In 2001, just after the bombs in New York, the Economist led with a picture of the twin towers in flames and the headline “The end of the world as we know it”. The magazine was describing a world of insecurity, where terrorism would come to visit Western capitals on a regular basis. A world in which the feeling of well-being would be replaced by fear. And a world where chaos would reign. The question of civil liberties was raised only briefly. But should we not be more concerned about the erosion of our privacy?

Bomb threats, especially from suicidal religious fanatics, carry a certain emotional weightage. It could happen anywhere and anyone with an Arab/Asian complexion is a suspect. There is no way to categorise the assailant. And the multicultural aspect of London is now turning out to be the same threatening element to its citizens. While the city is not a stranger to bomb attacks - it survived the IRA bombing campaign - there is a different feeling this time around. The IRA usually warned before they carried out an attack. You were given an hour or half an hour to evacuate civilians before a building of symbolic significance was brought down. But Islamic fanatics are different. They target the civilian population to cause fear, insecurity and hysteria. In fact, their tactics play right into the hands of the governments they are supposed to hate.

<B>Bad omen</B>

After the attacks on New York, governments around the world rushed a rash of security bills through their parliaments. In America, the infamous Patriot Act gave the government the right to monitor library books that people take out until only two weeks ago when the law was amended to remove this clause. In Mauritius, the government under pressure from the Americans also passed a Prevention of Terrorism Act, which came in for much criticism. India also passed a version of that law. All the European capitals did the same. People could now be interned without trial and without any concrete evidence against them. In effect, we have seen a tightening of the security noose around all of us around the world.

All this augurs badly for the future. Before even the first bomb exploded in London, the New Labour government was facing parliamentary rebellion over its controversial plans to introduce identity cards. These, unlike their Mauritian counterparts, which are more like a swimming pool membership card, were designed to include biometric data. Each ID card would have contained information on its holder, like the finger print, which opponents had deemed was in breach of civil liberties. As the bombs went off, the Home Office agreed with governments around Europe to ask companies to keep all records of phone calls and emails.

The territory on which all these laws are encroaching is that of the basic civil rights of the individual. The right to privacy is the lynchpin of modern democracies, enshrined in the constitution. Once we start encroaching on it, we are immediately setting foot in the world described by Orwell in 1984 or even knocking at the door of the sterile one imagined by Huxley in Brave New World. People are already monitored to an unprecedented level. Within hours of last week’s bombing, The Guardian’s website was already carrying Close Circuit Television (CCTV) images of the four suspected bombers who had eluded the police. Similar images of the first bombing were also released and printed in all newspapers. In fact, it is estimated that a Briton is caught on a CCTV camera at least 100 times a week. Such photos, if collaged, can produce a detailed narrative of a person’s day-to-day life.

Furthermore, new technology forces us to leave a digital map of our movements. Mobile phones, whether they are on or off, always emit a signal, thus displaying our position on the planet. Credit cards also give our level of activity away. And the Internet? We might think that we are anonymous on the World Wide Web, but we are assigned a number, or ISP address, each time we connect to the virtual world. The number of times we swap personal details over emails, register to websites are all traceable. The danger that we are giving too much personal information away is very clear and present.

<B>Keeping track</B>

All these can be used to compile a database on a person. Already, private companies use this kind of data tracking to paint a picture of what we like, our taste in food, magazines, our favourite brand of soap, how often we buy milk. One example of such private companies is no other than the innocuous and apparently innocent supermarkets. The use of clubcards is not a generous give-away of money by grocery stores. They are designed to help them in market research. In fact they know what each holder of such a clubcard/loyalty card buys and exactly what their tastes are, how much money they spend each month, or what his/her favourite brand of a product is.

What the terrorists are doing is handing down the consent that governments need to increase their power of surveillance. While people are gripped by fear and hysteria, there is no better time to pass regressive legislation and to ask them to hand away their basic rights. In Mauritius, we can connect to these fears. We should remember what happened to Cehl Meeah. When he was imprisoned on thin evidence, we barely batted an eyelid. Why? the menace of Muslim fanaticism was threatening the country.

What if we had many more episodes like L’Amicale bombing? We would have willingly given any government the right to invade the people’s privacy. While, in the short term, these laws might be deemed a necessary evil to combat terrorism, we have to remember that they take years, decades and sometimes centuries to repeal. And, by then, it might be too late. The thought control would have permeated society to such an extent that rebellion against these laws would have vanished.

<B>Diren VALAYDEN

Outlook Correspondent in Dublin</B>