WRITTEN ON January 10th, 2009 BY Ruth Kennedy AND STORED IN Foundation of Trust, Identity, What do we want?

I was interested to see the reports today of the DPP Keir Starmer QC’s briefing on the so-called superdatabase of communications data. Interestingly, there seems to be a real polarisation of the reporting of his views. The Guardian sub-editing states “Plan for Superdatabse for all Calls and Emails Legitimate, says DPP”.

Keir Starmer QC did say that the Government, police and security agencies should only be allowed to collect and use that data where there was a clear “legitimate purpose” that justified the invasion of an individual’s privacy.

“By its very nature criminal investigation touches on privacy. I think the right balance for any investigation or prosecution has got to have a legitimate purpose. Investigation of crime is a legitimate purpose.”

But it seems to me that Mr Starmer’s comments may have been rather more equivocal than this reporting suggests. The Indy headlines its piece “Calls for Safeguards for Big Brother Database”, as does the Belfast Telegraph, which focuses much more heavily on the DPP’s warning that plans for a ‘Big Brother’ database holding records of every citizen’s emails, internet visits and mobile phonecalls must include effective safeguards to protect the public from abuses of privacy. Starmer doesn’t appear – yet – to have enlarged upon what in his view would constitute ‘effective’.

Various blogs have immediately started to query whether the new DPP, known for his expertise in human rights, has gone native, noting comparisons with his predecessor, Sir Ken MacDonald QC, who has recently come out strongly against the Government’s intended schemes – as reported here, for eg.
I think recent history (MacDonald, Goldsmith, et al) shows us that it is always easy to be more feisty and challenging when you have stepped out of formal office. The challenge for someone of the calibre and integrity of Starmer is to know how to walk the line within the formal structures effectively. If his more moderate tones enable a better, more informed debate about what is legitimate and proportionate, and what would constitute sufficient safeguards and oversight, then he should be applauded and supported. Accusing him of going over to the darkside may just undermine the more informed conversation we could be about to have.