Oct 07, 2014, 15:53 pm
Last week, the UK Home Secretary pitched the current UK government's plan to ramp up anti-terror laws to further stamp out privacy and free speech rights in the UK. This week, Keith Bristow, director general of the National Crime Agency, doubled down by arguing that he needs to teach the public that of course they need to give up liberty if they want security. He argues that "public consent" is necessary, but that legislation is "public consent" and thus he needs to help convince the public (or, really, Parliament) to cough up some liberty.
Originally Published: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 18:17:11 GMT
source
Quote: He said: “If we seek to operate outside of what the public consent to, that, for me, by definition, is not policing by consent … the consent is expressed through legislation.”And while the famed Ben Franklin quote on "safety" v. "liberty" is mostly used out of context, that doesn't lessen the importance of the premise behind it. Giving up liberty for the sake of presumed (without evidence) security is a very dangerous game, often used by those who just wish for more control and power, not any actual concerns with safety and security.
He added that it was necessary to win “the public consent to losing some freedoms in return for greater safety and security”.
Originally Published: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 18:17:11 GMT
source