The tell-tale signs are everywhere. You can see them in our buildings and our transport networks. You can read them in your morning paper. You can hear them echoing down the corridors of Whitehall. Galvanised by fear whipped up by the media, to which our politicians pander persistently in pursuit of power, we’ve changed our society into one where nobody dares take a decision. We live in a post-accountability world where bureaucracies ruin lives for the want of someone – anyone – displaying a bit of courage or leadership or common sense.

Nowhere is this illustrated more starkly than in the case of Paul Chambers.

In the snowy depths of January 2010 Paul sent a message of frustration to his Twitter friends when he discovered the weather could affect his travel plans: “Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together or I’m blowing the airport sky high!!”

A member of staff at Robin Hood Airport saw the tweet because they were searching Twitter for their employer’s name (goodness knows why). They judged it to be harmless, but reported it anyway, presumably so their ass would be covered if it turned out to be otherwise; and anyway, it didn’t cost them anything personally, so why not? Especially since the consequences of inaction might have proved career-limiting.

I imagine similar thinking drove the airport security team’s decision to tip off the police about the message, or rather, their decision to make it their policy to report every tip-off they receive no matter how improbable it seems. After all, it would have been no skin off their noses to include Paul’s tweet in their routine report, and the consequences would have been unthinkable if they’d failed to mention something that might, just might, have been important. Same with the police: it’s no problem for them to investigate any possible threat. They could have decided Paul’s tweet was a foolish act of bravado, yet if they had declined to act and something bad had happened, it would have been be their responsibility. Far be it for the police to take responsibility. That’s what the Crown Prosecution Service is for, right? Wrong.

At least when cases like this are blown out of proportion by a bunch of jobsworths, they’re usually set straight by the courts, aren’t they? Not this time. This was ass-covering at it’s finest, all the way down the line. Paul was convicted of sending “a message or other matter” which is “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character” by means of a “public electronic communications network”. His fine currently stands at £384 plus £2600 in costs. He’s been given a criminal record and has lost two jobs as a consequence.

This is bigger than one man’s misguided message. Other tweeters have been arrested under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 since Paul’s conviction, which was upheld unequivocally by Doncaster Crown Court last Thursday, and those people are still waiting to learn their fate. The chilling effect this ruling could have on freedom of expression is no laughing matter.

This is how the War on Terror has ended. Not with the capture of Osama Bin Laden and the routing of Al-Qaeda. Not with world peace nor by treating each other as we would wish to be treated. Instead, it’s ended with innocent people looking over their shoulders, thinking twice about what they say online and being thankful for every day they escape the dreaded knock that could ruin their lives.

There may be hope yet. Paul and his legal team are considering whether to appeal to the high court. Nobody would blame Paul if he decided to draw a line under this sorry affair and turn his energy towards rebuilding his life. If he decides to continue though (and I hope he does) he deserves our full support.

That’s why some of us are having a rally in Sheffield, tomorrow, to express solidarity with Paul, to protest against his conviction, and to champion the cause of free speech on the Internet.

If you fancy joining us the information you need is here: http://bit.ly/jokesontrial – but be quick. You’ve got less than 24 hours to get your shit together, and if you don’t make it, I’m gonna blow you sky high!!!!1

Your search terms are highly sensitive and very private. They are also uniquely identifiable. Examining what you search for can reveal deeply personal facts about you, such as your online reading habits, medical history, finances, sexual preferences and political affiliations.

A database of search terms, linked to subscriber accounts, would be a clear violation of the privacy rights of everyone who uses the Internet in Europe.

I’ve written to my MEPs urging them not to sign Written Declaration 29 and to withdraw their signature if they have already signed. You should do the same – it takes two minutes through writetothem.com

Here’s my letter (but, as always, please use your own words for maximum effect).

Dear Timothy Kirkhope, Edward McMillan-Scott, Andrew Brons, Godfrey Bloom, Diana Wallis and Linda McAvan,

Written declaration 29 [pdf] calls on the European Commission to extend the data retention directive (2006/24/EC) to Internet search-engines. If this were to happen all private searches done on Google et al would be monitored. I feel this would be an intolerable violation of article 8 ECHR privacy rights.

