Free speech, safe spaces and hypocrisy

The unedifying ‘scuffle’ at Jacob Rees-Mogg’s appearance at the University of the West of England has provoked a great deal of reaction – some of it distinctly over-the-top. Precisely what happened, who started the fight and why, remains a little unclear – and is not the topic of this post. It is Theresa May’s reaction, to suggest a new law to protect MPs against intimidation, that is more interesting for those of us who are interested in freedom of speech – not only in its practice but its purpose.

The need for a new law is at best contentious – there is already plenty of law to deal with threats and intimidation, public order law, law to protect against harassment and much more – and it is entirely possible that nothing will materialise from Theresa May’s pronouncement other than a few headlines in the Daily Mail. The reasons behind the desire for the law, however, reveal a lot about Theresa May and those who share her views. Effectively, though she and they would be very unlikely to use the words, they’re looking for a ‘safe space’ for MPs. This, coming from the same people who have been actively campaigning against ‘safe spaces’ in universities for others, has more than a whiff of hypocrisy about it. It is, however, remarkably familiar. Many – perhaps most – of those who claim to be great champions of free speech are often very keen on protecting the free speech of people like them, or of people who share their views, but far less keen on providing the same protection for those they disagree with.

Safe Spaces can be a good thing

What the supporters of a law to protect MPs from intimidation might understand, if they thought a little further, is that safe spaces can be a good thing. If we want a civilised debate, if we want people not to be intimidated into silence, if we want to encourage those whose voices are rarely heard, then a supportive – or at the very least not threatening – environment really helps. Theresa May understands that for MPs – because she understands MPs, and supports them in that role. That much is easy – making the leap to understand that others need that protection and that safety too seems to be much harder.

Safe Spaces can be a bad thing

On the other hand, if the creation of a ‘safe space’ is to stop particular voices being challenged, it is not so clearly a good thing – and that may well be what happens at times. For debate to function, challenging needs to be possible – banning hecklers and protestors is not always a good thing. Drawing a line is not always easy – as the UWE fracas showed. The initial protest, and indeed Jacob Rees-Mogg’s first response to it, seemed relatively civilised and harmless. Protest is a critical part of freedom of speech – the vehemence with which authoritarian regimes deal with it should at least give pause for thought. The idea that Donald Trump might only visit the UK if Theresa May stops protests is not something we should accept, for example.

Safe Spaces for whom?

What should give us even more pause for thought is who we need to provide safe spaces for, and why – and this is where the idea that we should legislate for safe spaces for MPs whilst actively working against safe spaces for others feels particularly wrong. MPs already have plenty of ‘safe spaces’ to air their views. Parliament itself, for one. The studios of all the TV and radio broadcasters. Columns in major newspapers and magazines. Others – particularly vulnerable or marginalised people and groups – have almost no access to these. They have neither freedom of speech in practice nor safe spaces in which to hear others. They don’t have powerful friends and allies to open doors, provide platforms – or bring in legislation.

That is the thing about rights – and human rights in particular. The main need for those rights is for the relatively weak, to protect them from the relatively strong. People with strength and power already have many means to protect themselves – in free speech terms, they have many ways to express themselves and a ready audience to listen. For others none of that is true – and that is what we need to remember.

Free speech is not simple – it is messy and complicated, nuanced and difficult to find our way through. That complication needs to be taken on board – because free speech is also really important. We should be particularly wary of those proclaiming themselves champions of free speech – what they are championing is often at best an oversimplification, and often a complete distortion. In Theresa May’s case, it may be even worse. The kind of law envisaged would not support free speech – it would support the powerful against the weak. It should be thoroughly resisted.

Guest Post: Your Immigration Status, Please!

Guest post by Matthew White

Graphic 1

On 21 September 2017, the Guardian published an article warning that from January 2018, UK banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70 million current accounts. 70 million?

Graphic 2

The article continues that this measure is expected to identify 6000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation. Accounts that are identified will be closed down or frozen, to make it difficult to maintain a settled life in the UK. This is said to act as a powerful incentive for an agreement on voluntary departure so money can be secured once they’ve left the country. Hang on, if accounts can be closed or frozen, how are home returners supposed to pay for leaving the UK if they can only access their money after they have left?

