Serious concerns with regard to the rights of individuals in the UK are coming to the forefront of public awareness since the passing of the Public Order Act 2023 which is being used to outlaw dissent in the forms of demonstrations and even a form of protesting by a single indivudlas standing with placards outside public buildings.
In particular, the Trade Union Movement, Union Reps and Union Safety Reps are serious potential targets for the Government and Employers as they seek to minimise dissent and reporting that may have an effect upon the company's profits or in the case of safety reps, highlight illegal practices that put employees health and safety at risk.
The woman, who held up a sign outside Inner London crown court earlier this year spelling out the right of a jury to acquit a defendant on their conscience. She was referring to a famous sign in the Old Bailey celebrating the independence of jurors in the Bushel case in 1670, where a jury refused a judge’s direction to find defendants guilty.
Trudi Warner aged 68, held up a sign in March outside Inner London crown court, where a climate trial was taking place, which read: “Jurors: you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.”
She was protesting over restrictions on the defendants, imposed by the judge, which prevented them from mentioning climate change, insulation, fuel poverty or their motivations in their defence.
Several people who ignored the judge’s restrictions have been jailed for contempt of court. Amy Pritchard and Giovanna Lewis, who were both jailed for seven weeks after they ignored the judge’s ruling not to mention climate change in their address to the jury, are appealing against their conviction for contempt of court.
Warner was committed to the Old Bailey for contempt of court proceedings, where a high court judge referred the case to Tomlinson, to decide whether to pursue contempt proceedings or charge her with attempting to pervert the course of justice. He wrote to Warner last Thursday to say he had decided to prosecute her for contempt of court.
As she faces a possible jail sentence, a separate investigation is ongoing into allegations of attempting to pervert the course of justice relating to at least 12 people who also stood outside Inner London crown court in May holding similar placards.
Liberty said the decision to prosecute Trudi Warner, 68, for contempt of court for sitting outside a London trial holding up a sign was “concerning”.
Sam Grant, Advocacy Director at Liberty, said:
“This decision is concerning – especially when seen in the wider context of increasing attacks on our right to protest. We all have the right to make our voices heard on issues that matter to us, but this government has continually narrowed our options for standing up for what we believe in.
“As well as limits on how we can protest, we are also seeing the erosion of available defences for protestors, which has led to a situation where juries are the last line of defence for people facing imprisonment for protesting.
“Any government that claims to care about freedom of expression must reverse the restrictions on protest put in place through the Policing Act and Public Order Act, and commit instead to protecting our right to protest.”
Now, the UK and its sudden love of everything US based, is encouraging as much trade as possible with the United States, including the use of tech to provide mass surveillance of the population, utilised by the police in anti-crime centres of surveillance aka “real-time crime centre” (RTCC) that links up video and other surveillance technologies to a central feed; monitored 24/7 by police and other authoritative bodies such as local authority officials.
The involvement of US tech firms in lobbying UK councils and police forces to increase surveillance using AI-powered platforms may be a matter of concern for privacy and civil liberties advocates.
OpenDemocracy this week reports on the fact that:
‘...at least one London council is already trialling the software as a result of approaches by the company, Fusus, which claims to be “the most widely used and trusted real-time crime centre platform in US public safety”.
Fusus has been attempting to expand into the UK, opening an office in London’s Canary Wharf in March this year and hiring former officers from the Met to approach councils and police forces. It has approached Tower Hamlets and Hackney borough councils and the Met, City of London and Merseyside police forces to sell products that integrate CCTV and surveillance networks, according to Freedom of Information requests.
Kensington and Chelsea Council and Merton Council also confirmed they had also been in contact with Fusus when approached by openDemocracy, with Kensington and Chelsea running a 60-day trial starting earlier this month.’
The OpenDeomocracy report continues:
At the moment public CCTV feeds are monitored by council and police employees, but the Fusus RTCC system helps automate surveillance: police and other authorities can incorporate sophisticated, automated analytical software to analyse multiple real-time sources of footage and use this data to run predictive policing software, streamlining what could otherwise take officers days or weeks.
