I almost missed this in the Christmas build up:

Last week the Scottish Parliament passed motion S3M-1017 which restated the country's opposition to Identity Cards and other Westminster government attacks on civil liberties. The motion as passed reads:

That the Parliament believes that the fundamental liberties enjoyed by generations of our citizens must not be eroded; welcomes the commitment by the previous Scottish Executive that ID cards would not be needed to access devolved services and its proportionate position on DNA retention; is concerned at the threat to civil liberties from the UK Government's expensive and unworkable proposal to introduce compulsory ID cards; believes that the Scottish Government should not put citizens' privacy at risk by allowing the UK ID database to access personal information held by the Scottish Government, local authorities or other devolved public agencies; therefore calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that all data protection procedures comply with the principles of data protection, namely that personal information must be fairly and lawfully processed, processed for limited purposes, adequate, relevant and not excessive, accurate and up to date, not kept for longer than necessary, processed in line with individuals' rights, secure and not transmitted to other countries without adequate protection, and that audit of data under its jurisdiction is independent of government and accountable to the Parliament; further calls on the Scottish Government to review plans for Scottish Citizens Accounts on the basis of these principles, and takes the view that there should be no blanket retention of DNA samples and that the Assistant Information Commissioner for Scotland should have specific powers to carry out spot checks on the compliance by Scottish government agencies and bodies with the Data Protection Act 1998.

You can read the debate here.

The passing of this motion by our democratically elected parliament is very welcome. Unfortunately at the end of the day it's little more than a token thorn in the side of the Westminster government's plans. Even if the Scottish government chooses not to cooperate, we in Scotland will still be numbered, filed and monitored in the same way as the rest of the UK.

You might like to connect with NO2ID Scotland on Myspace.

Labels: civil liberties, ID Cards, Scotland, Scottish government, uk politics

When campaigning against ID Cards and the National Identity Register (NIR) I've frequently used the following as a hypothetical example: Most child abuse happens at home, so why not put CCTV cameras in every home to protect kids? After all, if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear.

That was intended as an extreme, ridiculous example to counteract the naive "nothing to hide..." brigade. I never, ever expected it to become real. Seems like I was the one being naive.

The Herald reports on a proposal to install CCTV cameras in the homes of drug addicts - all, of course, for the sake of the children.

It needs to be stressed that this is just the idea of one academic - Professor Neil McKeganey of the centre for Drug Misuse Research at Glasgow University - but the fact that it's even being discussed is worrying. I'm sure McKeganey has the best of motives, but his idea is dangerous. As is his argument:

"What price should we put on our privacy? The question is whether we are prepared to say the principle of the privacy of family life is more important than that of child protection. If we accept that privacy is the most important principle then there will be many more tragic cases."

Now I know what some people are thinking: these are addicts, they're dangerous to the kids, it won't affect me. That's always the way it starts: target the nasty "them", the decent "us" have nothing to fear.

Drug addicts first, who next? People diagnosed as suffering from depression or borderline personality disorders? Anyone who was themself abused as a child? People who smoke? Or who eat too much and might over-feed their kids?

First they came for the junkies...

Remember, most child abuse happens in the home. So once a sufficient critical mass of people have CCTV installed it will be a "natural" next step to put them in every home. All, of course, for the sake of the children.

Could it ever happen? I'd like to think not, but give Britain's surveillance state mentality I can't rule it out.

I remember when mass DNA testing began - it was only for those in the vicinity of particularly nasty and hard to solve murders. The concept expanded until today we are looking at a de facto national DNA database.

CCTV cameras in the streets were initially introduced in areas where there was a history of trouble. Today they're everywhere, even quiet villages.

Only criminal suspects used to be fingerprinted, today nightclubs are fingerprinting customers. Soon the government want us all fingerprinted and numbered for the NIR.

That's the way it goes with freedom: give an inch and they take it all. To protect our own liberties we must protect those of everyone - including junkies. No private home should ever have state CCTV installed.

If the SNP want to prove that they really are better than Labour, the Scottish Executive should publicly condemn and reject McKeganey's proposal.

Labels: CCTV, civil liberties, privacy, Scotland, uk politics, ukpolitics

According to a BBC report new rules might require owners of a traditional Scottish kilt and sporran to carry a licence!

The regulations have been introduced to bring Scotland in line with EU conservation rules. The reason is that traditionally sporrans were made from the fur of badgers and otters which are endangered species. The licensing scheme would confirm that sporrans were made from legal sources.

Under the proposals, anyone owning any part of any protected animal would be required to have a licence or face a £5000 fine and 6 month prison sentence. This could lead to people being stopped on the streets by police and arrested if they can't produce their sporran licence! The same rules could also apply to anglers. It's a typical example of an all too common equation:

Good intentions - Common sense = Bad law

OK, it's a good silly story about bureaucracy gone mad. Does it really deserve a blog entry?

Yes.

This is a symptom of a wider problem - the move away from the presumption of innocence. It's another case where individuals are being required to prove that they are acting lawfully - rather than the authorities being required to prove otherwise. If there must be a licensing scheme then it should apply to producers, not individuals.

The attitude of the Scottish Executive confirms the problem. A spokeswoman is quoted as saying:

"The licence will allow people who possess artefacts made from these species in circumstances compliant with earlier laws to keep them"

Rubbish. Legal sporrans and fishing flies are legal, full stop. This sort of regulation doesn't "allow" anybody to do anything. It forces people to prove they are acting within the law. This is another small step on the journey of the UK towards a Papieren bitte state.

It's sporrans today - what will it be tomorrow?


Update:
Just to clarify, I'm not opposing moves to ban the use of endangered animals. I'm opposing the requirement to possess a licence to prove compliance with the law.

Technorati: Scotland Scottish Executive sporran

Labels: Scotland, Scottish Executive