Taking liberties

Civil liberties seem to be the issue of the moment.
Iain Dale posted this after someone complained about the the intrusive state particularly relating to schools (but aren't schools pretty autonomous now on everything other than curriculum and so free from the shackles of the state?).
Tom Harris followed this up by asking what's wrong with cctv; Iain hit back (as did his loyal legions) and it all got rather predictable and with regard to surveillance cameras.
I think the letter writer's complaint about fingerprinting in schools was far more interesting.
At the same time the shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve talks about relaxing the rules on state surveillance (and is Cameron going to be known as the politician who reduced the number of CCTV cameras?). What with Grieve's predecessor staking out the civil liberty agenda it's all got rather crowded in this particular ideological battleground.
It has led Tom Watson today to highlight what he sees as inconsistencies in the Conservative approach.
Are we under greater surveillance than, say, in 1997? Undoubtedly. As ever, technologically as outpaced public debate and neither the state or private sector has hung around too much waiting for everyone to give their OK.
Yes, there are more CCTV cameras than anywhere else but most don't work or aren't monitored - even the police see little merit in the way they are used at the moment.
But it's far more than CCTV. It's information databases and data mining. It's the way our details are shared between agencies or with other governments (Statewatch has done excellent work observing this area). Above all its a general public ignorance about what scope of surveillance that allows its abuses to flourish. If we don't know, then how can we debate the issue?
Do I think an incoming Conservative government would lead to civil liberty nirvana? No. They've already shown contempt for the Human Rights Act. They would treat enemies of the state (climate change protestors, strikers etc) with as little respect as previous administrations. And, with a tough on crime and terrorism ethos how could they make it more difficult for the police and security to 'do their job? Like Labour I think they are hamstrung by their own rhetoric.