Editorial: Privacy must give some ground to security these days

Gareth Hughes Green Party list MP. Photo / Warren Buckland

Questions have been asked about police photographing protesters at Parliament during the visit of the United States Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, on Tuesday.

The protest on the forecourt was organised by a group called 350 Aotearoa whose primary concern is said to be climate change.

One of those protesting was Green MP Gareth Hughes who said he had not seen police taking photographs of previous demonstrations there and said many people would want to know why they were doing so.

Police answered in an issued statement saying there could be a number of reasons for images to be recorded at a public event. An example they gave was, to provide an evidential record of illegal or criminal activity if it occurs. They added, "If there is no evidence of any offending, the images are deleted."

That explanation, of course, does not answer the question, why now? Photographs or video recordings of protests for evidential purposes would be useful at any time.

There must be a strong suspicion that this is part of an increased level of vigilance by police in all Western countries after the terrorism in Britain in recent months.

If so, can it be reconciled with the civil liberties we expect in New Zealand?

Genuine environmentalists could be justifiably aggrieved if their activities were considered a threat to lives and public safety.

The worst that any of them did at Parliament on Tuesday was to hang a banner from a crane, probably illegally, and throw water bombs at an effigy of Donald Trump.

Actions their opponents like to call "eco-terrorism" usually involve damage to property or interference with the rights of others but risks only to themselves.

Greens cannot deny, though, that their demonstrations are liable to attract those with a less benign chip on their shoulder, especially when the demonstration is directed at the United States.

Police in all cities will be familiar with the faces of those who turn out for practically every march whether the cause has to do with the environment, unemployment, industrial relations or peace.

They probably have little to worry about. It is the unfamiliar face that may be of most interest to police who study the footage or photos.

The recent attacks in Britain have brought home the fact that all societies are vulnerable to disturbed individuals, susceptible to incitement by sick websites, who need only a rifle, knife or motor vehicle to stage a deadly, attention-seeking, suicidal rampage.

Filming events that might attract them is only one obvious way to try to find them, so would more effective monitoring of internet traffic.

In the wake of the Manchester and London carnage, Britain's Prime Minister, Theresa May, has resolved to regulate the internet and encryption to make it easier for intelligence agencies to read messages of concern.

She faces an election tomorrow but her resolve sounds genuine. Criticising the privacy offered by internet service providers to date, she aims to "deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online".

If the price of security is some reductions of privacy, it is worth paying.