Elizabethgorrie’s Blog

If you have any embarrassing photos or messages on social networking sites, such as Facebook, Bebo and MySpace,  you might think twice about keeping them there. Especially after it was revealed this week that the government plans to monitor the private correspondence of the millions of people who use these sites.

These proposals, pioneered by the Home Office, are part of a new initiative to fight crime and terrorism in the UK. It is understood that, provided Parliament passes these plans, details from such virtual sites, namely users’ contacts, phone calls, e-mails and internet visits, will be stored on a database. Ministers are also considering policing messages sent via these sites.

The Home Office maintains that: “The government has no interest in the context of people’s social network sites and this is not going to be part of our upcoming consultation”.

Contrary to this the main priority is to tackle the crime gangs and terrorists who may use these sites. Yet data revealing who each person has communicated with will be logged, regardless of their links, or lack of links, to crime or terrorism.

Following the July 2005 bombings in London, a European Union directive called for e-mails and internet usage to be tracked as a guard against any future terrorist attacks. The increasing popularity of social networking sites like Facebook has however given rise to a fear that criminals or terrorists could use them to their advantage, conscious that they are currently not monitored by security services.

These proposals are facing hostility from all directions including opposition parties and privacy campaigners. Currently there is no fully developed law protecting privacy in the UK, though these online sites do provide users with privacy settings, allowing only their contacts to view personal information.

Many believe the government should also abide by these restrictions, including Liberal Democrat Tom Brake. Speaking to the Independent newspaper Brake said:

“It is deeply worrying that they now intend to monitor social networking sites which contain very sensitive data like sexual orientation, religious beliefs and political views”. He added that it is “the most expensive snooper’s charter in history”.

On Number 10’s website a petition has been set-up demanding that this government initiative is not passed. Similarly on Facebook a number of protest groups have already been created such as ‘No to government monitoring Facebook’.

Privacy is a rather irresolute topic and the Home Office recognises this admitting that it is an “extremely difficult area. It is right to point out the difficulty of ensuring that we maintain a capability to deal with crime and national security…where that butts up against issues of privacy”.

Britain appears to be balancing on a double-edged sword. No one can argue that terrorism is a direct threat to our country and all prevention efforts need to be executed. Yet as Big Brother slowly creeps into our own lives, people are feeling that they, the innocent ones, are nevertheless under scrutiny. Facebook’s chief privacy officer Chris Kelly highlights this, describing government plans as “overkill”.

There are doubts whether this proposal will even work. One security expert from Trend Micro states: “If national governments and law enforcement organisations truly believe that online criminals and international terrorists don’t know how to hide their online traces, then we have a bigger problem than we thought”.

Yet perhaps the biggest concern protesters share lies with the government’s infiltration into our personal lives. In February the Home Office announced that a new secret government database (part of the e-Borders programme) will soon be tracking the travel plans of all UK citizens. In addition to recording names, addresses and travel itineraries the intelligence centre will hold details of seat reservations and travel companions.

For some people this week’s announcement has taken things too far.

Moreover the government does not boast a very commendable track record when it comes to protecting sensitive information.  In June 2008 terror documents were left on the seat of a commuter train from London, Waterloo. October 2008 saw a computer hard drive disappear which contained personal details of one hundred thousand members of the Armed Forces. In November 2008 a memory stick with passwords for a government computer system were found in a pub car park in Staffordshire.

Without commenting on the ability of officers to safeguard data the Home Office maintains that this latest proposal is only to “ensure greater security. We have no way of knowing whether Osama bin Laden is chatting to Abu Hamza on Facebook. Or terrorists could be having a four-way chat on Skype”.

It does not seem that there will ever be a definitive answer to this debate. National security is of the utmost importance. Yet where do we draw the line concerning governmental involvement in our social and in many ways personal lives? These questions will likely be contested for a long time to come, regardless of the conclusion to this particular story.