I am writing this on the day when Britain's ID card bill will be submitted to a vote in the Parliament at Westminster. Gordon Brown tells us that we should all pull ourselves together and recognise the threat which terrorists pose to our national security. I'm quite happy to do that, but I wonder when he's going to pull himself together and recognise the limits of the technology which he has convinced himself is going to save us. Spending a fortune in public and private money on technology already ten years out of date and eminently forgeable isn't going to protect anyone, and it's hardly prudent. Recent revelations about the Finsbury Park mosque have demonstrated that our police force is already doing good work to combat the actions of aggressive extremists; I would, therefore, rather see that money directed toward providing them with the resources they need. Useless ID cards are not among those things.
Sometimes I think that a significant number of our country's problems stem from our prudishness about our politicians. We're so excited by scandal, so insistent that our representatives can ptove they've led sheltered lives, that we find ourselves governed largely by people who have no idea how the world really works. The same people who failed to understand that the latter part of the Irish conflict was driven by the drugs trade were apparently such well-behaved teenagers that they never tried to sneak into a pub or club whilst underage, and never encountered the world of fake ID at all, let alone seen how it works for serious criminals. They don't understand how easily poorly paid civil servants can be persuaded to use government equipment to produce false records, nor how frequently national databases are accessed to alter details and invent new identities. Even if the technology worked, this would render the ID scheme useless (as, indeed, is suggested by countries which have had such cards for years and yet have comparable crime rates). Then we must take into account the fact that one in five people cannot give an iris scan for either eye; that the proposed face recognition software is confounded by things like long hair, beards, spectacles and hats; that small fingers can't provide prints large enough to be accepted by the standardised software; and that forensic analysts around the world are currently campaigning to help the public understand that fingerprint evidence is not really all that reliable. We will have an underclass of people who are met with constant difficulties because they cannot provide the data required by the system. To put it briefly, ID cards will cost a huge amount of money, they'll create persistent problems for a significant number of law abiding people, and they'll do nothing whatsoever to help identify terrorists. At best, this is legislation for legislation's sake, designed to make the government look like it's doing something and to make the frightened populace feel duly humbled. Can't we hand out 'magic' pebbles instead? With as much effort put into propaganda, it would probably have just as strong a calming effect, and it would save us billions of pounds.
Similarly ill-advised are plans to use terahertz scanning in underground stations. While it may seem like a good idea to be able to look through luggage and bulky clothing to check for weapons, what exactly is going to happen if weapons are then found? Won't a suicide bomber so apprehended choose to detonate right there in the entrance-way instead of on the train, likely killing a similar number of people? It is hard to see how, in such circumstances, there would be time to call in people trained to deal with such situations. Underground staff and hired private security personnel have neither the training nor the paychecks to make it reasonable for them to take on such a situation, and there's no practical economic way of providing them with those resources. If asked to put themselves into dangerous situations with no extra support, large numbers of them will, quite sensibly, just walk out.
In addressing these issues, I have, of course, ignored another crucial factor - the human cost of such intrusions. Many people overlook this entirely because they don't think in terms of what will happen to them, but only in terms of what will happen to terrorists. Even if they decide that they're willing to have a stranger use terahertz scanning to see them naked, for the sake of security, will they be just as happy about their twelve year old daughters being exposed in such a way? Who will be entitled to use such equipment? What kind of background checks will be made, what security measures put in place, to prevent it being abused? Of course, when dispersed so widely in society, it will become cheap (it is already available, but at a price which makes it unattainable for most people) on the black market, so anyone will be able to get hold of it. Thus grasping for security in one way only makes us all more vulnerable in another. The matter is clearly not as simple as Blair and Brown pretend.
In the 'States, of course, the issue of the moment is wiretapping. Everybody with any connections knows that this has been going on for years - for about as long, in fact, as the technology which enables it has existed - but it has always been considered politically unacceptable and information gained that way has been inadmissable in a court of law. Now the political landscape is shifting and there is a real possibility that people will be persuaded to accept it, to give up all privacy in their long-distance communications in exchange for being safer from terrorists. Normal people may not have anything to hide, but how does it feel when a woman has to make that difficult phone call to explain her recent cancer diagnosis to her daughter in another state and she knows that somebody might be listening in? Are people really going to be comfortable discussing sensitive aspects of their business plans over the line knowing that an unknown listener may decide to try and profit from them? And what do we really stand to gain from wiretapping? It may indeed lead us to really careless terrorists (of the sort who're probably going to leave a large trail of other clues anyway), but nobody with half a brain is going to use the telephone to discuss violent schemes in detail. It's not necessary. It doesn't take much planning to create a situation where an exchange like "Are you coming to the club on Saturday then?" "No, sorry, my son's coming over and I promised him we'd check out the game." is quite sufficient to provide coded information and give the go-ahead for an attack.
