To have the term used in a professional context, in one's relationship with the tax man, the police or the judiciary will, as Jeff Skilling discovered, quickly land you in prison.To be upright and updtanding, we are told, one needs to be honest, transparent and equitable. This has, for the most part, form the moral underpinning of the government's push towards identification systems: the DNA database, fingerprinting, CCTV, retina scanning on passports et cetera. You have nothing to fear, the argument goes, as long as you have nothing to hide. The implication being, if you are that bastion of moral goodness you will not object to having your laundry exposed to the eye of government.
However, there are two weaknesses to this argument. The first, is that it is based on the premise that that the government itself is truthful, honest and upright. Those who are keen to stress the importance of safeguards, checks and balances and chinese walls in ensuring government probity (probably rightly) assume the the current government can be trusted not to abuse the power such information will undoubtedly give them. However, what they miss is that for 99% of human history governments have not been like the one which we have become accustomed to over the last fifty years. Pretty much any analysis of any government system outside the West from the 1950s onwards can be depicted as a struggle for tyrannical control over its citizens.
Most of our history has been dominated by a succession of communists, fascists, monarchs, dictators, priests and ideologues who have been united in using any means within their power to control the population. Are we so naive to think that increasingly scarce resources, exponential population growth and global warming will not lead to the possibility of our government reverting to its historical pattern, and using this highly personal and powerful information against
the populations who submitted to have it taken from them?This leads me to my second, more controversial, point: that the methods of laws should always enable the possibility of a crime escaping detection. The reason for this, is that, when faced with a tyrannical regime, the normal routes for change lay in people breaking the law. History is again brimming with examples of those who resisted tyrannical government having to act illegally. The ANC, the Indian Independence Movement, the PLO, Solidarity and hundreds of others all acted illegally before improving the systems under which they were ruled. The principle that emerges from this observation is that a system which is capable of omnipresent and omnipotent rule is one which can be impervious to change.
The current neoconservative government push to 'protect' us by achieving an all-seeing eye and an all-knowing mind implicity takes us towards a closed system which cannot be changed from the outside. When history teaches us that the outside is the very place where moral and democratic improvements originate we should not seek to eliminate it with too much haste.
