1984 or 2008?

The UN on Friday rapped the UK Government for creating security laws that erode the basic human rights of liberty and freedom of speech. In the UN’s view, the Government has embraced technology to try and protect national security, but in the process has restricted personal liberty.

How to retain individual freedoms whilst protecting national security is a problem the UK – and many other countries - have been agonising over for a while now. The attacks on London's transport system in July 2005 and at Glasgow airport in July 2007 instilled fear into the daily lives of thousands of ordinary British people. Government responded to the changed national security context with the publication of the UK's first National Security Strategy and the amendment of various laws - including the contentious introduction of powers to hold terror suspects without charge for extended periods of time, and the introduction of a grand database to hold details of citizens’ emails and phone calls.

In July, Gordon Brown delivered a speech on liberty and security calling for the use of modern methods and technologies to effectively counter threats to national security. True, globalisation through the unprecedented advancement of technological change has enriched the lives of many people across the world. Conversely, technology has also increased the reach of people bent on waging a war on the west. Extremist groups, through modern means of communication and transport, are now spread across international borders.

This is the age of the internet, where almost anyone can have their 15MBs of fame. The internet has projected the voices of millions of people - some have harmful intent, but most of us just want to keep in touch with friends and express our views on our rich culture.

The Government must be more savvy in its use of technology to protect national security if it is to counter its critics. Technology can be used to detect weapons and bombs at airports, counter cyber attacks and identify international crime rings - there should be no need to restrict the voices of individuals in the process.

By Rachel Wrathall, Defence and Security Programme Executive