More intrusion please!

Yesterday I wrote about the benefits to society of the ANPR system - despite the documented howls of protest from the liberty lobby and conspiracy theorists about the intrusiveness of the system.

I would like to continue on this theme.

Apparently police can access mobile phone data that can show where you were/are at a certain time providing your phone is switched on - even if you are not using it. Similarly the police, as a matter of course, check mobile phone records whenever there is a significant motoring accident. In both cases the courts will allow conclusions to be drawn from this, which is helpful in crime detection and possible evidence of wrong doing.

If it was down to me I would form a national DNA data base. I can see no reasons why any law abiding citizen should have a problem with this. It would be so helpful in the detection and therefore the reduction of crime.

I have no problem with CCTV cameras in public places. They add to our protection.

If it were down to me I would have pressed ahead with the ID card scheme although I accept now that perhaps we have moved on from paper based documentation. This issue needs revisiting however. One card to accurately determine who you are would have so many advantages to public authorities such as the Police, HMRC, NHS, Social Services and Immigration .

To me it seems to be common sense to target stop and search. If the vast majority of London street knife crime is carried out by black youths then they should be stopped more. If we are trying to prevent Islamic jihad it is surely right that the authorities use precious resources sensibly and not stop little old ladies.

So in summary I argue the liberty lobby are out of step with the general public. We want crime detected. We want our roads and streets to be as safe as possible. We recognise that public funds are in short supply and anything that makes crime detection simpler, cheaper and more cost effective is likely to be a welcome development. The theoretical limitation of liberty or intrusion of human rights are just that for the law abiding citizen - theoretical at best. (For most of us we see their concerns as just wilful paranoia.)

The courts protect us from misuse of information and uphold standards of evidence. As long as we have a strong independent judiciary we have the protection we need as good citizens going about our lawful business.