Why ‘if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to worry about’ is illogical, unethical, illegal

Trust thought for today - revisiting surveillance and the Post Office scandal with this excellent blog from the Biometrics and Surveillance Commissioner Fraser Sampson on 6 reasons why 'if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to worry about' as a defence in the use of surveillance tech "doesn’t just miss the point: it misses all of them."

“If you’ve done nothing wrong…”: 5 Reasons Why This is No Defence for Surveillance

1. Presumption of Guilt and having to prove a negative - eg ‘I am not dishonest reverses our constitutional safeguard of innocence until proven guilty. As Post Office workers found,

2. Belief in Database Infallibility - computer says “wrong’ is the last word.

3. Denial of the possibility of database fallibility - that the computer is actually wrong is fiercely resisted

4. Accept or admit - the argument imposes a false dichotomy and then assumes the answer. Nothing in between is admissible.

5. Appeal to innocence - opposing the argument is seen as self incriminating (like asking for a lawyer when you are told you are entitled to one)

6. Whose idea of ‘done nothing wrong’ is considered appropriate - look at real world example of the poor guy being obsessively surveilled by a neighbour for his supposedly noisy family and cockerel in the comments. Very very scary.

The alternative approach to put the burden of proof on those intruding on rights and involving all citizens in considering where the levels of acceptability lie, and avoiding too much reliance on tech you can imagine I agree with.

'We would do well to resist placing too much reliance on technology, to underscore thoughtful leadership and to reinforce the role of independent oversight of ‘surveillance’ systems, whether they rely on biometric databases, traffic cameras or, as in the case of the profound injustices to the Post Office workers, employers’ accounting records".