Emoji 1Emoji 2

Of course, the Home Office may contribute up to £2000 for an assisted return (in 6% of cases) but this does not apply to immigration offenders, European Economic Area (EEA) citizens etc (I’m watching you post-Brexit Britain). Speaking to the Guardian, Satbir Singh, the chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, pointed out that

“The government’s own record shows it cannot be trusted even to implement this system properly. Immigration status is very complex, and the Home Office consistently gives out incorrect information and guidance…Migrants and ethnic minorities with every right to be here will be affected by the imposition of these new checks.”

This is hard to disagree with given that the Home Office ‘accidently’ sent out 100 letters to European Union (EU) citizens warning them to leave or face removal, defied UK courts, has a high error rate which all contributes to the hostile environment the Guardian refers to.

What is the Hostile Environment?

This began with the then Home Secretary (now Prime Minister) Theresa May in an interview with the Telegraph where said:

“The aim is to create here in Britain a really hostile environment for illegal migration… What we don’t want is a situation where people think that they can come here and overstay because they’re able to access everything they need.”

Colin Yeo describes it as a:

“[P]ackage of measures designed to make life so difficult for individuals without permission to remain that they will not seek to enter the UK to begin with or if already present will leave voluntarily.”

This includes ‘measures to limit access to work, housing, health care, bank accounts and to reduce and restrict rights of appeal against Home Office decisions’ (ibid). The defining feature is the reliance on indirect means to encourage compliance with and punish breaches of immigration control (ibid) effectively turning the UK into a nation of border cops.

So, what is the legal basis for latest in the Hostile Environment Saga?

As Yeo highlights, the legal basis for this new measure appears to come from Schedule 7 of the Immigration Act 2014 (IA 2014) which inserts s.40A into the IA 2014. Section 40(A)(1) requires banks and building societies to carry out immigration checks (specified by regulations) into each current account which is not an excluded account. Excluded accounts consists of accounts used for purposes of trade, business or profession, which can be found in Regulation 2 of the IA 2014 (Current Accounts) (Excluded Accounts and Notification Requirements) Regulations 2017. Section 40B concerns the bank or building societies duty to notify the existence of current accounts for disqualified persons. A disqualified person is spelt out in s.40(A)(3) of the IA 2014, is a person who is in the UK, does not have leave to remain and for the Secretary of State to consider the account to be frozen (see s.40D and E of the IA 2014 respectively).

The Regulation responsible for the immigration checks made under s.40(A)(1) of the IA 2014 can be found in the Immigration Act 2014 (Current Accounts) (Compliance &c) Regulations 2016. Regulation 2 notes that immigration checks must be carried out during each successive quarter of each year. Four times a year, every year! So, these ridiculous powers appear to have a sound legal basis, I guess that is the end of that chapter, right? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Give me a E, give me a C, give me a H, give me a R:

That pesky human rights document that the UK helped draft all them years ago just won’t stop being a pain in its ass. Yes, I am referring to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Why is this relevant? Because as Yeo correctly notes the hostile environment measures have great potential of intruding into people’s private lives. And what does Article 8 of the ECHR protect? Private life. For those who are unfamiliar with probably the most elusive (Luke Clements, Nuala Mole, and Alan Simmons, EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS: TAKING A CASE UNDER THE CONVENTION p. 176 (2d ed. 1999)) Convention Right, it states that:

  1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
  2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

In a nutshell, this Article says that the State should leave us the hell alone in the enjoyment of these rights (negative obligations). This is not absolute, and there are certain circumstances in which the State can intervene (as detailed in Article 8(2)), there may even be instances where the State has failed to intervene and thus failed to protect Article 8 rights based on positive obligations (X and Y v Netherlands, (para 23)).

