Somebody’s watching me

“Privacy is not something that I'm merely entitled to, it's an absolute prerequisite.” – Marlon Brando

‘It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen’. This sentence will take anyone who has read 1984 back to the totalitarian state that Orwell creates in his world-famous dystopian novel. In 1984, Orwell portrays a state in which government monitors and controls every aspect of human life to the extent that even having a disloyal thought is against the law, and whereby surveillance has no boundaries. Although certainly a lot less extreme, new technology and government and company surveillance initiatives are taking us ever closer to this concept, which begs the question, is big brother watching you?

The security versus privacy debate has made its way around the block countless times since 9/11. But what people just don’t seem to get is that you do not have to accept less of one to get more of the other. Of course, if you did have to choose, it’s fairly obvious that security is the more important. Privacy is a social need vital to liberty, dignity and society, but it’s not vital to survival. However, it’s not necessary to pick between the two, because without privacy, there is no security. Does CCTV actually stop crime from happening? Or does it just help with the detective work after the crime has been committed?
I’ve often heard the argument, ‘if you’re not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?’ directed towards privacy advocates. These people believe that privacy is about covering up a wrong, and this is simply not true. Privacy is a basic need, an inherent human right and is important because without it, we’re vulnerable to abuse from those in power. Who watches the watchers? How can we guarantee that surveillance information will be treated responsibly with respect, and won’t be used for blackmail, or sold to the highest bidder?

Another worry is where the surveillance information is kept, and whether it’s going to be subject to what Simon Davies, of Privacy International, calls ‘function creep’. In our road pricing feature ‘Watch this congested space’ (p.26), Davies argues that in all public schemes involving a centralised database, the data, which is supposedly confidential, is eventually offered up to law enforcement for solving crimes and preventing terrorism, and ultimately used for whatever any government agency wants. 
This argument can be applied not only to the road pricing debate, but to ID cards, biometrics, and many other proposed or existing initiatives. David Murakami Wood, managing editor of Surveillance & Society, argues that ID cards should be about securing citizens, and that if they become about securing the state, it’s time to question security and what it’s there for.

In our cover story about online music piracy, the British Phonographic Industry argue that internet service providers are using the privacy argument as a ‘get out of jail free card’ to re-direct responsibility for the illegal downloading of music on their network. ISPA refutes these claims, arguing that privacy is a genuine concern. See how the debate pans out on page 16. It’s been a year since Infosecurity first published its concern about VoIP. Twelve months later, the technology is being widely deployed and concern is still rife. VoIP will massively reduce operational costs, but William Knight looks into whether or not the technology is secure (p.36). Stephen Pritchard questions whether investing in emerging security vendors is a smart move, or too much of a risk on page 22, and Danny Bradbury asks how the white hat research community are keeping up with the black hats now that the profit motive has been introduced on page 33. I’d like to hear your thoughts on Britain as a surveillance society and the privacy versus security debate. Please send them to e.dallaway@elsevier.com . Thanks for reading!  

Eleanor Dallaway
Editor