"Something rotten in the state of..........."

The newspapers and TV broadcasts are full, at the moment, of the exposures in the Guardian of the alleged secret surveillance of the public by NSA (the US National Security Agency) and Britain’s GCHQ. This morning we have read of the “outing” of the source of the allegations – an American named Edward Snowden - who apparently worked as a technical assistant at the CIA. At the centre of the various exposures is the alleged involvement – consensual or otherwise of global internet giants such as Google or Facebook. These companies protest their innocence and both the US government and Britain proclaim that if there is surveillance then it is necessary in the war against terror, it is proportionate, it is backed by strong legal safeguards, was done with the cooperation of the companies concerned – and, to quote US Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss, has only been concerned with collecting “significant information on the bad guys, but only on the bad guys”.  

Having read the good Senator’s comments I’m left wondering how does he know? – do the “bad guys” have a digital post it note on their foreheads and stored data saying “I am a bad guy”! And, in any case, until they have done the surveillance how do you know who are the “bad guys”? If the NSA & GCHQ know who these “bad guys” are, then presumably they know why they are bad guys – so why the mass surveillance of everyone on the planet’s lifestyle via AOL, SKYPE, Facebook or Google?

The whole government  response from both sides of the Atlantic reminds me of President  Theodore Roosevelt’s comment of almost a century ago “When they do the roll call in the Senate Senators don’t know whether to call “present” or “not guilty”. In the end both David Cameron and Barrack Obama sound rather like thieves pleading their innocence when caught with their fingers in the till!

But leaving aside the issue of whether the allegations are correct or whether our political leaders are quite so honest and transparent as they would have us believe there are other issues.

Firstly – should we be surprised? Spying and surveillance has been around as long as there have been wars, international disputes, high politics and the rest. In fifteenth century Florence Machiavelli earned his crust in this business and earned lasting fame with his book "The Prince" setting out how the Prince should govern and control. Our own “Good Queen Bess” – Elizabeth 1^st – had a huge network of spies and covert operators within England all ensuring her and the nation’s “safety”. The network was run and information gathered perused  – by William Cecil – later Lord Burghley. Such was Cecil’s contribution that after being made a Lord he was able to build one of the greatest homes of England, Burghley House near Stamford in Lincolnshire. After Burghley had done his bit in the service of the Queen the job was handed over to Francis Walsingham – one of the most ruthless spy masters ever known. A couple of centuries later, before George 1^st became King of England he enlisted a musician – George Frederick Handel – to do a bit of spying for him. George, as Elector of Hanover, knew he was shortly to be offered the British crown. He could speak no English and knew little of England and its politics – so he dispatched his favourite musician, Handel, to London to make music – and at the same time do a bit of meeting people and influencing them, getting to know the “lie of the land” – call it what you will. And, of course, reporting back to Hanover.  The trouble was Handel quite liked the place and concentrated more on his music and pleasing London society than on his "covert operations" - much to the disgust of his German employer! A bit later Charles Dickens gave spies and "surveillance operatives" a really bad name when he introduced them as characters in his "A Tale of Two Cities" - Barsad and Cly were given a really bad press when they spied on the delightful and innocent Charles Darnay! And, of course, coming a bit more up to date, America, the land of the free, didn't look quite so free in the times of Senator Joe McCarthy or a few years later at the time of Watergate. No, spying and surveillance has been around for a very long time and by its very definition it is secret and underhand – not to be so makes it useless. So, when politicians protest their innocence or strive to convince us that it is necessary or that it is only aimed at the “bad guys” it seems to me that the only sensible response is to raise one’s eyebrows and say “Well you would say that wouldn’t you!”

The second point that I would make about the present media frenzy relates to the involvement – alleged or otherwise - of major global internet giants. Again, should we be at all surprised? We live in a world where increasingly most of our lives are run via the power of the computer – perfectly legal and legitimate information about us is stored in computer data banks. We buy items on line, we book holidays on line, we pay our bills on line, we search for information via our computers and so it goes on. In short our whole life is there before us – each time we press a computer key we leave a digital footprint about who we are and what we do. I am told that companies and governments now, with the help of what they call “big data” can predict with almost total accuracy who each of us are and what we will do from just a few isolated items of raw information. So, it would seem to me that if governments   do want to spy in us – and undeniably they will – then the internet and our computers are ideal ways of doing it – for there we are, warts and all! As a blogger I leave a huge footprint each time I do what I am doing now – putting my interests, dreams, plans, beliefs and ideas (nutty though they might be) for all to read. For those who use Facebook or Twitter they do the same thing every time they log on. When I buy something from Amazon  or look at the John Lewis Web site, when I Google “motor insurance” to find where I can get the best quote on car insurance, when I read the electronic edition of the Guardian each day my preferences and the essential “me” is recorded and stored somewhere. In that context why on earth would governments and “spies” not use Facebook or Google or Microsoft  to peep into our lives – it is a ready made data bank! Not to do so would be perverse.