For this blog, only the aspect of private life will be considered. For Article 8 to be applicable, it first has to be engaged/triggered/interfered with, and because private life is not susceptible to exhaustive definition (Bărbulescu v Romania, (para 70)), this is easy-peasy to establish. Immigration checks requires the processing of personal data which is detailed in many data protection instruments, and as such involves an interference with private life (Amann v Switzerland, (paras 65-7)). The mere fact that personal data is even stored interferes with Article 8 whatever the subsequent use of said data (S and Marper, (para 67)). This is due to the protection of personal data being of fundamental importance to the enjoyment of private life (ibid, (para 103)).  There are various other ways in which Article 8 could be engaged, whether it is based on removal (which would also interfere with ‘family life’ (Al-Nashif v Bulgaria, (para 102-103)) and ‘home’ (Slivenko and others v Latvia, (para 96)), or disrupting professional activities (Niemietz v Germany, (para 29) etc. Once interference has been established, this must be ‘in accordance with the law’ and ‘necessary in a democratic society.’

In Accordance with the Law:

Here comes some legal Kung Fu. The first legal test of whether a measure complies with human rights is to determine whether the law is ‘in accordance with the law.’ Essentially whether the law itself is lawful. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have ruled extensively on the matter and has set out some clear requirements. The law has to have some basis in domestic law (M.M. v UK, (para 193)), and has to have quality e.g. be accessible and foreseeable (S and Marper, (para 95).

This first requirement of having some basis in domestic law is satisfied due to the power to compel banks and building societies comes from an Act of Parliament which enables Regulations to be created to that effect. The law will probably also satisfy accessibility because its published online (Leander v Sweden, paras 52-3). Now, foreseeability is a little trickier, a law is foreseeable if it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable any individual – if need be with appropriate advice – to regulate their conduct (Amann v Switzerland, (para 56). This ensures there are adequate indication of the conditions and circumstances in which the authorities are empowered to resort to any such measures (Uzun v Germany, (para 61). After all:

[I]t would be contrary to the rule of law for the discretion granted to the executive or to a judge to be expressed in terms of an unfettered power. Consequently, the law must indicate the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference…(Szabo and Vissy v Hungary, (paras 230-1).

Forgive the dense legal jargon, but correct me if I’m wrong, the power to compel banks and building societies to conduct immigration checks applies to all current accounts, yeah? In addition to this, these checks occur four times a year every year. So, first of all, where is the adequate indication that the state will resort to these measures if they affect every current account? Yeah, there isn’t any because they affect every current account. What are the circumstances for when an immigration check may occur (like for example, when there is reason to suspect (Roman Zakharov, (para 260) this current account belongs to someone who has outstayed their visa)? That’s right, the law says nothing on this. So, if this affects 70 million accounts and the Home Office is looking to catch 6000 (where did this figure even come from btw?) people, then 69994000 (assuming there are no multiple current accounts by overstayers) current accounts have just been screened for no reason at all. This is a textbook example of arbitrary interference due to the unfettered power this law provides. So, in a nutshell, this law is not foreseeable because it does not indicate when and in what circumstances a current account may be screened, it affects all current accounts, arbitrarily interferes with Article 8 rights, and grants unfettered powers. Therefore, (you guessed it) the power to compel immigration checks on current accounts is not in accordance with the law, and thus violates Article 8. Did I miss anything? Oh yes, the next human rights test.

Necessary in a Democratic Society:

Finding that s.40(A)(1) of the IA 2014 is not in accordance with the law usually means it is no longer necessary to consider whether such measures are ‘necessary in a democratic society’ (M.M., (para 207); Amann, (para 63)). I could have finished this blog post in the previous paragraph, but where is the fun in that (Kurić and others v Slovenia, (para 350))?

For a measure to be ‘necessary in a democratic society’ interfering with said rights must correspond to ‘pressing social need,’ whether it was ‘proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued,’ and ‘whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it are relevant and sufficient’ (S and Marper, (para 101)).

