Silkie Carlo, the director of Big Brother Watch, said it was ironic the new prime minister was suggesting a greater use of facial matching on the same day that an EU-wide law largely banning real-time surveillance technology came into force.
“Expanding live facial recognition means millions of innocent Britons being subjected to automated ID checks,” said Carlo. “These are the surveillance tactics of China and Russia and Starmer seems ignorant of the civil liberties implications.”
I hope that our courts in western democracies are strong enough to stop these developments, but I fear they ara not. Once this kind of stuff is being attributed to (even completely unproven) “higher security” or “national security”, and once secret services run the software and identification routines, it will land in the same extra-legal space as internet mass surveillance already lives in: “No no, we’re not doing that. Okay, you got us, we’re doing it, but only in limited scope. Okay, you got us, we’re doing it on everyone, but it’s important for national security and we can’t disclose anything else”. And that’s usually when nothing can be done anymore about this, and laws and ethics will be outmaneuvered.
Governments worldwide will do anything to preserve their hegemony, except make living more tolerable.
Any potential movement against government overreach needs to counter every tactic they use. This means: communicating away from prying eyes and ears; using custom-made encryption when communicating remotely; full vetting of members, lest the movement be weakened; having a cell-based structure; knowing all the psychological tricks the govt. uses; etc.
(I can say these things freely because I am not a part of any movement ;) Additionally, I am not advocating violence.)
