'Civil liberties? They're safe.' And if you believe that…

The government has yet to show why we should trust the security forces with sweeping new powers of surveillance

On the evening of Tuesday, 5 July 2005, I attended an invitation-only seminar at the London School of Economics. Those attending included academics, some experienced journalists, senior officers from the Metropolitan Police's counter-terrorism command and the security services and officials from the Home and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices. The purpose of the seminar was to discuss the difficulties that arise in media coverage of security issues.

One issue that surfaced early in the discussion was trust. Here's how one of the media people put it (I'm paraphrasing from memory).

"We all agree that some of the potential threats of al-Qaida-type terrorism – for example, the release of radioactive material or a biological agent in a crowded city – are so horrendous that democracies would be justified in taking the most draconian measures to counter them. Such measures would drastically curtail civil and even human rights.

"But we in the media are never in a position to assess whether measures proposed by security authorities are proportionate, rational or reasonable, because 'national security' prevents them from revealing the evidence that has led them to demand further intrusive powers. So we're left with a simple, unpalatable choice: trust the authorities or question the proposed measures and be pilloried for being irresponsible or unpatriotic. Read More