Pressing social need:

Are these blanket checks necessary? After all, ‘necessary’ is not synonymous with ‘indispensable’ but that doesn’t mean it’s as flexible as ‘desirable,’ ‘reasonable’ or ‘useful’ either (Handyside v United Kingdom, (para 48)). Therefore, relying on its utility (proven or unproven) is not enough and the state requires a greater justification (Pullen & Ors -v- Dublin City Council, (para 12(c)). The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) have pointed out that ‘[t]here must be a sufficient factual basis for believing that there was a real danger to the interest which the State claims there was a pressing social need to protect’ (Joint Committee on Human Rights, First Report (HL 42/HC 296, 23 April 2001), Annex 2).

So, are these measures necessary? Let’s consider the justifications for them from the impact assessment. The Government argue that they want to catch irregular migrants who created current accounts before it was lawful to run immigration checks when they were first set up or those who created current accounts lawfully but subsequently became irregular (so you know, all migrants are kinda suspects now). The next sentence is very suspect, the Government said they want banks and building societies to check the accounts of known irregular migrants which is a tad different from requiring them to check every current account, four times a year, just in case. The impact assessment later acknowledges the process of immigration checks is to check every current account for matches (ibid, para 20), so essentially a panoptic sort (Oscar H. Gandy Jr, The Panoptic Sort: A Political Economy Of Personal Information (Critical Studies in Communication and in the Cultural Industries) 1993 Westview Press). The impact assessment does not consider the impact on human rights, particularly Article 8 for example (SO HOW DO THEY KNOW IT IS COMPLIANT? OH WAIT…), the fact that bank details are processed for another purpose unconnected to its original purpose of processing (purpose limitation). The impact assessment does not entertain the possibility of only checking current accounts where there are reasonable and objective grounds to believe it belongs to an irregular migrant. Furthermore, the impact assessment acknowledges that after the first year, only about 900 matches will be made (ibid, para 20) even though 70 million current accounts will be checked four times a year. In essence the immigration checks are done ‘haphazardly, irregularly or without due and proper consideration’ (Roman Zakharov, (para 257)). There might be a pressing social need to remove over stayers by checking current accounts that are linked to them, but there can be no pressing social need that subjects every current account to the whims of a Government hell bent cementing its hostile environment. And on a deeper level, what has the right to live in the UK have to do with having a current account? This link is never established and so weakens the justifications for this measure further. Not establishing a pressing social need for such wide-reaching powers would too violate the ECHR (Faber v Hungary, (para 59)).

Relevant and sufficient:

This mainly concerns the effectiveness of the measure which relies upon factual, statistical, or empirical information as to the effectiveness of a certain measure (Janneke Gerards, ‘How to improve the necessity test of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2013) I•CON 11:2 466, p473). The effectiveness of the impact assessment is based purely on guesstimation as the impact assessment admits (impact assessment, para 24). The Home Office and HM Treasury would conduct an informal review 12 months after implementation to ensure effectiveness (impact assessment, para 24). Not only is there no evidence to back up any assertions i.e. pilot studies etc, the Governmental department for controlling immigration will assess its own effectiveness (that’s some independence right there), which is not even guaranteed because this is not mandated by the IA 2014, but there is no explanation of what ‘informal review’ means. Sounds a bit cloak and dagger substituting intrigue with concern. A measure is not sufficient just because its subject-matter fell within a particular category or was caught by a legal rule formulated in general or absolute terms (Sunday Times v UK, (para 65)). Not only is there no evidence to justify this measure, the screening subjects all current accounts to a rule formulated in general terms i.e. by virtue of having a current account, your immigration status will be checked. Even if the justifications were relevant, this does not mean they are sufficient, and a lack sufficient reasons too would violate the ECHR (ibid, (paras 63 and 67)).

Proportionality:

This test comes in many flavours (Thomas Hickman, ‘Proportionality: Comparative Law Lessons’ (2007) 12 Jud. Rev. 31.) but two aspects from the ECHR perspective will be considered for this blog post. The two aspects are whether the measure was the least restrictive to obtain the objective, and whether a fair balance has been struck.

