Charles from NO – CCTV wrote us an interesting email when he heard about the film, and we wanted to share his thoughts. Do you agree with what he says? How do you feel the Common Law systems work with respect to your privacy? Let us know…
The Common Law
Often discussions on the rights and freedoms of people in the UK focus exclusively on the Human Rights Act, as though rights didn’t exist before this legislation was introduced. This is simply not true. The English and Scottish legal systems are Common Law systems which have at their heart key principles of equity and justice. In a common law country you are free to do anything unless it is specifically unlawful – this means that the state does not need to grant rights or give people permission to do anything. The state and the courts define what people cannot do and in fact a jury can reject bad laws made by the state (a power little exercised in an age when juries are “instructed”).
The rights agenda that we have inherited from mainland Europe stems from the Napoleonic legal system where what is allowed is defined and everything else is not allowed.
Implicit in the granting of a right is the ability to take the right away. Human rights cannot be granted to people – human rights exist and people have them by virtue of being human. Codifying the “right to life” or the “right to privacy” creates a contradiction of terms. A human right is no-one’s to grant, qualify or remove.
Reading the small print of the Human Rights Act illustrates the contradictions. Many of the “rights” are “qualified” and so the Act defines when these “rights” do not exist. For instance the “right to respect for private and family life” can be removed “in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”. A pretty large space for the state to drive privacy busting legislation through.
The “rights” in the Human Rights Act were written into the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) after the second world war. The Convention can be viewed as a minimum set of principles that a state must uphold to call itself a democracy. It does not represent the pinnacle of freedom and the UK government’s need to derogate from these principles, for instance in relation to detention without trial, raises serious questions about the state of our nation.
The question that should be asked is why hasn’t the Common Law protected freedoms in the UK?
The Common Law has been taken for granted – most people in the UK do not even realise that they live in a Common Law country and the principles are rarely taught in schools. Added to this is the fact that successive governments have over legislated and sought to stifle the Common Law (at times they have brutally abolished parts of the Common Law ). Finally lawyers have allowed the sea of new legislation to stand in the way of right and wrong and many now see their role solely as interpreters of the statute laws spewed out by parliament.
Last year Desmond Browne QC, the Chairman of the Bar said: “A quarter of a century after 1984, the common law principles which govern protection of our privacy from intrusion by the media are just as relevant, indeed almost certainly more so, in relation to surveillance by the state.”
It is time to revitalise the Common Law protection of freedoms in the UK.
I am currently moving in the direction that the heart of the problem is the fact that we people accepted laws. Even the laws that tell that we have human rights. Our humanity and freedom is intrinsic, we don’t need laws made by governments to state this. We don’t need anyone to ‘govern’ us.
Comment by Questa — April 30, 2010 @ 9:17 am
The author writes: “Human rights cannot be granted to people – human rights exist and people have them by virtue of being human. Codifying the “right to life” or the “right to privacy” creates a contradiction of terms. A human right is no-one’s to grant, qualify or remove.”
That is simply untrue in a world of crowded islands and continents. Human rights are not imbued by virtue of simply being, they are necessarily agreed or imposed as a result of population density and competition for resources.
Robinson Crusoe’s relationship with Man Friday is often cited as a fitting simile to the birth of rights and responsibilities.
Can’t wait to see the film, by the way.
Comment by MikeC — May 1, 2010 @ 3:43 pm
The author has made a basic and fundamental flaw in stating that Scotland is a Common Law Jurisdiction.
This is not true. England and Wales follow the common law and Scotland generally follows Civil Law as created by the Roman system of law which was codified by Napoleon. Followed by Northern Ireland which has its own system all together.
However account is taken of any similar types of cases in determining judgments throughout the UK and most of the Commonwealth of nations that were part of the empire.
All humans have a right to life, that includes children yet to be born. Denial of those rights of life to conveniently termed “fetuses” killed as a matter of inconvenience is abhorrent and an abomination to an enlightened nation such as ours.
You may say every woman has the right to choice of whether she gets pregnant and remains pregnant to term or not. How about the mans role in this matter?
Has he no say in the produce of his loins? Did he not make that infant with the woman.
It beggars belief, that when impregnated with a desired fetus it is a baby, but the undesired one is just some cells or a fetus. This is hogwash.
Each time a pregnancy is terminated, it is murder by design. The child within the womb has a right to life. There is no one alive on this planet that can make anyother decision that the infant is just some cells and unworthy of life.
We are free human beings who have rights and duties attributed to us by GOD. There is none that can take those away, unless they can proove that they are GOD. If any man or woman says that they are GOD, they chould check into the nearest psychiatric facility and get examined by other lunatics who also think they are GOD.
I am inrerested in watching this one.
