Global warming causes and effects

Global Warming

Anti-terrorism measures in the UK and its effects on privacy

The level of terrorism in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Northern Ireland is one of the highest in the Western block and it manifests itself both internally and externally. Some of the most controversial measures in what regards anti-terrorist measures have been taken in the UK in the last 50-60 years and many of these measures have created various negative movements regarding personal privacy and human rights.

Most of the anti-terrorist mechanism of the UK state was on a higher alert in the days of the 2005 attacks, both as a result of information about terrorist activities and due to the high alert systems installed after the 9/11 American attacks. Yet this mechanism did not work to the full extent as a significant number of people were killed in the 2005 terrorist attack on the London subway. Theory states that if more surveillance would have been in place, and if more information would have been able to extract from regular British citizens, such a terrorist attack could have been prevented or could have had smaller effects. This raises not only legal but also ethical questions in the British political and social environments, as more and more people demand more protection and in the same time the reduction of state intervention and surveillance. A 2009 House of Lord report shows that "successive U.K. governments have gradually constructed one of the most extensive and technologically advanced surveillance systems in the world" (House of Lords, 2009), and, alongside with other reports of the House of Lords and Commons, or the latest reports of civil society, it gives an image of a controlled society. Such a society, safer in face of terrorism seems to lose in its internal freedom to win in its external protection.

As a mass psychology analysis would point out, the level of acceptance of anti-terrorist measures would be at maximum immediately after a terrorist attack yet it would drop as time passes. Individuals, especially in democratic societies of liberal sophistication like the UK, have a hard time accepting the control of the state on their personal lives, even in for a greater good or for their own protection. In a city like London, where surveillance of street and in-house activities is at its highest level, getting accustomed with cameras and hidden cameras has been a difficult process.

The general public is largely unaware of the real level of surveillance, of any form, a type of state control over its citizens that would be unacceptable in a society that would not be this threaten by external and internal threats. Alongside with the United State, Britain has one of the most complex anti-terrorist strategies that mainly involve data gathering, data protection, terrorist groups prevention and so on. The basis of the UK anti-terrorism policy that governs the level of the state's intervention of anyone's life is the "Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000" (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, 2000) that states that Security Agencies can use surveillance cameras that are in sight or hidden, check phone calls or internet traffic and enlist undercover agents for various assignments. In face of such measures, citizens start more and more to lose faith not only in the Government but also in its policy implicantors: ministries, police, health system, etc. Paul Wilkinson in "Terrorism vs. Democracy: The Liberal State Response" touches on sensitive issues for the UK society like over-reaction to terrorism, using too much military and less intelligence to prevent terrorism and especially the unpopular measures of surveillance, human rights abuses or control over citizens personal life -- all in the name of preventing terrorist attacks. (Wilkinson, 2006)

As pointed out before, terrorism in the UK has been treated, from the point-of-view of privacy, with over-reaction and with low proportionality, both in preventing and reacting to terrorist attacks. In the 2011 Review of Counter-Terrorism and Security Powers, the Secretary for the Home Department states that "in some areas our counter-terrorism and security powers are neither proportionate nor necessary" (HM Government, Review of Counter-Terrorism and security powers, 2011). As in any other democracy, the support of the public for a certain policy creates its sustainability. If the overall anti-terrorism UK policy doesn't find alternative means of avoiding, controlling and reacting to terrorist activities it might do more damage if a totally opposite policy would be put intro practice, due to electoral pressures.