The least restrictive measure (LRM) is exactly what it is, don’t use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, we have nutcrackers for that (Eva Brems and Laurens Lavrysen ‘‘Don’t Use a Sledgehammer to Crack a Nut’: Less Restrictive Means in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2015) HRLR 15 139-168, p140). By virtue of checking all current accounts (which leads to net loss, p11) instead of checking accounts where there is reason to believe it is linked with an irregular migrant, a sledgehammer has indeed been used.

With regards to striking the fair balance, the ECtHR has never been a fan of indiscriminate powers (S and Marper, (para 125); Kennedy v UK, (para 160)) because it fails to strike a fair balance. So, checking all current accounts is an indiscriminate power, and too would violate the ECHR (S and Marper, (para 126)). The disproportionality intensifies because the interference caused by immigration checks are indefinite in that it occurs four times a year every year until, well, the Government feels like it and the fact that the number likely to be caught are miniscule in comparison to the amount of current accounts checked.

Oh, but we’re checking immigration status regardless of nationality:

This is what a Barclays spokesperson said to the Guardian regarding the new law. I am not suggesting nationality should be the basis for the exercise of power, but as I’ve pointed out above, indiscriminate powers such as these are not compatible with the ECHR. There is another reason why this is not compatible with the ECHR, and that is because of Article 14, which is the anti-discrimination right. Its only applicable when a Convention Right is engaged, in this case, Article 8, and this is where Barclays’s stance (through no fault of their own of course as they are complying with the law) becomes problematic. Indiscriminate powers triggers what is known as Thlimmenos discrimination in that:

[T]he right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is also violated when States without an objective and reasonable justification fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different (Thlimmenos v Greece, (para 44)).

And so, the position is this, ‘If there is no reason to suspect I am an irregular migrant, why are you running an immigration check on me?’ ‘Where is your objective reasonable justification for singling me out?’ ‘You want to catch 6000 people in your first year, and 900 every year there in after, if I’m not on your list why again are you running an immigration check and furthermore, once I’ve been ruled out, why are you still checking my immigration status four times a year every year?’ ‘You know why you can’t answer these questions? Because you don’t have an answer.’ ‘Do you know what this means? You’ve violated Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14’ (ibid, (para 55)).

Conclusions:

Natalie Bloomer and Samir Jeraj point out that Prime Minister May’s obsession with immigration has turned Britain into a surveillance state. Sadly, we have been a surveillance state for some time before the hostile environment even took form. We are going through a phase where hard won fundamental rights are slowly being nibbled away, each and every measure may seem mundane at the time it was enacted, but this has only emboldened the state to ever-more take the next logical step in cementing hold as a surveillance state whether it be through the hostile environment or electronic mass surveillance. Liberty dies by inches (Verena Zöller, ‘Liberty Dies by Inches: German Counter-Terrorism Measures and Human Rights’ (2004) German Law Journal 5:5 469) and becomes under severe threats from populist movements. This post didn’t really consider the data protection implications of this measure, but the Information Commissioner has linked Article 8 to unlawful processing, so there’s that. What this post has sought to do, is highlight at every legal hurdle, the powers that mandate immigration checks on current accounts, fails.

 

The Twelve Days of Brexit

On the first day of Brexit

My true love sent to me

A Nigel, telling porkies.

Farage Santa Ill

On the second day of Brexit

My true love sent to me

Big lies on buses

And a Nigel, telling porkies

Farage Santa Ill

On the third day of Brexit

My true love sent to me

Sly grins from bosses

Big lies on buses

And a Nigel, telling porkies.

Farage Santa Ill

On the fourth day of Brexit

My true love sent to me

Many job losses

Sly grins from bosses

Big lies on buses

And a Nigel, telling porkies.

Farage Santa Ill

On the fifth day of Brexit

My true love sent to me

Fake Sov-reign-ty

Many job losses

Sly grins from bosses

Big lies on buses

And a Nigel, telling porkies.

Farage Santa Ill

On the sixth day of Brexit

My true love sent to me

Giles Fraser’s vestments

Fake Sov-reign-ty

Many job losses

Sly grins from bosses

Big lies on buses

And a Nigel, telling porkies.

