consumer society. However, we are concerned when we read how anti-terrorism laws and the like are used to "spy" on innocent citizens, as happened recently with a UK Borough Council.

We're also worried about how new digital technologies are allowing governments to move from limited surveillance to mass surveillance of entire populations. High-powered CCTV cameras, biometric systems and computer intercept systems make mass surveillance comparatively easy.

The technology is amoral; but the end user is going to be a person, or group of persons, with all the frailties associated with being human. Once data is collected it's on hand to be used, for good or ill - maybe not now, but in the future.

By increasing surveillance, usually in the name of security, governments and big businesses are, in some respects, exhibiting a techno-reliance common in society as a whole. There is a tendency for all of us, in everyday life, to see electronic technologies as panaceas for social ills or solutions to problems.

Generally speaking, we are becoming more high-tech but less high touch. For me as an individual, for example, it's much easier and quicker to e-mail someone down the street than it is to actually go visit them.

Governments and other authorities are guilty of the same thinking, but on a much bigger scale. Inserting new technologies to reduce crime is seen as better -- or at least cheaper -- than putting more police on the streets or investing more money in programs that enhance social inclusion.

There are possible benefits in the increase in surveillance technologies. Yet we must weigh them against the probable long-term consequences, especially to the psychologies of groups of people.

An awareness that we are under constant surveillance is likely to change our behaviour, in a negative direction. We are more likely to become suspicious and cynical about society as a whole. In extreme cases, we may even act out our anger and frustration in anti-social ways.

We are also less likely to trust people in authority. Trust is at the very core of democratic government. Governments can only operate because their citizens allow them to, entrusting certain powers -- limited powers -- into their hands. But if governments won't trust the people, it may not be long before the people return the favour; which leads to social insecurity and a desire to fight the system rather than work with it.

ID theft may be on the rise, but it is not extra surveillance (or privacy invasion, depending on your point of view) that will reduce it. We also need to educate ourselves as to how we interact with a digital world, and learn our rights when it comes to information stored about us.

How can we guard against invasions of privacy? Nothing we do will be completely foolproof in this networked, digital age. However, there are some measures we can take to lessen the likelihood of ID theft, for example, or the chances of private information getting into the wrong hands.