Richard Thomas, information commissioner for the government, will offer evidence to a Commons home affairs committee today citing that his office should get greater inspection powers to balance out an encroaching amount of surveillance technology which the committee itself is examining. This includes schemes such as ID cards, personal, financial or medical data of individuals held by organisations as well as including some 3.6 million DNA samples in the UK.

The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) was created to safe-guard data protection laws from infringement as well as bolster public access to official information. The department is responsible for enforcing both the Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts respectively. As head of the organisation, Thomas told the BBC that it was “wrong” the ICO was not allowed to check up on organisations unless they consented to it.  “People now understand that data protection is an essential barrier to excessive surveillance” he said “But it is wrong that my office cannot find out what is happening in practice without the consent of each organisation”

Thomas then went on to say “As well as risks such as identity mistakes and security breaches there can be unnecessary intrusion into people’s lives and loss of personal autonomy. There is also a concern that too much surveillance will create a climate of fear and suspicion.”

Calling for measures to be put into place by all government departments ensuring that privacy impact assessments are competed on every new and existing scheme, Thomas underlined his message when he said “While I do not believe that we are living in the type of society associated with totalitarian regimes, it is important that there is a vigorous debate around the issue of surveillance - about where lines should be drawn and the restrictions and safeguards which are needed.”

Compare this to recent attempts by government to curtail access to data through restricting freedom of information (FoI), and then the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) deciding to review the original consultation following the widespread criticism it received. It looks like the safeguards they propose and indeed the existence of the ICO were never more sorely needed.