Farage Santa Ill

On the seventh day of Brexit

My true love sent to me

No impact assessments

Giles Fraser’s vestments

Fake Sov-reign-ty

Many job losses

Sly grins from bosses

Big lies on buses

And a Nigel, telling porkies.

Farage Santa Ill

On the eighth day of Brexit

My true love sent to me

Eight prices rising

No impact assessments

Giles Fraser’s vestments

Fake Sov-reign-ty

Many job losses

Sly grins from bosses

Big lies on buses

And a Nigel, telling porkies.

Farage Santa Ill

On the ninth day of Brexit

My true love sent to me

Nine factories closing

Eight prices rising

No impact assessments

Giles Fraser’s vestments

Fake Sov-reign-ty

Many job losses

Sly grins from bosses

Big lies on buses

And a Nigel, telling porkies.

Farage Santa Ill

On the tenth day of Brexit

My true love sent to me

Ten lords-a-lying

Nine factories closing

Eight prices rising

No impact assessments

Giles Fraser’s vestments

Fake Sov-reign-ty

Many job losses

Sly grins from bosses

Big lies on buses

And a Nigel, telling porkies.

Farage Santa Ill

On the eleventh day of Brexit

My true love sent to me

Eleven racist hate crimes

Ten lords-a-lying

Nine factories closing

Eight prices rising

No impact assessments

Giles Fraser’s vestments

Fake Sov-reign-ty

Many job losses

Sly grins from bosses

Big lies on buses

And a Nigel, telling porkies.

Farage Santa Ill

On the Twelfth day of Brexit

My true love sent to me

Twelve sad deportings

Eleven racist hate crimes

Ten lords-a-lying

Nine factories closing

Eight prices rising

No impact assessments

Giles Fraser’s vestments

Fake Sov-reign-ty

Many job losses

Sly grins from bosses

Big lies on buses

And a Nigel, telling porkies.

Farage Santa Ill

Listen to the privacy geeks…

The story of Google’s AI subsidiary DeepMind took a not-unexpected turn this week when the ICO ruled that the Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust failed to comply with the Data Protection Act when it provided patient details to DeepMind. This is the latest step in a saga that looks set to rumble on for some time – and one from which there are many, many lessons to be learned. One of those – sadly one that does not seem likely to be heeded as much as it should be – is that those involved in projects like this should pay more attention to those who can loosely be described as ‘privacy geeks’.

Two in particular have been critically involved in this process – Hal Hodson (@halhod) and Julia Powles (@juliapowles). Hal started the ball rolling with a serious piece of investigative journalism in New Scientist in April 2016, which brought the issue to light, and as well as further journalistic work Hal and Julia wrote a piece of ‘proper’ academic work – ‘Google DeepMind and healthcare in an age of algorithms’ in the journal Healthcare and Technology. This led, ultimately, to the ICO’s investigation and ruling – though it has to be noted that the ICO’s ruling is on DeepMind’s trial with the Royal Free: the real test will be when DeepMind’s work rolls out. The ICO has asked the Royal Free, amongst other things, to do a full ‘privacy impact assessment’ prior to further work. That they did not do so prior to the previous trial is one of the serious shortcomings of the project. As Julia Powles put it in the Guardian yesterday:

“The ruling states that by transferring this data and using it for app testing, the Royal Free breached four data protection principles, as well as patient confidentiality under the common law. The transfer was not fair, transparent, lawful, necessary or proportionate. Patients wouldn’t have expected it, they weren’t told about it and their information rights weren’t available to them.”

These are serious matters – and they could have been avoided, if only DeepMind had listened to the right people. To the privacy geeks. That they didn’t is part of a pattern that has been seen on many occasions in the past. It was one of the reasons the Samaritans, one of the most respected charities in the world, launched their ill-conceived and ill-fated Twitter app Samaritans Radar – which had to be abandoned within ten days. It was one of the reasons that NHS England’s massive data project ‘care.data’ failed. Going further back, it was why the behavioural advertising firm Phorm failed – after conducting secret trials monitoring thousands of people’s web activity back in 2006 – and what led to all those annoying ‘cookie warnings’ you see at the top of websites.

