Posts
"Wacky" Jacqui Smith, the UK's Home Secretary, has written a letter to The Guardian defending our country's growing surveillance culture.
She says that CCTV has "helped to reclaim our town centres and public spaces for the law-abiding majority." In fact, with CCTV so ubiquitous, few consider it. Go to any town centre at closing time to see what stupid crimes are committed right in front of CCTV cameras. Indeed, some councils have started equipping them with loudspeakers to remind people they're being watched and that they face prosecution. So, what CCTV has actually done is made it easier to convict people after a crime has been committed.
Smith also defends the DNA database. "Each year," she writes, "literally hundreds of homicides and rapes are resolved with the use of DNA matches." Again, this detection is a marvel of modern technology, but it is always used after the fact. There are no statistics for crimes not committed because of CCTV or DNA matching, and so for the Home Secretary to imply that there's a quantifiable figure is, well, it's bogus.
In the same way that people don't think about CCTV, they don't think about the DNA they leave everywhere they go. After all, would there be any vicious rapes or murders of strangers if it were foremost in their minds? There's no doubt that DNA evidence and CCTV have caught thousands of dangerous criminals, but I don't understand why Smith can't understand that the opportunistic way genetic identities are also collected from the innocent who happen to come into contact with the police as part of their investigations is deeply odious to a society whose traditions include a strong sense of personal privacy.
CCTV and DNA databases are detection devices. Their ubiquity means that they're "invisible" and are therefore useless as crime prevention measures. Insisting to the contrary doesn't make it so. However, there's some good news. "In December I announced immediate steps to remove the DNA of children under 10 from the database, and set out the case for greater flexibility and fairness in the system," wrote Smith.
That's a good start, but if you've done nothing, why should the state keep tabs on your genetic identity "just in case"? To me, as a reasonable, law-abiding Englishman, and even though I'm not on this database, such arbitrary recording feels genuinely and deeply wrong. You should be free to go about your business without such a record. After all, the presumption of innocence has no statute of limitations, which is something that records in the DNA pertaining to the innocent must have in a decent, fair society.
Stuff I've never thought of before. This whole surveillance society (oh god, I've just used a Daily Mail term. Quick — where's the soap??) is just unsafe, pointless, and unproven (and can't be proved).
ReplyDeleteThere's so many cameras around I sometimes question how many are being watched... maybe one day when I'm bored enough I'll do the math to work out how much disk space recording all this CCTV takes up... and so how feasible it is to store it (unless you're google)
I'm just a kid, but my understanding with DNA databases are that they are inherently flawed.
ReplyDeleteIf uniqueness of a particular sample of DNA is 1 in 3 million, it would seem that any match is evidence against the person who's name pops up from the database. Juries are impressed by DNA 'evidence', so a match would get the person almost certainly found guilty. But with a database of millions of names and samples, there's bound to be a match, despite the improbability. I always thought this was a bit disturbing.
The actual probability is nearer 1 in a TRILLION, not 1 in a million.
ReplyDelete