Who’s watching the watchers?

By Bill Dewison

The Roman poet Juvenal asked “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”, which translated means “Who will guard the guards themselves?” or “Who watches the watchers?” and it is as relevant a question as it ever was.

Since the terror attacks in both America and London, Western governments have gone into overdrive, introducing new laws and procedures to protect their citizens ranging from tighter passport controls to the formation of specialist units to help tackle the threat of terrorism from extremist groups from around the world. While many of these have been introduced with seemingly the best of intentions, critics are constantly questioning whether they infringe our civil liberties and whether they are open to wide scale abuse.

The most recent crime fighting anti-terror tool to be introduced is the ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) camera network which is hailed as one of the best intelligence-led policing tools available. The network uses existing CCTV cameras, combines it with ANPR software and provides a huge amount of information on the movement of vehicles all around the UK. The intention is to have a centrally controlled database, accessible by the police in England, Wales and Scotland. Numerous police chiefs have been questioned by the BBC about the network and the response has been that it will lead to a more crimes being solved, help to avert terror attacks and generally we have nothing to fear about how the police will use and store the data gathered.

However, the BBC also reported on an anti-war protester, John Catt. The pensioner from Brighton attended a protest meeting and his car was marked by police, adding him to a hotlist of other vehicles. This information was later used whilst Mr Catt was visiting London to pull him to the side of the road and question him under the terrorist act. Mr Catt has no criminal record, no history of being involved with terrorists or anything remotely related to terrorism, so his questioning could be perceived as a hiccup. It could have been a simple error; the anti-terror police may have just acted innocently and questioned him thoroughly as a matter of routine. Then again, they may have seen this Brighton pensioner as a potential terrorist threat because he attended a protest meeting.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the laws, legislation or changes to procedures and the use of the latest technologies is always going to help with the fight against crime and terrorism, but given these new powers, who is ultimately responsible for ensuring collected data is stored and used correctly? Should the police be able to use the technology against anyone at anytime, or should checks be put in place to limit the use? Should someone be watching the watchers?