In all these cases, the warning signs were there, if only the people involved had been willing to listen. The same will happen again – because the privacy geeks know what they’re doing. All too often those involved in these kinds of projects – people from businesses and from big public sector organisations – see those who raise concerns as either easily-dismissed tinfoil-hat-wearing consipiracy theorists, or as people who can cause a little trouble on Twitter but little more than that. Nothing to be taken seriously, little more than an annoyance. More, they’re seen as barriers to innovation, people just raising trouble for its own sake, luddites or worse.

None of this is true. Firstly, the people involved – whether they’re journalists, academics or ‘activists’ (and often they wear more than one of those hats) are often genuine experts. Hal Hodson’s degree from Trinity College Dublin is in Astrophysics, for example, whilst Julia Powles has a PhD in Law from Cambridge. Their concerns aren’t foolish, the issues they raise aren’t just for the sake of it.

Secondly, they know how to use the media – both the social media and the ‘traditional’ media. Hal’s original work was in the New Scientist, and he’s now The Economist’s Technology Correspondent. Julia writes regularly for the Guardian. Both know people all over the media and academia – and they’re far from alone. The failure of care.data and Samaritans Radar involved different people (there are many of us) but similar patterns – blogs, articles in the mainstream media, academic attention and more.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the people involved are far from a barrier to innovation. I have labelled them (and I’m very much one of them!) ‘geeks’ for a reason. We’re not geeks only about privacy – we’re real geeks. We like technology, we like innovation. We play with all the new technological toys, and see the potential in all kinds of directions – but we want these innovations to work for the people, to work responsibly, to be sustainable. Indeed, this last point is critical – it is a central tenet of much of my own academic work that if privacy is not considered properly, it is not just that a project should fail, but that it will fail. People will reject it – who now remembers the wonderful Google Glass, for example? Despite the sexy technology and the backing of Google’s deep pockets it died a death. It may well re-emerge at some point, but it need not have failed…

…and the same is true of many other projects. There are some great ideas, great innovations, that could avoid suffering the fate of Samaritans Radar, care.data and Google Glass. If they are to do so, the people involved should start listening to the privacy geeks, and sooner rather than later. Don’t see us as the enemy. Don’t try to hide what you do – it is very tempting to do everything you can ‘under the radar’, but when it is revealed  it looks even worse. That was true of DeepMind’s deal with the Royal Free – and was just as true about Phorm’s ‘secret trials’ with BT and others back in 2006. One thing that people really should have learned is that these things do get discovered, one way or another. When they do, and it looks as though they’ve been done secretly or without proper scrutiny, they look even worse than they are.

It can all be avoided – but it rarely is. Sadly I expect to have to write similar pieces to this many times in the future.

A poem for Brexit

A year ago

We threw it away

But we live to fight

Another day

We won’t give up

We’ll keep on going

You were sold a pup

And now that’s showing

The lies, the hate

The wounds are sore

But Britain’s great

And we mean more

When we can find

What we can share

And ties that bind

And show we care.

The Return of Mr Gove!

The Return of Mr Gove Cover

Mr Gove was Back.

He had always known he would be. A Prodigious Talent like his could not be held down for long. He knew that even Little Miss Maybot would recognise that eventually, and she was generally almost completely unaware of anything going on around her at all. In her Hour of Need, Mr Gove knew she would come to him. And she did.

So he was Back.

Of course if he had been in charge instead of Little Miss Maybot, they would never have been in the pickle they were now. Mr Gove would never have let that awful Mr Corbyn get nearly so close – because Mr Gove had a Winning Personality and Endless Charm, unlike Little Miss Maybot. Now, that Winning Personality and Endless Charm would be brought to bear.

And everything would be better from now on.

Mr Gove Close up

Mr Gove had been a little worried that it would take a bit longer to return.

Some people had not really understood that his decision to throw Mr Blowhard under a bus – and not even a bus with ‘£350m a week to the EU’ painted on the side – had actually shown that Mr Gove was loyal, trustworthy and a Good Friend. Still that was the past, and in the end they would realise how wrong they were.

