Nick Clegg has announced that over £7 billion worth of government databases will be scrapped and CCTV will be properly regulated.
However although privacy groups have welcomed the scrapping of databases, others have called the CCTV promises a "load of old rubbish."
In his speech today Mr Clegg said: "It is outrageous that decent, law-abiding people are regularly treated as if they have something to hide. It has to stop,"
He also said the £1.3 billion identity cards scheme will be cancelled, as well as the £3.6 billion biometric passports database. The £224 million ContactPoint database of vulnerable children will also be scrapped.
The news has been welcomed by No2ID, which has been campaigning for database scrappage for years now.
Phil Booth National Coordinator at the organisation, told TechEye: "It's a very welcome first step. However, the Government must act now to scrap these plans instead of dragging it through Whitehall and having the plans delayed by some members who are still very much for the database state."
In his speech Mr Clegg also promised that "CCTV will be properly regulated." This has angered privacy group No CCTV, which told us the claims were a "load of old rubbish."
Charles Farrier, a representative for the group, told TechEye "This is nothing new, they are just trying to shush up privacy campaigners by putting the word "properly" in front of a strategy that is exactly the same one as that set out by the last party.
"It should not be about what people can do with CCTV, it's about what they can't do," he added.
Mr Clegg also left himself some room for maneuver when it came to the Interception Modernisation Programme, which would demand ISPs retain details of the customers' communications, in case intelligence or law enforcement agencies want to access them, saying: "We won't hold your internet and email records when there is just no reason to do so."
The Liberal Democrat press office refused to tell us exactly what those reasons would be..
The big question for CCTV in the coming years is budgetary: can councils afford to continue paying for this service? There's plenty of money in the police but despite being the major beneficiary of CCTV evidence, the police (and the rest of the criminal justice system) contribute very little to installing, maintaining and operating it.
However the ever increasing ease with which the cameras are deployed can and has in some cases become a significant intrusion of privacy and cause for public debate and concern.
Although many people will agree that the use of a camera for public protection is justified, when the amount of footage of people conducting their everyday tasks becomes clear, the very same people oppose them. The ambiguous nature of people is being used against them in some cases with more and more areas becoming watched while all under the title of "protection" whereas “intrusion” could be a far more appropriate word.
Political spin plays a major role in the outcome of any debate and/or survey that is conducted, for example:
*When someone mentions a (hypothetical) case where a woman/young child is struck down in the street in a hit and run incident, and then say to members of the public that if a camera had been placed nearby there would be a higher probability of identification (and thereby apprehension) of the suspect; the public immediately justify its use. It follows that after it could be considered (and almost always reported as) as a “public outcry” for an increase in CCTV in a particular area (this case can then be extrapolated to cover ever increasing areas of the country).
*However, if I were to mention to the same person (for arguments sake, say a week later) that I happened to know that they were cheating on their partner and not only did someone know, they also knew when, where and who with…
Or (as this is a rather extreme and potentially isolated case (I’d hope =D), that there is someone with intimate knowledge of my weekly routine, down to which shops I visited, how frequently, where I bought most from etc.
[There is, as a side note, a real worry that this sort of information could be used in ever increasing targeted advertising; beside the general intrusion of privacy]
Or finally that there is someone with a very detailed knowledge of when you are home, when you are away, where you go, what you do, what car you drive, what your family looks like etc.
The real danger I feel is in linking the separate cameras together to form a condensed network. Nick Clegg is right to kick back at this, what actually changes will come of it though remains to be seen. I for one support the use of CCTV in high risk areas but remain very sceptical about the need for the amount of cameras we have today in the UK and fully intend to fight against any increase to the amount we are all being watched, where I go and what I do will always remain my business. I certainly don’t like the idea of my family being watched either. This is something that needs to be considered fully, perhaps with a public consolation (ideally but not realistic I fear) before the placement of additional cameras becomes to far spread beyond areas of high risk and retail (for the prevention of theft and prosecuting those who do *only*)
Just think of all the problems in society that CCTV has succesfully solved. Some of you may remember the woman who cruely placed a innocent cat in a dustbin. She was caught on a home surveillance camera. Or the Glasgow Bombers whos identity was captured by CCTV. It builds protection for our freedoms in society and I believe it is vitally important and needed.