The fatal conceit of the Police National Database

6601

the-fatal-conceit-of-the-police-national-database

The Police National Database (PND) will go live next week. When it does, the details of some 10-15 million people will be conveniently stored in one place, available to over 12,000 police personnel. Jennie Cronin, director at the National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA), says of the new database, “To share intelligence carries some risks, but choosing not to share poses a far greater risk to public protection”. This statement merits some examination.

Any database is vulnerable to being compromised. Information may be leaked, or people who are not police officers or staff may somehow gain access. The PND does, however, make it less likely that repeat offenders slip through the cracks. A compelling argument might be made that those who have broken the law have abrogated some of their right to privacy, and may be exposed to risk if this benefits the law-abiding.

Note the maths of Ms Cronin’s statements, though. There are 9.2 million people in the UK with criminal records. That means that up to 6 million people without criminal records will be on the PND. Ms Cronin says that many of these people are victims. A spokesman for the NPIA says that others have been convicted of offences too minor to warrant a record.

Ms Cronin has offered a vague explanation for storing victims’ data, claiming that keeping the records will help identify repeat victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. To what end, she does not say; victims of assault or abuse are already made aware of counseling options when they make their statements. Moreover, no explanation is given for why the details of petty offenders will be stored. Ms Cronin and the NPIA should justify why they are exposing 6 million people without criminal records to the risk of a leak and violating their right to privacy. Details will likely emerge as the PND gets online. For the 6 million without criminal records on the database, it may be time to review the Data Protection Act.

UPDATE: the National Policing Improvement Agency has written in to say that this piece contains a factual error. They say Jennie Cronin never said, “many of these people are victims”. In fact, they say that victim data will only be held in a limited number of cases, where it relates to sexual offences for which a court can grant a sexual offences prevention order. We apologize for putting words in Ms Cronin's mouth. This issue is discussed in more detail here.

Spying on Wikileaks

6599

spying-on-wikileaks

In a recent video, Wikileaks’ Julian Assange and various hangers-on whinge that the government has been spying on them with CCTV cameras outside the home in East Anglia where Assange is living while out on bail. Vaughan Smith, owner of the home, says of the cameras, “I think the country is full of them but I don’t know why I need quite so many of them around my house.”

Of course he does. There’s the small matter of Assange being wanted in connection with sex crimes in Sweden. Whatever conspiracy theories surround the charges, fighting an extradition order does make courts suspect that you are a flight risk. Assange and company assert that monitoring the man unjustly violates his right to privacy. The ankle monitor he wears, at least, is a condition of his bail. Assange has, after all, solicited asylum offers from the Swiss and Ecuadorian governments. The cameras are more controversial.

Dan Hamilton, director of Big Brother Watch, alleges that all those who have any contact with Assange are being filmed and, presumably, monitored. Hamilton says, “For his movements – and those of his visitors – to be monitored in this way constitutes an outrageous invasion of personal privacy.”

Britain is notorious for its use of CCTV cameras; figures from 2009 suggest that the UK has 65% more cameras than China in absolute terms, with one per 14 people compared to one per 472,000. One might understand placing movement restrictions and ankle bracelets on those out on bail. Filming everyone around that person, from Wikileaks fellow travellers to passersby, seems incredibly—and perhaps unnecessarily—invasive. The average Brit perhaps tolerates the pervasive use of CCTV because it doesn’t obviously affect his or her life. However, being filmed 300 times a day smacks of Big Brother and 1984.

Legalize gay marriage, kickstart the recovery?

6586

legalize-gay-marriage-kickstart-the-recovery

The debate over same-sex marriage often rests upon the authority Leviticus. However, the Bible, while filled with heavenly wisdom, sometimes does not provide the best modern legislative guide (see Deuteronomy 12: 11-12, for instance). Esoteric debates on natural rights and Judeo-Christian morality have merit, but nothing is more successful in wooing me in one direction over another than a well-calculated spreadsheet.

A study by the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles, (PDF) does just that. It analyzes the impact of legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts, then extrapolates the data and applies its findings to California’s economy. What follows is nothing short of an economic justification for gay marriage.

The study forecast the following trajectory: an initial wave of marriages – a result the significant built up demand among pre-existing, committed same-sex couples – followed by the gradual tapering off, with the overall marriage rate showing a lasting increase.

