Creeping congestion charge data
The BBC reports that the police are to be given real-time access to congestion charge data, in order to catch more of those pesky terrorists. I’m a little surprised that this doesn’t happen already, considering ACPO’s current policy regarding the collection and use of ANPR data nationally, but no matter.
This is a perfect example of the kind of function creep that should not be allowed to happen. It is the most insidious kind of policy change: massive in scope, important in principle, but almost invisible in everyday life and introduced with no fanfare. They say it’s only for matters involving national security, but how long will it be until they have routine access to check for people’s insurance status, too? This policy demonstrates that the Home Office consider this kind of function creep to be acceptable. Why draw the line here?
Originally the police had access only on a case-by-case basis: they had to justify their requests every time they wanted to access the data. This is an entirely sensible measure. It is of critical importance that police powers are checked by the judiciary. Without this safeguard, civil liberties will suffer: the police always think they’re right, and lack the independence necessary to ensure that their more invasive powers are used proportionately. Precisely the same is true in most walks of life: getting someone else’s perspective is often illuminating. It’s hard to be objective when you’re in the thick of something.
The judiciary have a crucial role to play when it comes to the oversight of police powers, and this government has and is eroding that role. They characterise these checks as putting obstacles in the way of the police, and express shock that anyone should want to do that. They push through more and more draconian measures on the back of people’s fear of terrorism, never admitting that, in actual fact, the chances of the average person getting blown up by a terrorist come a fairly distant second to being hit by lightning, or winning the lottery. Prudent precautions are sensible, routine abuses of civil liberties are not. They are, in fact, counter-productive: over-zealous security and reductions in civil liberties do more to create a climate of fear than the terrorist acts which prompt them.
PS: It seems they’re already planning to use this data for routine policing. There’s a surprise!
Bookmark this post: 