At least Little Miss Maybot had begun to realise that she – and the country – needed Mr Gove. And she did. By Golly she did. Without him, the Tory Party had lost its way. It would be up to Mr Gove to save it, and to save the country.

And he could do it. He knew he could.

Mr Gove Super Close up

Little Miss Maybot had not been perceptive enough to give him one of the jobs he really deserved, but at least she had given him a job he was well suited for.

Of course he wasn’t an expert in Farming or the Environment – but everyone knew that Britain had had Enough of Experts. Mr Gove did, however, know more about Farming and the Environment than he had about education – after all, he had visited a farm a couple of times when he was ten, and once been for a ramble in the Cotswolds – and his time as the Secretary of State for Education had been an Absolute Triumph.  Everyone knew that.

And being in charge of the Environment was great too. At least there wasn’t any of that awkward ‘science’ stuff involved – the stuff that had caused him so much trouble when he was in education. Everyone knew that the environment wasn’t anything to do with science. All that lefty ‘climate change’ rubbish could be quickly shelved – and quite right too!

Mr Gove Super Close up 2

And now that his other Great Triumph had come to pass – Brexit – he had plenty more Good News to tell the farmers.

They would be so happy, he was sure, that Brexit had relieved them of all those terrible subsidies that were plaguing them with paperwork and money.  Farmers were like that. Strong. Independent. They didn’t like getting money from those faceless Eurocrats.

And they’d be delighted to contribute more to the Europeans when the tariffs started to kick in.

And absolutely ecstatic that they no longer had to use any of those young, healthy and hardworking European labourers that they’d been using for the last few years. Things would be much better when they’d replaced them with British workers.

Oh yes.

Mr Gove smiled to himself when he thought about it. Everyone was going to be happy with Mr Gove. And the world would be right again.

Mr Gove was back.

The Return of Mr Gove Cover

A few words on Labour

My own particular ‘lefty-Labour-Twitter-Bubble’ has been enjoying itself in the aftermath of the surprisingly non-depressing election result. I mean, who could possibly not have enjoyed the humiliation of Theresa May?

The analyses of Labour’s performance has been a little less straightforward – which is not surprising given the seemingly enormous divide amongst the people I follow, which include strong Corbyn fans and equally strong Corbyn enemies. Most have been able to simply enjoy the result, but there have been two other analyses offered, both on that Labour could and perhaps should have done even better (more of which later).

Firstly, from the pro-Corbyn people, if only the Blairites hadn’t been undermining Corbyn for the last two years, Labour could have won.

Secondly, from the anti-Corbyn people, if only Labour had had a decent leader, Labour would have won.

Both these arguments have two clear virtues: they’re entirely unprovable and they totally vindicate the positions that had been taken by those advocating them for the last few years.  I have more sympathy for the first argument than the second, but neither, for me, is very helpful. The past has happened – the sniping (and worse) happened. And the idea that this result leaves open the possibility of ousting Corbyn is as much a denial of reality as Theresa May claiming it’s given her a resounding mandate. Corbyn will be leading Labour for quite some time!

The key now is to think about what happens next. This is a massive opportunity for unity – and MPs (and commentators) could and should swallow their pride and acknowledge Corbyn’s success. Yes, Theresa May inflicted a lot of wounds on herself, but that’s not the whole story. And don’t forget that this election was set up by May, for May, for the maximum disadvantage for Corbyn. Labour was rock-bottom in the polls, riven by division, caught unprepared, faced by a massively hostile media – and still put together a fine manifesto and a coherent and principled campaign. There were hiccups and messes – there always are – but relatively few. The enthusiasm and positivity- and the competence overcame them.

It would be great to see Labour take this chance to unite. For apologies and acknowledgement rather than point-scoring and revenge. 

I for one was quite wrong about how this campaign would go. I’ll happily admit it, and that I was wrong about a whole load of details as well as the big picture. Sometimes it’s great to have been wrong.