This wedding bubble would have following economic effects: Gay couples would spend nearly $700 million on wedding services over a three-year period’ Over 2000 jobs would be created in the nuptial industry. Allowing economic activity to take place is the key to growth. Another study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the liberalization of marriage requirements across all 50 states would generate an additional $1 billion in revenue annually.

Furthermore, legalization would almost certainly encourage gay immigration. Given the acrimonious debate in the UK over immigration in general, let's take a minute to justify a policy that would specifically increase gay immigration.

People in same-sex unions have higher rates of college education than those in straight partnerships (40% vs. 27%), which is shown to be negatively correlated with criminality. Gay couples tend to be wealthier than their straight counterparts (average household incomes of $80,610 and $73,655, respectively). And of course, gay couple are just cooler (difficult to quantify, but impossible to deny – some would call it cultural capital).

While the debate has so far defined gay marriage as a political issue, it can be framed as a question of market freedom as well. The gender restriction on marriage ought to be abolished. The UK should liberalize its marriage market by removing the moral monopoly that currently exists. 

A free market in adoptions?

6576

a-free-market-in-adoptions

If you’ve been following Made in Chelsea, you may have had the thought, “Where are their parents?”. The answer is more than likely Saint-Tropez.

The truth is that anyone who is physically able to do so may have children and, for the most part, may raise them with a free hand. The state does not purport to know who will be a good birth parent, and does not attempt to stop anyone from reproducing. Curiously, though, it places severe restrictions on those who would adopt. This raises the question, is the state’s monopoly on adoption legitimate? Is there any real difference between being “unqualified” to adopt and being similarly hopeless but nonetheless giving birth to a child?

Were we to poll, one might expect to see strong support for restrictions on, say, sex offenders adopting at the same time as strong disapproval of the state preventing people with genetic diseases from reproducing. Perhaps the logic is something like a natural rights theory of property: I have produced that child, she of my genetic material, you cannot raise her in a Platonic (Huxleyan?) state institution. This doesn’t really make sense, though; no one considers children to be actual property, not even Locke. The difference between birth and adoption seems more one of intuition than substance. Children who remain with their birth parents are no more immune to mistreatment than are adopted children.

Both demand to adopt and the number of children waiting to be adopted remain high. The stumbling block appears to be government regulation. The adoption process is notoriously slow, with a minimum time frame of six months; some families wait four to eight years to adopt. Part of this may be that direct adoption is banned except in cases where adopter and adoptee are related, and that extensive background checks and court dates are required before an adoption can go through.

Does it seem like someone with a child sex offence conviction should be able to adopt young children? Absolutely not. At the same time, allowing children to languish in foster care for years while there are plenty of reliable, caring people who would love to adopt them seems bizarre and cruel. The current system demands liberalisation. Might pregnant women be allowed to choose adopters? Might adopters be allowed to pay to adopt? A lot to think about, to be sure.

An Englishman’s home should be his castle

6565

an-englishmans-home-should-be-his-castle

Remember Tony Martin? “An Englishman’s home is his castle”? Martin’s 2000 trial, in which the man was found guilty of murdering the teenaged ne’er-do-well robbing his home, awakened discussion in the UK of self-defence standards. The issue is now in the American press. Last month, Pennsylvania became the latest American state to pass a “castle” law.

Castle doctrine, an American legal doctrine derived from English common law, runs that a person has the right to defend him- or herself with deadly force against an attacker on their property.

Those gun-toting, bourbon-swilling Americans, you may be thinking. Where do they think they are, the Wild West? Here in the UK, we use a far more civilised “reasonable force” standard. Leaving gun control itself aside, though, it might well be time to reconsider self-defence standards in the UK.

At the heart of castle doctrine is a recognition that the individual ought be sovereign over his or her property. As I have earned this pound or built this house, so it is mine to do with as I see fit and, by extension, mine to protect.

Fine, but how about in the real, governed world? Of course, in practice, we are unable to assert an absolute right to privacy, property, and self-defence in modern society. Nonetheless, the concepts are still worth defending and are, to some degree, enshrined in our laws. The police cannot enter my home without one of my permission, probable cause, or a warrant. Castle laws acknowledge that, even within a governed society, the private sphere is—or ought be—just that.

Castle laws are often characterised as bloodthirsty retributive justice. Ideally, no one has injury visited upon them, ever. In giving people the right to use greater force against attackers, though, we do more than merely raise the likelihood that a would-be rapist is harmed. Castle laws raise the perceived costs of crime, thereby deterring it. They also mean that, when fighting for one’s life, a person does not have to spend crucial seconds thinking about whether they will be prosecuted for their means of defence. An attack is already underway. It seems appropriate to locate responsibility for that attack spiralling out of control (if such a thing can be said of an assault) with the attacker, not the victim.