The fact is that committing acts of terrorism is easy. Everyone has access to weapons - if guns are banned there are knives; if knives are banned, there are half brick in socks; if blunt objects are banned, a stocking will do. With the best will in the world, and with all the technology presently available, it is impossible for the state to watch everywhere all the time - there simply aren't enough alert human brains to process and prioritise the necessary volume of information. So, we have to ask ourselves, why don't terrorist atrocities happen a lot more often? The answer is threefold. Firstly, most would-be terrorists just aren't that competent - they have limited imaginations (as do the majority of other people), they copy their role-models (making them predictable) and they have a limited supply of useful contacts. Secondly, large scale acts of terrorism tend to run contrary to the interests of the major criminal organisations (like the Mafia and the Triads) because of the level of attention they draw; this limits options for obtaining guns, explosives etc. The Irish situation has complicated this, historically, but is of decreasing significance largely because its major players are getting on a bit now and many of them have retired, the younger ones finding more lucrative areas to work in. Thirdly, most people just aren't really all that interested in hurting other people. They may get angry at the corporate scheming of MacDonalds, at the immoral hedonism of western society, or at that bastard who bumped into their car in the parking lot at Sainsbury's and never left his details, but they'll usually just sulk for a bit and not get round to doing anything about it. This level of apathy, as much as the real forgiveness encouraged by many spiritual and religious organisations, is what has enabled human beings to live together throughout our history; it is what has enabled us to survive as a species. We may entertain fantasies of violence, but when it comes right down to it most of us would rather relax with a nice cup of tea and see what's on the telly. Unfortunately, if we're not careful, we're likely to do the same thing whilst our civil liberties are trodden all over.
It has been curious to see the British government treading so carefully around issues of freedom of speech with regard to the recent furore over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Regarding the cartoons themselves, I fully support the various newspapers' right to publish them, but I also think it was terrobly rude - likewise I support the right of those offended by them to protest, but wish more of them could do so politely. If we all placed more value on good manners, this conflict could have been avoided completely, and twelve men would still be alive; of course, it's harder to be polite when there are people on each side with a vested interest in stirring up more trouble. Anyway, it's interesting that the British government should talk about freedom of speech in this instance when it's a right (essential to our species of democracy) which they've cheerfully trampled over in other areas. I shall say right now that I'm all for laws which make it an offence to incite violence, and I understand that such incitement can sometimes be subtle (without being any less dangerous), but restrictions on things as nebulous as 'glorifying terrorism' seem to me to be very dangerous. At the time that law was proposed I was writing a short story in which the bored teenaged daughter of the heavily self-medicated heroine found an outlet in random violence, this presented from an amoral perspective designed to make the reader question the appropriateness of their different methods of coping - was that glorifying terrorism? Was I glorifying terrorism when, in the 'eighties, I published articles urging the release of Nelson Mandela - or was he always a freedom fighter, and that something completely different?
Critics of these policies are, of course, frequently written off as mere habitual rebels, people who will be critical of everything the government does. As it happens, I've supported the present government in several of their initiatives (I have the correspondence to prove it), but I know where to draw the line. Yes, a lot of them are genuinely nice people, and they, at least, do want the best for us - but that doesn't necessarily mean they understand what's best for us, and nor does it mean that we can trust the governments which will come after them to be just as well-intentioned. The more of our liberty and democratic power we surrender, the more vulnerable we make ourselves to the corrupt; and, in so doing, the more we encourage corruption. Our first priority must be to keep our democracy secure, and to that end we must defend our rights as individuals. Freedom of speech; freedom of association; freedom of assembly; freedom of movement. They're not luxuries - they're the building blocks of our civilisation. They are our only true security.
Go back to Jennie's page about politics.
This way to go back to Jennie's personal pages.
Last updated 13th February, 2006