Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear

Among the many conspiracy theories that have arisen during the coronavirus pandemic is the idea that the vaccines contain some sort of microchip designed to track the movements of the vaccinated. If it wasn’t COVID-19 it would be something else, as there are constantly evolving theories about how ‘they’ (governments, big business, shadowy but unspecified other groups) are tracking our every move, recording our conversations, building up vast amounts of data about us.

 

The one thing that these theories usually lack is what the explicit purpose of this information gathering exercise is: ‘Control’ is often given as a reason, but with limited explanation of how this control will be exercised or what purpose it serves, unless control is the end and not the means.

 

It is true however, that virtually everything we do is tracked, traced, and recorded somewhere by someone. If you own a car, have a bank account, store loyalty cards, or mobile phone, just about everything you do, everywhere you go is logged. And that is before we even get to the estimated 4-6 million CCTV cameras in the UK.

 

Almost everyone will have a story about the somewhat unsettling, spooky online incidents where an advert for a product or service pops up in our social media feeds for something we have been talking about: Coincidence, or is your mobile phone or virtual assistant like Alexa spying on you? Goodness knows, but for most of us the thinking must be, if we’ve nothing to hide, we’ve nothing to fear. If I’m going to see adverts on Facebook for example, they might as well be for things I might actually have an interest in.

 

But news coming from the United States about a plan by Apple to study images that iPhone users upload for storage in iCloud Photos takes matters a step further.

 

Before I go on I must clarify that Apple are only reviewing images to look for child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and only in the USA. The creation and distribution of such images is so abhorrent that most people would consider it reasonable to justify almost any method of detecting such offences and bringing those responsible to book.

 

Apple’s process works by comparing images that are being stored in iCloud Photos with known images of CSAM, and if a potential match is found, a human reviewer will assess the images and report the user to law enforcement agencies.

 

Where we start to enter somewhat more uncertain waters however, is how this technology might spread, how it might be abused or misused. Yes, we could quite easily and justifiably defend and support the use of this sort of technology to combat the sexual abuse of children. But then law enforcement agencies and governments will inevitably ask the question, what else could we use this technology for, what other offences could we detect and prosecute using it?

 

Terrorism? Yes, obviously terrorism. If wholesale surveillance of mobile phones could have prevented 9/11, or 7/7 in London, or the bombing of the Bataclan in Paris, then surely it would be justifiable. Or people smuggling and trafficking? Or the drugs cartels? Or what about gangs planning robberies like the Hatton Garden safe deposit burglary, surely we can justify using technology to combat that sort of thing too? I could go on, but that would risk straying into Monty Python’s ‘What did the Romans do for us?’ territory.

 

To some extent it already happens. Phones have been tapped for years if potential criminal activity is suspected, but only by going through a process to justify individual instances that ends with a senior politician or judge authorising such activity. Terrorist offences have been stopped through mobile phone surveillance, but what we are looking at with Apple’s photo scanning process is the possibility of blanket coverage of everyone’s phone at all times.

 

You might shrug your shoulders and say, I have nothing to hide, so I’ve nothing to fear. And if you are not inclined to commit offences that involve CSAM, and you aren’t located in the United States, then at present that’s true. But what Apple have done here is to open a door which they themselves had previously locked, barred, bolted and declared that they would never open. There have been cases in the past where law enforcement agencies have been stymied by Apple’s refusal to unlock phones that have been used by terrorists, even for the FBI, but now they are proactively saying that the data on iPhones is fair game.

 

Matthew Green, a security researcher at Johns Hopkins University, has raised concerns: “They (Apple) have sent a very clear signal. In their (very influential) opinion, it is safe to build systems that scan users' phones for prohibited content. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong on that point hardly matters. This will break the dam — governments will demand it from everyone."

 

This sort of technology would enable an oppressive regime to clamp down on even the mildest form of dissent and suppress any form of protest, making criminals of even the meekest opponents.

 

And that is the point that defenders of free speech and civil liberties, and those who love a conspiracy theory will latch onto, and for once possibly with good reason. Who gets to decide what constitutes prohibited content?

 

In Britain, and in much of the world, people like to think that they live in benign democracies, where their rights are respected, where they can travel and speak freely, and that criticising the government and other authorities is acceptable, where free speech is protected, and civil liberties unlikely to be curtailed except in extremis, COVID-19 being a case in point.

 

But not everyone lives in a benign democracy, and even in countries that purport to be so, governments are not above suppressing dissent – take a look at the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which was passed in the House of Commons by 359 votes to 263 on Monday 16th March, and under which it will become an offence to cause someone ‘serious annoyance,’ or merely put them at risk of being caused serious annoyance. That could merely be a step on the road towards a government deciding that, in the interests of national security, they should start interrogating people’s phones for all sorts of material, including simple, straightforward, currently perfectly legitimate, criticism of government, its policies, and its ministers.

 

At the moment it’s just Apple, in the United States, targeting a particularly narrow, detestable group of people. But the line that has been drawn is not fixed; it can and probably will, move. Things we don’t have to hide today may be proscribed tomorrow. One day, that merry little jape you made about the Prime Minister might land you in very hot water indeed.