Between Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, American champions of property, privacy, and self-defence rights can seem a bit nutty to most Brits. With castle laws, though, the Americans might be onto something.

Thoughts on prison voting

6560

thoughts-on-prison-voting

Whatever your thoughts on the European Court of Human Rights’ warning to the government that it must permit prisoner voting or face penalties, the question of prisoner voting itself is an interesting one. To be honest, I am of two minds on the matter. Is it legitimate for a group to form a compact that provides certain rights and revokes them as a form of punishment? Absolutely; a consenting adult can enter into agreements that restrict their range of action and otherwise bind them. We could justly punish theft with drawing and quartering if we all agreed to it in advance. The denial of the right to vote is a longstanding policy, and someone who chooses to hold up a gas station, say, should know this.

On the other hand, no one ever did enter into such an agreement with the British government, either to be governed by its laws or to be punished upon breaching them. At the point where a “social contract” is imposed upon us, one of the few means of recourse that we have is voting. Prisoners, whose liberties are already restricted and who generally lack political capital, ought be able to participate in the democratic process. There also appears to be very little purpose to restricting the right to vote: no one particularly enjoys voting – denial of conjugal visits probably stings a bit more for the average convict – and jail time is a more powerful deterrent.

The conversation will doubtless continue in Westminster. MPs voted in February, 234 to 22, to maintain the blanket ban. Though he was avowedly against prisoners getting the right to vote, the Prime Minister has said, “we are going to have to sort this out one way or the other.” It will be interesting to see how it all works out; British prisoners may be enfranchised despite the best efforts of the government to prevent same.

Legalize drugs

6557

legalize-drugs

The Global Commission on Drug Policy, which was launched last week, has an impressive roster of supporters and a very noble aim: to bring an end to the utterly pointless war on drugs. But there’s one thing that worries me, and that’s that much of the talk is about decriminalizing drugs, rather than legalizing them.

Now don’t get me wrong: decriminalization would be a step in the right direction. Why anyone should be punished – often at great public expense – for ingesting a particular substance is beyond me. Indeed, I’d go further: why should anyone be punished for peaceably selling a substance that someone wants to buy?

But mere decriminalization isn’t enough. It would still leave drug gangs making huge profits from the trade in narcotics. It would still mean users couldn’t be sure of the strength or purity of the drug they were consuming. It would still lead to the kind of shady street dealing that blights neighbourhoods and provokes violent turf wars. It wouldn’t eliminate the illegality premium that pushes drug prices so high that they drive addicts to commit crime and give gangs a powerful incentive to run around killing people.

By contrast, proper legalization would take the gangs and the violence out of the drug trade. It would give places like Mexico and Colombia the chance to become prosperous exporters rather than failing narco-states. It would take the thugs and the peddlers off the street corners, and stop junkies beating up grannies for spare change. If drugs could be produced, distributed and sold like alcohol, or even tobacco, the world would be a happier and more peaceful place.

I’m not saying legalization would usher in a utopia. Some people would ruin their lives and their families through addiction. Others would behave anti-socially when under the influence. Others still would experience severe reactions to drugs their systems couldn’t handle. It’s important that we acknowledge these truths. But it’s also important to remember that all that happens now, and much more besides. Prohibition only succeeds in making matters worse, and in drawing countless innocents into the crossfire.

It’s time to end the drug war. It’s time to legalize drugs.

You can't stop speech, but you can push it underground

6548

you-cant-stop-speech-but-you-can-push-it-underground

Just a few months after a very public fight with Lord Macdonald over control orders, Theresa May is back in the news with controversial – even inflammatory – comments regarding Islamic extremism at English universities.

In an interview with the Telegraph, Ms May charged universities with “complacency” vis-à-vis the hotbeds of Islamic terrorism that are their Muslim students’ associations and Islamic Studies departments. She announced that the Home Office had identified 40 English universities as being at “particular risk” of Islamic extremism. In addition to other measures, the Home Office will push for restricting access to extremist websites from public buildings. “I don’t see anything wrong with identifying people who are vulnerable to being taken down a certain route, who could become a threat to members of the public.” If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to worry about?

The problem with universities, May said, is that they have not “been sufficiently willing to recognise what can be happening on their campuses and the radicalisation that can take place.” Hence the supposed need for government intervention.

