Minority Report becomes reality in the UK
Dear Anton Setchell,
To be honest I had never heard your name before I read the Guardian yesterday. According to their investigation, you are in overall command of Association of Chief Police Officers’ (ACPO) “domestic extremism” remit. This rather shadowy organisation raises a huge number of questions about what the role of the police is and whether it is acceptable to try and prevent crime in a very ‘Minority Report’ fashion.
£9 million a year is allegedly spent gathering the personal details of thousands of “domestic extremists” who attend political meetings and protests, and storing their data on a network of nationwide intelligence databases. Detailed information about campaigners is stored on a number of overlapping IT systems, even if they have not committed a crime. Senior officers say ‘domestic extremism’, a term coined by police that has no legal basis, can include activists suspected of minor public order offences such as peaceful direct action and civil disobedience. Three national police units responsible for combating domestic extremism are run by the “terrorism and allied matters” committee of the ACPO, and their role includes deploying surveillance teams at protests, rallies and public meetings, creating detailed files on individual protesters who are searchable by name, tracking vehicles associated with protestors and monitoring their movements at protests, recording footage and photographs of campaigners and using ’spotter cards’ to identify target individuals who police believe are at risk of becoming involved in domestic extremism.
This infrastructure was set up with the backing of the Home Office to combat animal rights activists who were committing serious crimes. Senior officers concede the criminal activity associated with these groups has receded, but the units dealing with domestic extremism have expanded their remit to incorporate campaign groups across the political spectrum. The three police units divide their work into four categories of domestic extremism: animal rights campaigns; far-right groups such as the English Defence League; “extreme leftwing” protest groups, including anti-war campaigners; and “environmental extremism” such as Climate Camp and Plane Stupid campaigns. You claim that people who find themselves on the databases “should not worry at all”, but refused to disclose how many names were on the national database (although you estimated that you have files on thousands of people). As well as photographs, you said surveillance officers noted down ‘harmless information’ about people’s attendance at demonstrations and this information was fed into the national database.
There is a part of me that thinks it’s blatantly obvious that the police should engage in activities that might help prevent crime before it happens. There are several groups in society who are already ’monitored’ to some extent (in theory, at least) , such as ex-offenders, people with severe mental health problems and those who might threaten national security. The question is does the same logic extend to ‘domestic extremism’, which includes individuals as dangerous as Plane Stupid? As I understand it, some of the people on the database have committed minor offences in the past and the police insist they are just monitoring the minority who could damage property or commit aggravated trespass. You went on to argue that there are safeguards to protect the human rights of individuals on the database and, although it was possible that protesters with no criminal record were on the databases, police would have to give a justified reason. ”Just because you have no criminal record does not mean that you are not of interest to the police,” you said. “Everyone who has got a criminal record did not have one once.” And the penny drops. Using surveillance to make sure that you do not miss crimes being committed and can identify offenders at the earliest possible moment is one thing – using it to create a database of innocent people in case they commit a crime at some point in future, even if there is no evidence they pose a risk, is surely a step too far.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
“…whether it is acceptable to try and prevent crime in a very ‘Minority Report’ fashion.”
Government IT contracts will never deliver anything as cool as those manipulatable touch-screens. Sadly…
“Everyone who has got a criminal record did not have one once.”
That’s the crucial and telling line, isn’t it?. The admittance, as if we ever needed one, that to the Home Office everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
Julia, those touch screens were awesome and made my laptop look a bit shabby.
BHR, I know, it was a little chilling to read that line. Sounds like a full national DNA database would make the police a happy bunch.
Criminalising a huge section of the working and middle classes is part of the method of control.
When it becomes clear that an allegation of criminality is enough to ruin a life, then the government holds the whip hand over the individual to such a degree that no-one with anything to lose dare speak out. (Knowing that the police can track your e-mail, your car, you mobile phone, your credit cards, your children’s progress through school, and store all that info to create a picture of your life and where you are vunerable should worry everybody).
Family courts are an example of this can work. I have 3 kids. I write comments on a blog which is critical of the government. They can use their secret courts (family law division) to make an allegation against me and my children are taken away. I cannot tell anyone because I am injuncted to silence.
Do you think our names are on a database somewhere LFAT? Who are ACPO really,and how has a private company become so responsible for policing in this country? Why is the UK government not complying with European court rulings on the DNA database? Is the liberal establishment so deeply set into this country’s political and social institutions that democracy is a historical fact rather than a working principle? Will a Conservative government roll back the state’s power to persecute the citizen?
Will a Conservative government fundementally change anything?
‘domestic extremism’
The latest piece of police speak for ‘anything the state or ACPO deem ‘ungood’.
Tony E: – spot on.
Tony, I am continually alarmed by how little the Conservatives say on such matters. Aside from taking innocent people’s DNA off the national database, they simply refuse to engage in debates about these sorts of issues. This is either the result of them agreeing with Labour or not wanting to criticise the police in the run up to an election, or possibly a bit of both. We shall see soon enough how committed they really are to winding back the state.
FLS, the ease with which the police can label people and events to suit their own purposes is quite astonishing.
The Tories do seem to be worryingly quiet about all this. Maybe Cameron feels databases are an unfortunate but necessary component of a ‘progressive’ socially Conservative Britain? God I hope not.
Or maybe he’s worried that if he speaks out strongly against databases now and promises to significantly reduce them Labour would come back with “You see? Uncaring, do-nothing Tories will not protect your child.”
Indeed. Accusations of being soft crime are certainly worth avoiding before an election.
“Maybe Cameron feels databases are an unfortunate but necessary component of a ‘progressive’ socially Conservative Britain?”
I don’t think there’s any ‘maybe’ about it…
“Accusations of being soft crime are certainly worth avoiding before an election. “
If he doesn’t have people he can trust not to fall into this trap, he may as well give up now.
I read today that the push is on to criminalize the over 40s. All part of the service.
“I read today that the push is on to criminalize the over 40s. All part of the service.”
Yep, all part of manufacturing a ‘reality’ to match up to an ideology.
As are:
secret courts, thought crimes, an untouchable political ‘elite’, surveillance state, lucrative but unaccountable non-jobs for the boys, growing dependency on state employment etc.
Bullying, the lot of it, and it comes down from the top. If Cameron can’t (or won’t) punish New Labour for this (and more) then I can only imagine he will carry on with more of the same when he gets in.
One thing they should consider, though. Once they have blighted ordinary peoples’ future with trumped-up non-crimes there is not a lot left to lose; and there are far more of us than there are of them.