The European Commission began legal proceedings against the British Government yesterday over its failure to protect the privacy of internet users. Many in the UK object to the EU on the grounds that it is “invasive” and a threat to British sovereignty and the so-called British way of life. Yet here is an example of the EU acting to uphold the civil liberties of British citizens in place of a government seemingly incapable of doing so.

The case concerns the apparent failure by the British Government to prohibit the unsolicited interception and surveillence of internet users’ communications, as required by the EU’s Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications.  Specifically the case focuses on BT’s use of software provided by the advertisement serving company Phorm, which monitors the browsing habits of internet users to deliver individually targeted advertising.

EU Telecoms Commissioner Viviane Reding said, “We have been following the Phorm case for some time and have concluded that there are problems in the way the UK has implemented parts of EU rules on the confidentiality of communications.” Phorm insists that their technology is legal and complies with all data protection standards since the data is not stored, but deleted almost immediately and is not retrievable.

On 4 April 2008 the UK Information Commissioner’s Office issued a statement giving BT the green light to trial the technology so long as they had users’ prior consent. However, it appears that BT conducted a trial of the technology without informing users and the Government failed to prevent this from happening.

What is objectionable about this technology is not the purpose for which it is currently intended, but the ends to which it might subsequently be utilised. It is to the potentially lasting misfortune of the British public that they have a government that appears unable to comprehend this threat.

We have been here before. From ID cards to anti-terrorism legislation, the mantra of the current administration has been that strict safeguards are or will be in place, and in the case of crime-prevention powers, only wrongdoers need be worried. Yet already, the fallacy of such assurances has begun to emerge. In October 2008, the British Government used powers granted by the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act to freeze £4 billion worth of British financial assets in the failed Icelandic bank Landsbanki. Hardly the use for which such powers were intended. Likewise, it was also revealed at the end of last year that half of UK local councils were using anti-terror legislation to spy on individuals suspected of committing “bin crimes“. What is to say that technology originally intended to improve targeted advertising might not subsequently be modified to fulfil more pernicious ends?

It must be hoped that British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith - hitherto one of the greatest proponents of such anti-privacy technology - might have modified her views in the wake of a spate of scandals that should have brought home to her the dangers of putting private information in the hands of those who wish to use it to cause harm.

The EU is right to have started legal proceedings over the UK’s failure to enforce the regulations governing the use of technology such as that created by Phorm. No one is accusing Phorm, BT, or the British Government for that matter, of wanting to use this advertising targeting technology to undermine civil liberties. But that does not mean this technology should not be stopped, for the destruction of civil liberties in the UK will not happen but by degrees.

By iterating his support for Turkish membership of the European Union during a speech in Prague on Sunday, US President Barack Obama must have known he was dipping his toe into stormy waters.

Sure enough, President Sarkozy of France lost no time in hitting back, warning Mr Obama: “When it comes to the European Union it’s up to member states of the European Union to decide… I have always been opposed to this entry and I remain opposed. I think I can say a huge majority of member countries take the same position as France.”

The latest Eurobarometer survey to cover the issue supports Mr Sarkozy’s assertions, revealing that just 28 per cent of Europeans favour the idea of Turkish accession to the European Union.

The reasons for this opposition are as numerous as they are wide ranging.  One of the main concerns is Turkey’s record on human rights. 85 per cent of Europeans believe that Turkey cannot join if it does not “systematically respect human rights”. Another major concern is that Turkey is quite simply too different, in both cultural and religious terms. During an interview with the French magazine Le Meillieur des Mondes then Minister of the Interior Sarkozy articulated these concerns when he stated flatly: “We have a problem with the integration of Muslims which raises the issue of Islam in Europe. To say it is not a problem is to hide from reality. If you let 100 million Turkish Muslims come in, what will come of it?”

Yet to reject Turkish membership on the grounds that it is simply too different will cause more problems than it solves. It is true that significant issues already confront the successful integration of many of Europe’s 3.8 million Muslims, but sending a clear message that Muslims aren’t really welcome in Europe is unlikely to help matters.

In fact, what is not adequately appreciated in Europe is Turkey’s own success at combining secularism and Islam. It was the almost overly-zealous commitment to Atatürk’s secularist legacy that that provoked nearly a million Turks to rally in Istanbul twice in one April fortnight in 2007, chanting “no to Sharia”, and protesting, amongst other things, plans by the ruling party to create alcohol-free zones and bids to outlaw adultery.

Turkish membership would serve to give the EU more influence and credibility in the Muslim world, particularly in the Middle East. Though perhaps something of an exaggeration, Portugal’s then Foreign Minister Diogo Freitas do Amaral had good reason when he asserted in October 2005 that “the agreement to start [accession] talks with Turkey will probably displease Mr Osama bin Laden, who has done everything to prevent this moment arriving.”

Turkish membership of the Union also has a number of practical benefits, not least in terms of energy security. The EU is already dependent on Russia for one quarter of its oil and gas. Turkey is the key alternative transit route for Caspian oil and gas and the swiftest route for Iraqi crude.

Giving Turks the unrestricted right to live and work anywhere in the EU that comes with membership would also help remedy the problem of Europe’s ageing workforce. The average Turk is in his 27th year, whereas the average European is almost 40.

Of course, there can be no question of Turkish membership until it fulfills all that is demanded of it by the EU’s rigorous Copenhagen accession criteria. Foremost is the need for Turkey to give equal rights and opportunities to its Kurdish minority, the abolition of Article 301 of the penal code (which makes insulting “Turkishness” and the Turkish Government a criminal offence) and the rolling back of the military in political affairs.

But pulling up the drawbridge of Fortress Europe is not the way to bring these reforms about. Traditionally, the EU’s strongest foreign policy weapon has been carrot as opposed to stick diplomacy: the incentive of membership in return for reforms that would otherwise not be forthcoming.

There is a real danger that if Europe is seen to turn its back on the prospect of Turkish membership too forcefully, Turks will retaliate in kind and the long called-for reforms will fail to materialise altogether. There is strong evidence to suggest, in fact, that this is already happening. The number of Turks who now believe membership would be a “good thing” has fallen to just 42 per cent.

President Sarkozy and others have repeatedly offered the sop of “privilaged partneship” status to Turkey, but this patronishing alternative holds little water. This perceived hostility is causing real damage to the faith Turks have in the desire of European’s to be genuine partners with them. Worryingly, a greater number of Turks now have “warm feelings” towards Iran than they do towards Europe.

Even President Sarkozy can surely see that an outcome where Turkey walks away altogether is in no-one’s best interests.