Comment by Gerronimmo LaCabra — May 4, 2010 @ 9:39 pm
Do the same procedures and possibilities apply for making Subject Access Requests to data holders who reside outside the UK, or are these specific only to UK data holders? Ie: iTunes, non UK based Amazon sites, foreign based Social Networking sites? Could be Erasing David 2 – if you looked at our data beyond geographical borders. But how dod I know what is where?
Comment by JP — May 5, 2010 @ 3:46 am
Charles makes a lot of sense. My instinct about common law is that it applies to what one cannot do. The state and the people through the democratic process and juries do define what is wrong or forbidden. Otherwise a citizen can do anything they wish by virtue of being a person. I’ve lived in Canada since 1975 so have not lived under the eye of CCTV that is now so ubiquitous in the UK. There was quite a furor here about cameras during the Olympics and the police had to promise to take them down as soon as the games were over.
With the erosion of so much privacy the terrorists have in effect won. We have ceded freedom of movement, assembly, speech, perhaps more to Governments that do not represent the majority of the people. Both Canada and the UK need to reform their electoral processes so that the ‘Commons’ more represents the votes of the people. Having grown up during the cold war, played spies as a kid, even wanted to be one until I saw ‘The Spy who came in from the Cold’, I treasure freedom immensely, hate politically correct speech and take great satisfaction in thwarting those who would impede my free spirit. I would probably be in jail in the UK as a seditious undesirable while they tried to figure out what to charge me with. Hah!
Comment by harriet hedgehog — May 5, 2010 @ 5:23 am
After watching the screening of True Stories: Erasing David on More4 (Wed 4th May) I found myself totally shocked & stunned, despite knowing that surveillance in the UK is not for the benefit of the common man (or woman!). I was amazed to discover that even with the forsight of attempting to “disappear” from the radar, it was simply not possible! We have become so dependent on our gadgets & services that we unwittingly leave ourselves open & defenceless to whomever wishes to surveil us, whether corporate or gorvernmental.
Well done for such an educational masterpiece! This film has not only opened my eyes extremely wide, but will be thrust upon others by me to watch & become equally aware of this incredibly scary situation that we are all apart of.
Many thanks
Comment by Davey — May 5, 2010 @ 12:23 pm
Dear David, if you would like better awareness of your film i suggest you get in contact with torrentfreak.com as they will probably be interested in your film and goodscreening.org.
Comment by Harry — May 6, 2010 @ 12:58 am
Through the use of semantic web technologies, world governments intend to turn the World Wide Web from a large hyperlinked book into a large interlinked global database. The Council of Europe document ‘Internet Governance and critical Internet resources’ states (p.7) that “ . . . the Internet of Things refers to the seamless connection of devices, sensors, objects, rooms, machines, vehicles, etc, through fixed and wireless networks. Connected sensors, devices and tags can interact with the environment and send the information to other objects through machine-to-machine communication . . . The Semantic Web promotes this synergy: even agents that where not expressly designed to work together can transfer data among themselves when the data come with semantics.”
Semantic Web & Internet of Things
http://kencraggs.livejournal.com/789.html
Full Spectrum Dominance: Public Submission to Authority
http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/neoconopticon-report.pdf
Must Read: Leaders with a Common Purpose
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5719.shtml
More info here
http://twitter.com/BetweenMyths
Comment by Ken Craggs — May 6, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
well that was scary
Comment by 404s — May 6, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
We’re on goodscreening.org! And we’ll definitely get in touch with torrentfreak – looks great. Thanks. David
Comment by David Bond — May 7, 2010 @ 3:23 pm
I saw the film on more4 and although it was helpful – it merely touched the surface and I felt that you missed a golden opportunity to finally bring into the mainstream what many of us have known for decades – that this and other countries are slowly but purposefully moving towards a police state governed by banks. Although I understood the irony at the end of your film – registering your child’s birth – you again missed the opportunity to tell people that your baby’s name (and all our names) on the certificate was in CAPS – this is very significant. You also missed the chance to tell people that this – the first certificate of registration of a tiny ‘person’ (person means – fiction) is actually the first CONTRACT between your baby and the state – it is a CHOICE – you don’t have to do it. Maybe you didn’t know this – I don’t know but please, please make a follow up and research this angle fully. I know very little myself – what I do know, I researched fully and checked it out with lawyers, but feel free to email me if I can be of any help. Also I discovered ‘The People’s United Community’ on contraversial tv, they have a website: http://www.tpuc.org they are nothing directly to do with me but the man who runs it is very, very well informed and can teach you a lot about common law and what ‘registration’ really means in all aspects of our contracted lives, from council tax and car ‘registration’ to stop and search and debt collectors. FREE yourselves!!