Students, radical? You don’t say. But there is neither a legitimate government role in preventing radical speech nor necessarily causality between such speech and violence. Most charitably, this is a misguided attempt on the part of Government to “protect” the public – by infringing upon freedoms of speech and of association. Less generously, May’s comments seem to conflate Muslim students’ associations and terrorist cells.

Universities are, ideally, centres of free thought; it seems particularly perverse to limit freedom of speech at schools. Worse still is the overbroad definition of extremism. Ms May intends to target any group that may serve as a “stepping stone” to terrorism. One can only imagine that the litmus test for “stepping stone” status is as expansive as Potter Stewart’s threshold for pornography.

The measures May has proposed will merely add vitriol to the rhetoric she seeks to discourage. Singling out Islamic student groups as not holding what May calls “our values” is almost certain to alienate their members. This only makes students more likely to turn to violence. It would be far better to preserve freedoms and allow organic integration than to force speech underground.

Legalize online drug dealing

6536

legalize-online-drug-dealing

Today’s call by celebrities for the government to reform its drugs policies (PDF) is a little different from the usual celebrity activism. Behind the famous names like Sting, Dame Judi Dench and Sir Richard Branson are people whose opinions should matter in the drugs debate. Former Home Office minister Bob Ainsworth, former police Chief Constables, high-ranking solicitors and QCs and academics of physiology and criminology have all thrown their weight behind the call too. These are people who know what they’re talking about, and their voices can’t be easily ignored.

At the same time, a report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy has recommended that governments change their approach to drugs, including legalization and regulation in place of outright prohibition. This panel includes Kofi Annan and former presidents of Colombia, Brazil and Mexico – countries that have been torn apart by drugs-funded criminals. Again, these are voices that should carry some weight.

We might be close to a turning point. What remains is for prominent, serving politicians to grasp the nettle and speak out: former ministers and presidents can be influential, but until politicians in office are willing to say these things we won’t see real reform. Like it or not, many people rely on politicians and experts to determine their opinions. I have no doubt that many politicians privately support legalization. What we need is more high-ranking politicians with the courage to speak out.

What might this reform look like? I was intrigued to read about Silk Road this morning, a sort of anonymous eBay for online drug sales. It uses eBay-style seller ratings to avoid scams like bad drugs being sent, or no drugs being sent at all after a payment. The site seems like a relatively cost-effective and safe way for people to buy drugs. Good.

If something similar to this could be legalized for the sale of certain drugs, then many of the fears that people have about drug legalization could be avoided. Let's keep street selling illegal, but let people buy them from licensed sellers online and only use them on private property. Ugly scenes of drug dealers on the streets, like in Lisbon where drugs are decriminalized but not legalized, would be avoided, but people who want to take drugs would still be able to do so in the privacy of their own homes.

This would also have the excellent side effect of choking demand for drugs from street sellers, which would reduce crime significantly in poor urban areas. This would in turn be great for things like social cohesion, employment and school attainment, all of which are currently inhibited by young men regularly being given jail sentences and criminal records for carrying drugs.

If this were proposed, the argument really would become a question of privacy. Am I free to take drugs in the privacy of my own home, or not? If we shift the goalposts so that that really is the question we're asking with respect to drug legalization, it's an argument we can win.

A few words on super-injunctions

6509

a-few-words-on-super-injunctions

Last week, the Daily Mail has a front-page headline that said, “Sir Fred’s affair: why we do have a right to know”. This is a sentiment that I’ve heard a lot when people are talking about super-injunctions. People have the right to know this, people have the right to know that, and so on.

But none of us have a right to know anything about any private individual. Our rights are just not the issue. The issue is about whether someone who knows something about someone else is free to say it. It’s all about the individual’s right to freedom of speech.

And I take a pretty hard line on this: the law should not be used to prohibit anyone from speaking the truth. Yes, there is a strong case for preventing the media reporting information about private individuals that has been obtained illegally. But beyond that, freedom of speech trumps other considerations.

Of course, I couldn’t care less which footballer has been sleeping with which z-list celebrity. And I’d much prefer to live in a society where other people didn’t care either. But my tastes don’t matter. Freedom of speech does. End of story.

Ultimately, Eamonn is right: if you live in the public eye, you shouldn’t do anything that you’re not prepared to see reported in the News of the World. It might not be fair. It might be a sign of cultural degradation. But that's the way it is. The lawyers don't get a say in the matter.