Liberty
... freedoms we all take for granted. (1) Argument The argument from most Western governments for the sacrifice of privacy rights is seductively simple. Terrorism needs to be defeated and terrorists use electronic communications to obtain money, identify targets and plan attacks so the authorities obviously need to access all transactions which could be linked to terrorism. However, since the identity of terrorists is largely unknown, then governments need retention of everybody's transactions in order to be sure that data about terrorists can be captured. So, in the UK for instance, the Anti- Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 requires Internet Service Providers (ISPs), public telecommunications systems operators and other communications service providers to retain, for up to one-year, data about all communication events (e.g. all internet access events or all telephone contacts in the UK for all subscribers for communication services). Money laundering rules already mean that much financial transactional data on every individual are retained for up to six years. However if there is a pool of information which is collected in the name of anti-terroris should it be used for other purposes? for instance, is it reasonable to limit access to data to murders only related to terrorism and but not to other forms of murder? Indeed, why have limits at all surely if access to murder is justified, so is access in other cases? That is why, in the consultation document concerning access to communications data retained under anti-terrorism legislation, the UK Government state that it does "not consider that the fact that the data is held by a communication service provider for national security purposes should prevent the police or other public authorities having access to that data when they can demonstrate a proportionate need for it. The Government proposes that about 50 different kinds of public authorities (which range from police to planning departments of local authorities) should have powers of access to such data. (2) The counter argument Supporters of civil liberties recognize that to counter terrorism, measures need to be taken to protect the public. Rather, the main objection is that an anti-terrorist strategy which requires an unnecessary reduction in established democratic values and human rights is fundamentally misguided because terrorists do not recognize human rights, that does not mean that any response should do likewise. Instead civil libertarians argue that any strategy against terrorism should actively base itself in the values and rights that citizens in a democracy take for granted. This stance is intended to be a public demonstration of the values underpinning a democratic system which can be directly contrasted with the aims and methods of the terrorist. The result is that any counter-terrorism measure should be subject to six tests. (3) Conclusion The question of "security or liberty?" is not new. Edmund Burke, a leading 18th century Parliamentary rebel at the time when the dangers to the UK government came from the French Revolution and insurrection in the American colonies, understood this dilemma. He remarked "the true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts". In short, civil libertarians argue that respect for human rights (e.g. to privacy ) are the life blood of a democratic system. For instance, if there is no private space to develop a dissenting thought, then democracy is dead; in Saddam's Iraq, Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR there was little private space. Thus any ni...