There is also the option of viewing the streams remotely, or even on officers’ phones, using the ‘FususOPS’ app. Critics have warned that the use of tech like Fusus is a step towards a “surveillance state”.
Emmanuelle Andrews, policy and campaigns manager at human rights group Liberty, said:
“The expansion of mass surveillance has no place in any rights-respecting democracy. We should all be able to live our lives without the threat of being watched, tracked and monitored by the police or those in power. “The increasing use of this sort of technology in policing embeds oppression, threatens our rights and liberties, and will change society as we know it. The government must ban use of this sort of technology by the police.”
Trade Unions and other pressure groups should also be very wary of this 1984 style public surveillance being used against those who wish to exercise their rights to protest, and indeed their rights to take strike action.
Blacklisting of trade union members in the workforce, still remains a major concern for the Trade Union movement.
Indeed, full scale monitoring of employees is already in place via video and mobile phone apps with many British Companies, including in the delivery and telecomms industires. Union Safety Reps in these sectors are also under pressure with their rights as USR; as per the Safety Reps and Safety Committees Regulations; being challenged and curtailed.
Many of the technologies incorporated in RTCCs are already in use by police forces in the UK, including live facial recognition, automatic number plate readers (ANPRs), drones, social media monitoring software and software such as predictive policing (used in the Met’s controversial Gangs Matrix). RTCCs stream these sources and applications together in real time so they can be easily viewed together on “a single pane of glass”.
But the use of AI powered US surveillance technology goes one hell of a way further in the Tory Governments (and successive Governments) attempts to quash any form of dissent and to ensure the general public is further disempowered and more compliant than it already is in the UK.
Those wishing to fully deploy such technologies, point out that the use of AI in surveillance can have both positive and negative implications, and the extent to which this technology is deployed should be carefully considered as good. Afterall, if you have nothing to hide what is wrong with protection of the public via mass-surveillance?
From the point of view of protecting Human Rights, Workers Rights and freedom of action, key points to consider regarding AI surveillance in the UK are:
- Privacy and Liberty: AI surveillance technologies have the potential to infringe upon individuals' privacy rights, which are closely tied to the concept of personal liberty. Liberty includes the freedom from unwarranted intrusion into one's personal life and activities.
- Mass Surveillance: The use of AI in surveillance can enable mass data collection and analysis, which may lead to concerns about mass surveillance infringing upon the liberty and autonomy of citizens.
- History of Surveillance: The history of surveillance and monitoring of activists, trade unionists, and dissidents is a concerning one in many countries. Technology has the potential to amplify these historical concerns.
- Legal Framework: The UK has a legal framework in place, including the Data Protection Act 2018 and the Human Rights Act 1998, which protect individual privacy and civil liberties. The use of AI surveillance must comply with these laws.
- Public Opinion: Public opinion plays a crucial role in shaping policy decisions related to AI surveillance. There are debates about where the balance should be struck between security concerns and individual liberties, and public sentiment can influence policy choices.
- Disempowerment: As previously mentioned, there can be concerns about the disempowerment of the general public if they feel constantly monitored or believe that their rights to protest or strike may result in repercussions. This is a continueing process being developed by the Tory Government, not unlike the issue of voter suppression.
- Oversight and Accountability: To protect civil liberties, there should be robust oversight mechanisms to ensure that AI surveillance is conducted within legal boundaries. Accountability is essential to prevent misuse and abuse of these technologies.
- Proportionality: The principle of proportionality is important when deploying AI surveillance. It means that surveillance measures should be proportionate to the threat or need for security, and they should not be excessive.
- Transparency: Transparency in AI surveillance programs is crucial for maintaining public trust. Citizens should be informed about the scope, purpose, and limitations of surveillance activities.
- Emerging Technologies: As AI and machine learning capabilities continue to advance, there is a need for ongoing assessment and adaptation of regulations and policies to address new challenges and threats to liberty.
- International Standards: The UK is also subject to international standards and agreements related to privacy and civil liberties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights. Compliance with these standards is important.
You can read the full report from OpenDemocracy here
Source: openDemocracy / Liberty / The Guardian / Unionsafety
