Comment

Your privacy is safe in their hands

ANALYSIS -- Privacy is a nebulous concept. You know what it feels like when someone's peering over your shoulder as you type -- it can be disconcerting, can cause you to feel pressured, and so make mistakes.

By the same token, the sprawl of closed circuit TV cameras -- surely a misnomer given the hundreds of individuals who are able to look at the footage, and sometimes of course it's millions -- makes many uneasy. That's especially since their proliferation has occurred with no public debate about the consequences of videoing people on every street corner, nor even about whether the technology is effective.

One thing's for sure: they intrude on the privacy of ordinary citizens like no technology before.

But this week privacy issues took centre stage as the US Senate took a step back from the introduction of ID cards on the grounds of privacy, something which is enshrined in that country's constitution. In the UK, the enthusiasm for ID cards on the part of the Government appears to be undimmed, despite a recent regime change.

What's interesting is that the debate in the US has been about privacy and the right of an ordinary citizen to go about their business without the government peering over their shoulder. In the UK, by contrast, the debate has not been about privacy, despite the efforts of many opposed to the scheme to frame it in those terms.

No, instead the debate has been about implementation. In other words, it's been about whether the database can be secured against hackers, whether the card will cost too much and whether the technology is robust enough to make it all work.

Once more, the debate is not about the principle but about the technology.

And when -- or should that be if? -- the technology issues are fixed, or at least fixed enough to be politically acceptable, that gives the state carte blanche to go ahead and set up the scheme.

You have to wonder if the lack of principled debate in the UK about this and so many other matters stems from the fact that the country has no generally accepted set of standards that help define the relationship between state and citizen.

In the US, they call it the Constitution. In the UK, the most analogous institution is the über-privileged monarchy. So that's all right then: privacy is assured.