We have a choice – please remember this and include it in your next film. Cheers, peace, Matt xx
Comment by Matt — May 8, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
Some interesting views and some cranks. I did not get to see the film in its entirety but would love to buy the DVD it looked like good jounalism. The little I saw certainly made me think. I am concerned about the erosion of our civil liberties in this country. The fact that the UK government can even suggest that locking up any individual without charge for up to 42 days should be criminal in itself.
Comment by Richard — May 11, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
hello is there a list of all the organisations david wrote to on this site.
Comment by well done david, — May 20, 2010 @ 5:50 pm
no – I didn’t want to put up a list of all the organisations who know about me as I worried that might give away (even more…) personal information. You can imagine who they are though: banks / savings / mortgage / utilities / phone / shops / travel / car / children. I bet if you sit down and ask yourself “who knows about me” you’ll have a list of 80 organisations in no time…
Comment by David Bond — May 21, 2010 @ 2:04 pm
“The most absurd apology for authority and law is that they serve to diminish crime. Aside from the fact that the State is itself the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and capital punishment, it`s come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It`s failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the horrible scourge of its own creation.”
The main question … is not what motive inspired the law, but what it will be possible for men of bad motive to do with the law …”
“Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us.”
“The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue.”
“Once governments have been done away with and society’s wealth placed at the disposal of all, all of the antagonism between different peoples will very quickly evaporate and there will be no more justification for war.”
“At all times and everywhere,
whatever the name by which government has been known, whatever its origins and its organization, its essential function has always been that of oppressing and exploiting the masses and defending the oppressors and usurpers: its chief organs and vital characteristics are the gendarme and tax-collector, the soldier and the jailer, unfailingly joined by the peddler of lies, priest or professor, paid and protected by the government to enslave the minds of the people and make them suffer the yoke of oppression without complaint.”
We don`t complain anywhere near enough in the UK. That`s why we are in the position we are in , with CCTV on every corner, our privacy and rights taken from us.
Comment by Luke Ashley — July 18, 2010 @ 6:54 pm
How could you possibly broadcast your wife and daughter’s personal details to everyone? Shouldn’t you have at least blurred/bleeped the info?
Comment by Anon — February 2, 2011 @ 12:35 am
Interesting program. Paranoid. Why do we need to be private in law or otherwise. You could never have friends in any age of man if all you insist upon is privacy. Go live in a cave alone in the back of beyond if privacy if you chief goal in life (as some in the film seemed to imply)
Accountability is the key here and I feel this is the angle that more usefully should have been followed up. This film could then have made a real difference. Companies and organisations must be fully accountable for the information they hold and should any of this information be proven to be incorrect, no matter the cause, massive fines or other sanctions should be in place. The emphasis should be not on how much information there is but how much is correct and corroborated.
Humans are ultimately self serving – who of us choses to pay taxes but how could we live without paying them.
The only reason to complain about how much information is “held” on you is in case it falls into the wrong hands and is used fraudulently against you. It should be the case that all companies or organisations that hold information about you are sanctioned should this information be used fraudulently – no matter who’s fault.
Interested in the “media” part of the statement too. All those who produce any incorrect of false information should be heavily sanctioned one way or another. This is not to stifle opinion – a persons opinion is fine as long as it is factually correct and can be supported with evidence.
Nevertheless Mr. Bond and interesting and thought provoking story and definitely a cut above many documentaries seen on TV for a long time. Have never before been moved to respond on this sort of forum.
Comment by Mark Bond — February 2, 2011 @ 5:07 am
Some of the info is not correct. Some is. The PI’s could certainly find out just as much about anyone, including you, given just your very mysterious gmail account! Thanks for your comment. David
Comment by David Bond — February 14, 2011 @ 3:57 pm
Great comment Mark – and well made points. I certainly think the idea of accountability is interesting. My thinking has definitely changed and developed since we made the film – although I’m not sure we’d have ended up with such a fun experiment if we’d gone down the accountability line. In a way I think of the film as my knee-jerk reaction to my daughter’s details being lost.
I think you’re asking for more regulation. And rightly, in my view. The Information Commissioner has finally started to impose some (albeit pretty small) sanctions on companies who mistreat data. Perhaps we’re moving this way. Also the coalition government seems to be replacing some of the safeguards removed by New Labour.
Thanks again.
David
Comment by David Bond — February 14, 2011 @ 4:04 pm
I am an American who watched your documentary last night on Netflix. I found it compelling and frightening. My own country which was originally fashioned as an ideal champion of individual liberty has become much less tolerant of personal rights. It is disconcerting how much information is simply “out there” and the idea of present data being used to prosecute future crimes seems to be a very distinct possibility in our future. Thank you for raising awareness and also for creating such an interesting film.
Comment by Smith — November 1, 2011 @ 5:11 pm