FITUG e.V.
Förderverein Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft
FITUG e.V.Förderverein Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft |
|
------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Thu, 25 May 2000 17:46:28 -0500 To: nettime-l@bbs.thing.net From: Josephine Berry <josie@metamute.com> Subject: <nettime> Draconian Britain
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/freedom/Story/0,2763,223588,00.html
Four threats to the public's right to know
Bills going through parliament will hinder watchdog role of press and bolster state secrecy
Freedom of information: special report
Clare Dyer, Legal correspondent Monday May 22, 2000
Who first exposed the scandal of the high death rate of babies with heart defects in Bristol? Who warned that cows with BSE could pose a threat to humans, when the government was categorically denying there was any risk? In both cases, the early warnings came from the media. A probing, questioning press is the citizen's prime safeguard against an officialdom whose natural reaction is to try to hush things up. Britain's culture of secrecy is buttressed by harsh libel laws and weak rights of access to official information. The freedom of information bill, now going through parliament, gives fewer rights to official information than those enjoyed by citizens of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Irish Republic. In some respects, the rights are weaker than those under the last Tory government's open government code. But three other bills well on their way to enactment with much less media attention also threaten the public's right to know or the ability of journalists to perform their watchdog role: the local government bill, the terrorism bill, and the regulation of investigatory powers bill. The freedom of information bill has drawn criticism from MPs and peers of all parties, yet ministers have made minimal concessions and the bill is progressing through parliament in essence unchanged. There are blanket exemptions for whole categories of information. Not only are sensitive policy discussions excluded - a standard exemption under FOI legislation worldwide - but also the factual information on which policy decisions are based, which other governments make available to their citizens. Scientific advice, on BSE for example, opinion polls, and submissions by lobbyists would all be exempt. Where information was exempt, the new information commissioner would be able to order disclosure in the public interest, but a minister would be able to veto the order. Under a late concession, the veto would have to be exercised by a cabinet minister. But under Ireland's 1997 Freedom of Information Act, the information commissioner can compel disclosure on public interest grounds and cannot be overruled by ministers. The FOI bill covers local authorities, NHS trusts, quangos and a wide range of public bodies as well as government departments. Information gathered through investigations is exempt, even if the investigation is over and prosecutions finished. That rules out much information about safety hazards, including the Paddington rail crash, deaths on building sites, and data falsification by BNFL- the type of information which has proved a powerful tool in the US for holding careless companies to account. Police investigations are exempt too, despite the Macpherson report's recommendation that the police should be fully accountable under freedom of information laws. Another clause exempts "commercially confidential" information - the excuse already used by the government to deny the Consumers' Association information on pension and endowment misselling. A catch-all clause, which applies to public bodies as well as government departments, allows disclosure to be refused if "in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person" - a minister or official - it would "prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs". The local government bill will take away existing rights to information about local authority decision-making. Now, most important council decisions are taken at open meet ings of the council or its committees, with council papers available beforehand. Under the bill, most decisions will be taken by the mayor or leader, individual councillors with executive powers, or a cabinet of councillors. Cabinets will be able to sit in secret and only have to publish their decisions once taken. Councils will be able to take decisions about housing, social services, and education in much greater secrecy. People will lose their existing rights to know, which apply only where meetings are open. They will have no right to know what decisions are about to be taken or to see reports and official papers in advance. The terrorism bill puts journalists in danger of arrest, search and questioning, and having material seized if they cover the activities not only of organisations most people would regard as terrorist, but also campaigning bodies, protesters and even workers involved in industrial disputes. The bill widens the definition of terrorism from political causes to include religious or ideological causes, and the definition of violence to include violent action against property as well as people. Poll tax demonstrators, road protesters or groups taking action against GM crops would come within the ambit of the bill. It would become a crime not to report suspicions about certain terrorist activities, but the definition of terrorism is so wide that journalists could find themselves expected to inform on a large range of campaigning organisations or activities. Photographers and cameramen in Northern Ireland who cover assemblies and funerals could be forced to hand over film. The bill makes it a criminal offence to collect information likely to be useful to a terrorist - which could include politicians' home addresses. The regulation of investigatory powers bill will jeopardise journalists' sources and confidential information. The bill will allow the state to intercept email and telephone communications across private networks, and force the decoding of scrambled information, for the purposes of detecting crime, preventing disorder, for public safety, protecting public health, and even "in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom". Law enforcement agencies would be able to force individuals to hand over encryption keys and passwords needed to decode encrypted data, and those individuals would be barred from telling anyone else, including an employer, about the demand. Those who lose or forget their password would risk a jail sentence of up to two years unless they could prove that it was forgotten or lost. The four bills add up to a legislative programme which, says the Society of Editors, "will erode current safeguards, extend state powers, outlaw legitimate journalistic investigation and bolster state secrecy".
-^- www.yourserver.co.uk/crashmedia -^- ->- www.metamute.com -<-
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets more # info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net ------- End of forwarded message -------