Now this might be obvious and it might be understandable. The motives of government may be malign or benign. They might indeed, as Senator Chambliss protests, only be looking at the “bad guys”! But whatever the reasoning it is frankly stupid of society to hold its communal hands up in horror and say “This is dreadful that it is going on!” - of course it is! In writing that I am reminded of the utter stupidity of many millions throughout the world who daily go onto Facebook and write something along the lines of “Looking forward to going on my holiday to Spain tomorrow” or “Having a lovely time in France – weather is glorious, don’t want to come home”. We  are  told regularly by the police that burglars love this – they can point exactly when a house is going to be empty and ripe for breaking into! If your average neighbourhood burglar finds this useful then how much more useful will governments find the highly personal items that you might knowingly or unknowingly record on your computer – your finances, your buying habits, your fetishes!

We get what we deserve! We want to live this digital life on Facebook and Twitter, tell our most intimate secrets, obsessions  and ambitions to anyone on the planet who will look at our Blogspot. We broadcast our interests and our buying plans by visiting web sites like Tesco or ASDA or Sainsbury’s and  enjoy the flexibility of internet banking and all the rest. Should we not also realise that it all comes at a cost – and the cost is that our innermost lives are stored on computer banks across the world. In a way this is democracy at work.  The majority want big supermarkets and retail parks, they want free access to the internet and all that it offers and that is what we get. They want the "right" to express their views as I am doing now. But if we don’t question and fight for the society or sort of  government that we want then these "democratic freedoms" will be and are hijacked by big business and government.  Our "freedoms" become easily "managed" by Microsoft, AOL, Google, Facebook, the NSA and GCHQ - and we can’t then complain or be surprised when, to misquote Hamlet, we find “there is something rotten in the state of Denmark”  [for Denmark read UK/USA et al].

But having said all that, there is something more that worries me more in all this – about what it is to be part of humanity and how that can be influenced by the sort of world we are allowing to happen.

Some years ago, Pat and I flew out of Gatwick on our way to Italy. It was two days after one of the terrorist attacks in London. Security at the airport was understandably intense.  That afternoon as we queued, with thousands of others, to pass through security there were two events that imprinted themselves on my mind and which I think of each time I pass through airport security today.

As we stood at the desk waiting to be checked through there was a young family in front of us. They were much younger than us and, to my prejudiced “senior citizen eyes”, looked rather dubious. Dad had a rather scruffy track suit bottoms, flip flop sandals, ear ring, a shaved head and a multitude of tattoos – in short I would not have liked to meet him on a dark night! As he emptied his pockets and checked his bag through the guard took from him a packet of aspirins and told him that he could not take these onto the flight. The man replied that these were prescription drugs and that he must have them for his medical condition. He showed the guard his prescription – but to no avail. After a brief argument they were confiscated and he was told to move on which, unwillingly, he did. I approached the counter and turned out my bags and pockets. In my pocket was an identical packet of aspirins They are not important to me and not part of a medical prescription - I simply carry them in case of  a headache. The guard flicked through my belongings and nodded me though, returning all my belongings  - including the aspirins. My aspirins were fine and yet the guy in front had his packet confiscated. Why should that be?  I asked the guard why and received no answer. I suggested to the guard he might be better employed as a doctor since he clearly knew what drugs were to be prescribed for individuals. I asked him why I paid huge amounts of tax to employ highly qualified doctors and nurses in our hospitals, their task being to use their undoubted skills and medical knowledge  to prescribe drugs like the ones refused to the guy in front of me and confiscated by the security guard. Clearly, I suggested,  a few chaps like him obviously overrode those prescriptions – it would be much cheaper to employ a few security guards to prescribe our medicines in our hospitals than highly paid doctors. Did he have medical qualifications I asked or access to this gentleman’s medical records? I was told to “f**k off” and move on – which I did, scowling.

This was clearly a matter of prejudice – no more, no less. The guy in front of me looked a bit “dodgy” and that was the basis for his treatment. Presumably I looked a fine upstanding citizen complete with tie (yes! – I always wear a tie even when I'm travelling!) and what happened that day was nothing to do with security and all but to do with prejudice and arbitrary judgement. From that day onwards when I hear politicians (as I have heard this week from the US or from our own Foreign Secretary, William Hague)  say that those who have done no wrong have nothing to fear I think of that guy in the queue and I think, too, of the dreadful but illuminating verse first voiced in Nazi Germany by Martin Niemoller:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me

