|
The Home Office has contracted former Met policeman and local
authority PR-man Bob Lack to manage its controversial data retention
consultation. The move follows the riotous success of the government’s
other outsourcing and insourcing deals. In the spirit of openness
and transparency Privacy International has conducted its own data
access exercise on Mr Lack to create this handy “public data” FAQ
on the man.
Just our modest contribution to Data Retention for the public
good…
So who is Bob Lack?
 Very little resides in the public domain about Mr Lack. He appears
to have been employed for his entire working life (since theage
of eighteen) with the Metropolitan Police before joining Newham
Council in 1996 as Group Leader for Security (bio).
There he successfully established and ferociously promoted the
borough’s network of 300 CCTV cameras together with its whiz-bang
automated facial recognition system. He was brought into the Home
Office last year on a three-year contract to manage the data retention
issue.
Historically, what is the nature of the relationship between
Mr Lack and the Home Office?
The word symbiotic springs to mind. The Home Office has generously
funded Mr Lack’s CCTV projects, to the tune at least two
million pounds, while he in turn through massive media exposure
has created a public image of CCTV that makes the Home Office look
cool and sophisticated. Politicians such as Tony Blair and David
Blunkett have tumbled over each other for an opportunity to be
filmed in Newham’s Battlestar-like control room. Newham and
Mr Lack are the darlings of the Home Office CCTV push, and every
Home Secretary since Michael Howard has almost visibly salivated
over the PR boon Mr Lack has created.
OK, so Mr Lack was good at selling CCTV to the world.
But how does that qualify him to run a data retention consultations?
Difficult to say, but then again, when did that requirement necessarily
influence Government employment decisions? But Mr Lack is certainly
a emerging PR master, and he does understand the privacy landscape.
A cynic might suggest that his role is to “spin” the
issues, and there is some evidence to support this assessment.
In an interview with
the New York Times Magazine published in October 2001,
Mr Lack admitted that his role was sometimes to create illusion
rather than to promote fact and reality. Referring to some of the
information he was putting out Lack said "we're entitled to
disinform some people, aren't we?" Then, referring to some
of his media statements he added "Pretty much that's about
advertising, isn't it?" The New York Times summarised
Newham’s media promotion as a “lie”.
Now come on! You can’t surely be saying that Mr
Lack has been spinning the media and telling porkies. Are you?
Well, let’s just say some of the reported facts coming from
Mr Lack and his PR machine have been, ummmm, contradictory. He
told the NYT that the Newham system had never resulted
in an arrest, and yet in USA
Today, he appears to be saying that there have been arrests
as a result of the Newham technology. Damned journalists. Can’t
they ever get their reporting straight! Well, let’s give
the last word on this matter to the New York Times, which
concluded that Mr Lack “intentionally exaggerated (CCTV’s)
powers from the beginning”.
What can we deduce from Mr Lack’s performance at
Newham? Does it give us any hints about his approach to data
retention and access?
Well, Mr Lack does appear to get very excited about raw surveillance
capability, emphasising in one interview “Our
system has scanned 520,000 faces in Newham since August”.
Whether this puppy-like enthusiasm translates into his work in
data retention is yet to be seen. Mr Lack does say he respects
civil liberties, but appears sometimes to confuse public opinion
with individual rights, arguing in one interview "This
is not big brother; this is in response to public demand”.
We can however certainly deduce his attitude to privacy. Three
years ago, when questioned by Simon Davies on the BBC about his
attitude to the Newham residents who didn’t like being watched
by cameras he replied “Well I feel sorry for them, but they
don’t have to use our streets and shopping centres if they
don’t want to”. So is the public on Mr Lack’s
radar screen? Possibly not. In 2002 he told the All Party Internet
Group of MP’s that data retention is “…an issue
which concerns both the Information Commissioner, the industry
and ourselves.”
How does Mr Lack feel about the idea of surveillance?
In his time at Newham Mr Lack repeatedly told press he
didn’t like the idea of his schemes being seen as “Big
Brother”, but rather as "a friendly uncle and aunt watching
over you." Awwwww…. Bless!
Have your own Bob Lack fact to add? Email us with
the details and cite.
Return to the PI UK Surveillance Page
|
