I see that certain local media sectors have been very exercised by the “public’s right to know”. Unfortunately it seems that the public’s right to know is largely restricted to receiving punctual bulletins about the state of politicians’ marriages.

So we got the handwringing and the faux-empathy and the further publicising of the Opposition Leader’s marital difficulties by journalists. And we got the obligatory references to Sarkozy and Hollande and Clinton and how the foreign press acted then. And we were told how vitally important it is to know about all politicians’ private lives – because this might influence the way they carry out their duties, and the taxpayer is paying them for this.

I’m not totally convinced about this. If politicians’ private lives give rise to conflict of interest situations – then obviously there is a public interest factor. But saying that we should be privy to all their relationship dips because it could affect their performance is overstated.

As a reader rightly pointed out, there are many factors which may influence or affect the way a politician discharges his duties – ranging from the loss of a loved one, to metal health issues, to illnesses and other setbacks. These do not necessarily confer upon the public the right to know about all the daily trials and tribulations of politicians.

“Reporting” about politicians’ private lives is easy. It requires no great ability – simply the confirmation and publishing of verbal rumours. It also has the added “benefit” of ratcheting up hits and page views. This seems to be far more of a journalistic goal these days, than truth-seeking or sifting fact from fiction, or even delving deeper into issues which may affect the public more than politicians’ marriages.

There are many ominous and human rights implications in installing and operating mass surveillance systems

Take the government’s recent announcement that facial recognition technology was going to be introduced in Paceville and Marsa. Ostensibly it’s a pilot project carried out in crime hotspots, but hardly anybody raised an eyebrow about the horrific invasion of privacy implications involved. And no-one has seen fit to question why we should need this intrusive, unconsented to form of surveillance.

In the first place – why do we need it? In April this year criminologist Saviour Formosa declared that  crime in Malta is “visibly decreasing”. This information emanated from the 2017 annual crime report.

The crime report shows a decrease in criminality related to prostitution, abuse of public authority and sexual offences. Reported crime in St Julian’s (which includes Paceville) was down to 1,800 reports from 3,100 in 2012. That’s still significant of course, but it still doesn’t explain why we need such a drastic privacy-busting measure.

It also doesn’t explain why Paceville and Marsa were chosen as starting points and not, for example, Mdina, which experienced the greatest number of crimes in the same period. The answer is probably related to the fact that having 24/7 surveillance in Paceville and Marsa will only affect foreigners and migrants, who won’t (or can’t make waves).

There are other questions which haven’t been asked or answered. Who exactly is going to be handling, collating and storing this information? Can the public know who’s watching them in real time? Will it be held by local or foreign bodies? Who are they? Will information about us be passed on or sold to unknown third parties? What if they are business competitors, political opponents or potential blackmailers? What kind of remedies does the man in the street have at his disposal? How easily enforceable will these remedies be? Will the ordinary citizen be fobbed off – when seeking to see who is spying on him – by reference to commercial interests? (in the same way authorities stonewall and refuse to disclose relevant information when requested).

Does the government have any plans of unrolling social credit systems based on the Chinese model, where people are either punished or rewarded based on their social credit (information for which is mostly gleaned from facial recognition)?

There are many ominous and human rights implications in installing and operating mass surveillance systems such as this. Even the computer antivirus software tycoon John Macafee, currently in Malta for the Blockchain event and the local media darling, warned of the dangers of this when he said: “Something like facial recognition... it’s a wonderful thing if it’s used to open your own door to get into your home. It’s not a wonderful thing if it’s used by the power structure to follow you, identify you and see everywhere you go, no, that’s not cool with me, I’m sorry but that’s has nothing to do with the blockchain. It has to do with the corruption within the power system of the world today.”

Shouldn’t we all take heed and not turn into Big Brother Island or a State of surveillance?

drcbonello@gmail.com

This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece