Lockdown restrictions accelerated the destruction of our right to privacy

Whatever the appalling consequences for personal freedom, some people say that lockdown restrictions have been good for privacy. Face masks discombobulate facial recognition technology and provide a level of anonymity usually only afforded to bank robbers. There are few places more private than our homes, and many people are reluctant to leave them even now.

This argument is entirely spurious. On masks alone, those of us unable or unwilling to wear them face a level of scrutiny from officials and other members of the public almost unprecedented in a free society. I have heard of children in schools required to wear special badges if they have a medical reason not to use a face covering. There is even technology that detects whether you are wearing a mask, and which sends out an automatic alert if none is present.

Are home-workers always aware, meanwhile, that their employers may have software available to them that can track their activity, measure their productivity, even log their keystrokes on their computers? Test and trace involves handing over personal information to businesses we frequent under trust that it will be deleted after a few weeks. There have already been reports of companies misusing this information for marketing purposes.

Then there is cash, fast disappearing because of fears that it might spread

Pundits talk of a postprivacy age, as if all of us are joyful enthusiasts for corporate surveillance, government monitoring, biometric databases and the rest... But individuals should be able to opt out of this grotesque carnival

the virus and thanks to the expansion of online shopping. Every transaction is unavoidably logged, making it nearly impossible to buy something without your credit card company or bank knowing about it, and by extension whoever they may be required to hand this information over to. Some firms now refuse to accept cash entirely, while others demand that you stand in a special queue at the till.

There are even whispers of plans for a form of digital ID card, justified as ever on the grounds of convenience and efficiency. They would reportedly obviate the need for witnesses to attend the signing of property deals in person, for example, and would enable bars to check the age of their customers digitally. But even if they were not to be made compulsory, the system would require a vast new database, controlled by government, with all the attendant risks of data breaches, hacking, and simple abuse by officials.

Pundits like to talk about this as a post-privacy age, as if all of us are joyful enthusiasts for corporate surveillance, government monitoring, biometric databases, and the rest. It is true that there is mass compliance with the behaviour of tech companies, which have built entire industries making money from our personal information, although many people are not exactly aware of the value of the data they hand over in return for purportedly free services.

But the point is that individuals should be able to opt out of this grotesque carnival, to decide for themselves whether they are happy to trade their privacy for convenience, or security, or whatever the latest benefit is meant to be. The past few months are not cause for optimism.