Slippery slopes are so named for a reason. One step might feel ok. A second, trouble-free. But suddenly momentum builds, and there’s no stopping you. The metaphor could not be more appropriate for the snooping powers that government is soon to take for itself – powers that represent a most aggressive incursion into basic privacy rights.
Soon, should the government’s Data Protection and Digital Information Bill make it to the statute book, banks and financial institutions would be legally required to report suspicious activity in the bank accounts of those in receipt of government payments to the Department of Work and Pensions.
The claim is that these new bank spying powers would help governments crack down on fraud: spotting a bank account belonging to a benefit claimant that is also being used to lease a Lamborghini, perhaps. Some would argue that’s sensible fraud prevention – but even if you do think that’s acceptable, where do we stop?
What safeguards are in place? Now, it’s ‘suspicious’ spending that needs reporting – but what if a government changes the goalposts, and starts asking banks to report on benefit claimants who have the temerity to enjoy a pint at their local? We may not like that behaviour – we may say that’s not what benefits are for – but do we want bank accounts policed in that way?
Bank spying powers: where – and on whom – does it stop?
This paper, certainly, does not want a financial institution reporting on its customers without the strictest legal safeguards: and nor do we want the principle to be established that those who are not accused of doing anything wrong are nonetheless under constant monitoring. Pensioners would be in limbo; child benefit recipients, ditto. The work of Big Brother Watch has been vital in raising the issue and there is, finally, momentum behind those who wish to stop this breach of privacy and the most basic tenets of civil liberty.
The powers are Orwellian. The DWP claims it would not have direct access to spending records, but that is beside the point. This country has a basic principle that one is innocent until proven guilty and that privacy is the default. These new powers would flip that centuries-old presumption on its head. These are poorly designed powers and they should not make it to law.