Written declaration 29 is being marketed within the European Parliament by using an emotionally-loaded picture of a child and talking about the need to set up an ”early warning system” to combat child abuse. Laudable though that aim is, as a technical expert it’s my opinion that these measures cannot achieve it, and the marketing is therefore misleading. Some MEPs have already said they feel they have been misled into signing the declaration because of the way in which it was presented to them.

If the declaration is adopted the names of the signatories will be made public.

If you have signed written declaration 29 and feel you have been misled I urge you to withdraw your signature.

Christian Engström MEP has published more information on his website.

I thought it would be interesting to compare the contents of the Liberal Democrat Freedom Bill with the new Government’s version:

What do I conclude from this comparison? That the Government’s outline proposals are a massive step in the right direction however there is still more work to do.

1. Scrap the ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the ContactPoint Database.
2. Outlaw the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.
3. Extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.
4. Adopt the Scottish approach to stopping retention of innocent people’s DNA on the DNA database.
5. Defend trial by jury.
6. Restore rights to non-violent protest.
7. A review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
8. Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
9. Further regulation of CCTV.
10. Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.
11. A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.
12. End the detention of children for immigration purposes.

Oh my!

As a digital- and civil-rights campaigner this list fills my heart with joy. The successful passage of this Bill through Parliament would not end the need to champion human rights in the digital era* however it would be a famous victory for that cause: we could say with certainty that this election, that the ousting of Labour from Government, was the point at which the high-water mark of authoritarian social policy in Britain was reached.

Some fellow campaigners have today urged caution and are reserving judgement until the details of the Bill are published. I cannot fault them for their cynicism however I am filled with hope that today we have seen not only the dawn of a new politics in Britain, but a new era of liberty, freedom, privacy and respect for human rights in the UK.

I shall be raising my glass to the death of ID cards and the Database State tonight!

* Three omissions stand out: repeal clauses 11-18 of the Digital Economy Act; make the NHS Summary Care Record opt-in rather than opt-out; end the Vetting and Barring scheme, abolish the Independent Safeguarding Authority and reform CRB checks to make them fair. It’s possible that these will be included in the detail of the Bill.

The prospect of a government of national unity* – a coalition including both the Conservatives and Labour – is conspicuous by its absence. Instead both parties are courting the support of the third force in British politics – the Liberal Democrats – to make up the numbers they need to govern.

The situation has given the Lib Dems a rare opportunity to influence Government policy directly. Top of the Liberals’ wish-list is electoral reform – changing the first-past-the-post voting system to some kind of proportional representation. Unfortunately none of the options on the table offer them a realistic prospect of achieving this.

The Tories are opposed to electoral reform, as the current system favours them (disproportionately), while Labour’s death-bed conversion to the cause lacks both conviction and the requisite mandate to see it through. A Lib/Lab alliance would still fall short of a commons majority so it would require the support of a hodge-podge of minority-party MPs in order to get anything done. Such a rainbow coalition would be unlikely to provide stable government in the national interest, would exclude from government the party with the biggest share of the vote, and might disagree with itself so violently on other matters that it could even collapse before it managed to get anything done.

The Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, has become the first for generations to catch a whiff of government yet he has been presented with an agonising dilemma: to share power with the Conservatives he would have to abandon the most cherished ambition of his party and set aside the reason he says he went into politics in the first place.

Much depends on the detail of the power-sharing offer being made by the Tories however, when it comes down to it, Clegg will have to decide whether he thinks working with the Tories or against them serves the Liberal agenda best. In other words, will he choose to join a Conservative-led Government and fight within it for that in which Liberals believe, or will he choose to sit opposite a minority Tory administration and fight against that in which they do not?

On that point I think my previous advice applies.

But oh! The irony…

* With Cameron as Prime Minister, Brown as Chancellor and Clegg as Home Secretary, what could possibly go wrong?