But my education about security did not end there on that hot afternoon at Gatwick. Having passed through security we waited for our flight in departures. We were, as I say, going to Italy for a holiday. As we sat there waiting for our flight to be called there sat opposite us an Asian family – mother dad and two teenage children. The lady was dressed in a sari. They sat quietly waiting for their flight. And as I sat there I found myself being sucked into the atmosphere of ‘suspicion’ – were these people what they seemed? After all, she was wearing a sari, the family looked dark skinned. We had all been brainwashed to know that dark Asian skin and Muslim belief equalled "Evil Empire" (a Ronald Reagan pearl of wisdom about Russians reinforced a few years later by  George W Bush when he talked about an "Axis of Evil" emanating from middle eats states) and terror. Maybe (dreadful thought) they were Muslims!  Were they an ordinary family or were they terrorists ready to blow up our plane? As I sat there I realised I was simply using prejudice again. It was not a feeling I enjoyed to be so suspicious of my fellow human being. We have become and I had become institutionalised or programmed to be suspicious. I had lost any naivety that I might have had that people are intrinsically good. And I did not like the feeling or myself. The man might indeed have been a terrorist – but far more likely he was a guy going on holiday - maybe, I suddenly thought, he was one of those consultant doctors who had prescribed the aspirins! Maybe he was a teacher like me, or an engineer, or a dustman or an postman or a lawyer.  Maybe, I thought, if because of my heart condition I have a heart attack while on this flight he may be the one person on the plane who has the skills to keep me alive. And I felt very contrite – and indeed very worried – for this is what the “war on terror” was and is doing to us all – it is  making us suspicious and fearful and mistrusting and wary of our fellow men. It is not a feeling that I like and it detracts from my humanity.

So when politicians tell me that security initiatives of the type that has been exposed in the past few days are "necessary" or "legitimate" or when I am told that "legal safeguards are in place to protect me" I am immediately worried. I'm not convinced that any "legal safeguard" can protect or promote my basic humanity - that, is all bound up with belief, morals, maybe belief and certainly ones own perception of oneself.  At its core it is about what we are as humans - and no law or safeguard has yet been written to define that. And, I wonder, if the good Senator Chambliss (if he ever reads this blog) or if one of the spying networks like PRISM deep in the bowels of some US security site latches onto these words will I, too, be cast as “one of the bad guys” –  maybe I am already condemned! As I discovered at the airport that day, wear the wrong clothes, have a shaved head, have a darker skin and someone somewhere will judge you “one of the bad guys” – not for good reasons but on the arbitrary whim of an airport security guard or our own personal prejudices - or some "surveillance operative" deep in some secure room in GCHQ or the NSA. The security guard did it to the man in front of me in the airport queue and I thought it as I sat waiting for my flight and watching the Asian family waiting for their's - so why not that surveillance operative or Senator Chambliss?

Just before the present media frenzy blew up I had just finished reading the wonderful autobiography of the great historian Eric Hobsbawm. He died -  a very old man (almost a hundred years old) - a year or so ago. In his book (“Interesting Times”) he reflects upon the history of the 20^th century – through which he lived his long life. Towards the end of the book he makes some acute but chilling observations:

“Washington announced that Sept 11^th had changed everything, and in doing so, actually did change everything, by in effect declaring it-self the single-handed protector of a world order and definer of threats against it, Whoever failed to accept this was a potential or actual enemy....... September 11^th  proved that we all live in a world with a single global hyperpower that had finally decided that, since the end of the USSR, there are no short term limits on its strength and no limits on its willingness to use it, although the purposes of using it – except to manifest supremacy – are quite unclear........Living [as Hobsbawm had done at the time of writing] for over eighty years of the twentieth century has been a natural lesson in the mutability of political power, empires and institutions [he had lived in Austria at the fall of the Austrian Empire, lived in Britain through the demise of what he called  the greatest Empire ever created – the British Empire, witnessed the fall of the Soviet bloc and many others] .....I am unlikely to see the end of the “American century”...... . I look forward to an American world empire, whose long term chances are poor, with far more fear and less enthusiasm that I look back on the record of the old British Empire, run by a country whose modest size protected it against megalomania.......”

From where I sit that sounds a bit like the meglomanic bully on the school playground – the big guy - I think his name is Sam - who because he is the biggest puts himself about and sees every other child on the playground as a threat and fair game. There used to be another big lad – also a bully (I think his name was Ivan) and the two cancelled each other out. They were wary of each other and didn’t bother too much about the ordinary kids. But Ivan left the school so now Sam is alone – the one “superpower”  and he worries that everyone else on the playground is a potential threat to his supremacy so he terrifies, polices, tries to control, tries to influence and intimidates at will. And so keen are the ordinary kids to gain Sam's affections and good will that they comply, they fawn over him, do his bidding and listen to his "wisdom" because  as he has so often told them if they are not for him then they are against him. And he promises them his support and safety if they comply - rather like some mafia  protection racket – and the children, quite understandably, do as they are bid.  Yes, it sounds just like a parable reflecting the international relations of the past thirty years. And yes again .......it sounds just like our Foreign Secretary, William Hague, fawning and defending the dubious actions of the big guy - NSA - desperate to earn its approval, its "protection" and safety. We do as we are required and we give loyalty to a very dubious argument and institution. And meanwhile in addition to losing our privacy to the giant computers of Facebook, Google, GCHQ, NAS and the Pentagon we are all – everyone on the planet - at the same time losing a little of our humanity in this misguided, misplaced and immoral “war on terror”