Over on Sean Dilley’s blog, there’s a transcript of an interview he conducted on talkSPORT with deputy prime minister Nick Clegg discussing yesterday’s announcement of the government’s long-awaited Freedom Bill. Here’s an excerpt of what Nick said:
I first proposed the idea of a Freedom Bill some years ago, because I think under Labour, too many of our Freedoms were taken away. Our Privacy was invaded. Too many innocent people were treated with suspicion. Look, under Labour, your children could have their finger prints taken at school without your permission. You could be spied on by your local Council, your bins could be spied on, your house could be spied on for no apparent reason. Your DNA could be taken and stored, even if your innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. What we’re doing in this Freedom Bill is sweeping all of those illiberal measures, all those kind of snooping powers away, and saying lets get the balance right between our Freedom and our privacy, and of course the need for the police to keep us safe.
You can read the interview transcript in full here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
13 seats change hands in council contests
How four bison brought new life to ancient woodland in Kent
Tom Bailey
Caracatus
Cassie
Iain Donaldson
One Comment
I wish politicians would stop talking about a “balance” between privacy / liberty / freedom / security. It’s a meaningless false dichotomy. In general, more free societies are more secure societies. Sure, some measures might reduce freedom while increasing security, but others (such as locking your front door) don’t impact your freedom at all.
Also, security is a very nebulous concept. Unless you can clearly define what you’re trying to secure, and whom you’re trying to secure it against, there’s no rational debate to be had on a security measure. I’d recommend Bruce Schneier’s excellent Beyond Fear as a guide to this topic.