ROUSSEAU gave the first modern warning. In 1762 he published his Social Contract, which contains the famous statement: “Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.” H.G. Wells gave a similar warning in 1895 in The Time Machine. For modern readers, the two great novels are Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, published in 1932, the year before Hitler came to power; and George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, published in 1949. Rousseau was attacking the archaic tyrannies that had lasted into his age; he underrated the dangers of the scientific future. Wells, Huxley, and Orwell had seen the early development of the scientific age in which we live; they raised the alarm.

Each of them understood that the new technology of their time could be use to condition human beings; Huxley, who came from a family of scientists, thought that chemistry, combined with selective breeding, could produce a society of human robots who would find happiness in subordination. Orwell modelled his police state on an experience of social thought control in the wartime BBC. A present-day author, writing about the same issues, might well turn to the technology of electronic communications. We should read about the internet, about Microsoft and Google, about supercomputers and the eavesdropping capacity of the CIA.

In the 1990s the rapid development of the internet and the personal computer gave rise to unjustified optimism. The internet gave individuals greater power of communication than global corporations had enjoyed a generation before. The combined capacity of networks of computers seemed more important than the centralised power of the largest computers.

It seemed then that the internet might be a liberalising influence, giving the individual more power relative to the State. To an extent this proved true. Many people found that they could earn a living using the internet, which left them free to choose where to live: in country or town, or in the most favourable tax jurisdiction.

Governments were forced to make their tax regimes competitive, or risk losing revenue. Not much of this optimism has survived. The 21st century has been a period in which most governments sought to reassert and extend control; often adopting policies that would once have been regarded as illegal and outrageous. The decisive event was 9/11. Public fear of terrorism gave governments the support needed to tighten systems of social control and supervision. In the United States, the clear constitutional safeguards against imprisonment without due process were set aside. Any president responsible for “extraordinary rendition” or Guantanamo before 9/11 would have been impeached; President Bush was re-elected.

The British Government followed the lead of the United States, passing a succession of anti-terrorism Acts, each with new restrictions on personal liberties. Historians are not surprised. Periods of threat to the nation, whether by terrorism or invasion, have always seen new limitations on personal liberty. Indeed, the public demands stronger protection. However, the British Government took advantage of this opportunity to impose new methods of control that could not have been put through Parliament in normal circumstances. In particular, the Home Office, under authoritarian Home Secretaries, introduced Bills that it had wanted for a long time. The whole balance between the citizen and the State was altered in favour of the State.

Many of these new interventions could partly be justified in terms of counter-terrorism, but they still invaded the liberties of the citizen. For instance, Britain has four million CCTV cameras, which gives the UK a quarter of the world’s cameras to photograph 1 per cent of the world’s population. Phone taps are now going to be extended, for the first time, to MPs; and therefore to their constituents. There are universal taps on the internet, which may be passed on to foreign intelligence agencies. All of these new powers can give counter-terrorism benefits, but they can also be used for intrusions not connected with terrorism, or even with crime.

Tomorrow the House of Lords will return to the worrying Bill that authorises identity cards. Many people suppose that identity cards are an anti-terrorist measure; the security services know that they are not effective in that role. The main question tomorrow will be their cost. The Government used to pretend they would cost £100 each; the London School of Economics estimates that the cost will be £500 a head, or £28 billion in all. I worry more about the central register than I do about the cards themselves. This will be held on a supercomputer that will contain more than 50 pieces of information about each cardholder, including biometric information. This could easily develop, as some people think it should, into a collected register of information held by government departments, including criminal, tax and health records. I certainly don’t want to be compelled to spend £500 to give the Government a complete picture of my private existence.

In Parliament, particularly in the House of Lords, there is a growing reaction against such social control. Most of us think policemen should not be turned into busybodies, warning people not even to discuss adoption by homosexual couples; arresting them for any trivial offence; threatening smokers and publicans; and galloping after fox-hunters. We resent this on behalf of the public, but we also resent it on behalf of the police.

In the history of Britain there have been many periods when liberty was threatened. The immediate threat is a government with a lust for control, with little respect for liberty or for the House of Commons, but enjoying the opportunity of using new technologies for social control. The British are certainly less free than we were in 1997 or 2001. The fightback will be laborious and difficult, but there is a new mood. We do not want to reach 1984 25 years behind schedule in 2009.

JOIN THE DEBATE
Send your e-mails here

Times Recommends

• In the real world, the public sector must pay
• Playing politics in a land of double Dutch
• Be like the plinth people: not set in stone