Edward Snowden - shame and hypocrisy

Demonstrators in Hong Kong express their views 

I find myself increasingly disgusted by the reactions of politicians and the media to the Snowden affair.  Those who have revealed what goes on inside the National Health Service, in spite of gagging clauses in their service contracts, have done so because of concerns about patient care.  Gagging clauses are now being abandoned, because of the perception that the public needs to know when abuse occurs.  However, when a member of the secret service discloses abuses of human rights the reactions are either muted or mealy-mouthed: "It's what everyone does" or "We're satisfied that there are extensive checks and balances to prevent abuse."

Statements of this kind don't cut much ice with Angela Merkel or François Hollande.  Nor should they.

It's curious that the European Union, so loathed by the Tory right, should be a more aggressive champion of human rights than our own national press.  With the exception of The Guardian, coverage has been woeful.    

The sheer extent of data interception by the Americans and British is staggering.  It's difficult to believe that the wholescale interception of email traffic between German citizens is necessary - or indeed that it is undertaken by other nations.  As far as the British are concerned, the conduct revealed may well be in accordance with English law.  But the relevant statute - the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000  - is far too permissive.  The intelligence services may apply for a warrant to intercept data (a) in the interests of national security; (b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime; (c) for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom or (d) to give effect to any international assistance agreement where there are circumstances involving the prevention or detection of serious crime.  Security and serious crime are understandable motivations for action.  But "economic well-being" is the vaguest of phrases that can cover a multitude of circumstances.  It is under this head, for example, that the UK has justified its bugging of the phones of foreign trade missions when negotiating trade agreements.  

As for the "checks and balances": application is made to the Secretary of State, not the courts.  In other words, a politician determines the outcome, not a lawyer.  The Secretary of State has to be convinced that the measures concerned are "proportionate and necessary".  These are weasel words: when the purpose is to safeguard the economic well-being of the UK almost anything can be justified.  

The likelihood of challenge is rendered virtually impossible by virtue of the fact that the existence of the warrant has to be kept secret.  

It is easy to be complacent about the State's intrusion into our private lives, comforted by the belief that government has our best interests at heart.  Alas, I am increasingly doubtful that the best interests of the British people as a whole are what motivate politicians: rather, it is their own survival in power, gauged by the extent to which they satisfy the requirements of relevant interest groups, such as the Press and the banking community - raising unpleasant comparisons with Presidents Mubarak and Assad.

I hope that the outrage of our European allies produces a little sense in the debate.  But I fear that weasel words are likely to win the day.  And the core values of a democatic society will be weaker as a result.

Antony Mair