I have just read Michael Bywater's  latest contribution to your Science and Technology section (Connected) and decided not to waste my time with him anymore (In my opinion: We don' t expect honesty from governments,
22 June 2000).

Rather than trying to satirise him, I shall just quote the following: If governments were honest, he writes, they would admit to being "pathologically committed to the idea of secrecy and monitoring; we have the power to investigate all your private correspondence and by God we're going to use it".

He writes with wit and eloquence, but like an intellectual Alf Garnett (sp?), what he says is complete nonsense.

Despite Mr Bywater's handling of it, the subject is an important one. 

I wonder why he is so worried about the "planned snooping on our private e-mails". Could it be that he is just flattering himself by imagining the government to be particularly interested in him - or does he have something illegal to hide?

A democratic government is not interested in snooping on its honest citizens, but it is and should be interested in sniffing out dishonest, criminal elements - which modern technology provides excellent opportunities to do.

If a woman in raped in my neighbourhood, I am more than happy to provide the police with a sample of my DNA: firstly to clear myself of any possible suspicion, and secondly to help catch the culprit. I wouldn't
give a sample to just anybody, but I am happy to give it to the police; and that is how I feel about all my other private information - including business and financial information! I'm an honest, law-abiding citizen; if the police want to check it out they are welcome to do so.

Obviously there needs to be strict control and accountability of the authorities entrusted with access to personal or confidential information. No democratic politician would suggest otherwise.

Personally I am deeply suspicious of people like Michael Bywater, who are so fearful of their secrets being exposed even to democratically controlled and accountable authorities.

No doubt, many people DO have things to hide, especially in financial and business matters.

It is interesting to consider that much of human history can be seen as a struggle between "good and evil", with evil thriving in the dark of ignorance and good in the light of knowledge (Thus, the "forces of light and darkness" as a synonym for "good and evil").

Wrongdoing and injustice have always been greatly facilitated by the difficulty man has in getting at the truth, but modern technology is now putting us in a position - if we choose - to caste far more light on man's affairs, especially those involving business and finance.

That such a prospect makes us all feel at least a little uncomfortable, is hardly surprising, but the more honest amongst us can rest assured that serious wrongdoers feel a lot more uncomfortable than we do. Some are frantic with fear and will do or say anything to prevent their secrets becoming known. In particular they will invoke the "dignity of man" and human rights for their ignoble cause, just as in the past those serving the devil so often invoked the bible.

Contrary to Michael Bywater and many others, I believe that more accessibility of confidential information to legitimate authorities, along with a general increase in transparency and openness in matters of finance and business, far from threatening democratic society, would transform it, if not directly into paradise, then at least into a far more sustainable, just and wholesome society than we have today.