**In the UK, mandatory ID cards and indefinite detention have been rightly rejected. Control orders, however, remain on thin ice.** Whilst the UK legislatures have attempted to curve civil liberties in the name of counter-terrorism in a way that would be deemed as excessive, there have been some successful challenges to these actions. To name a few: • In 2005, Part 4 of the Counter-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was repealed after the [Law Lords](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4100481.stm) deemed it to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. This provision had allowed the indefinite detention of foreign nationals suspected of terrorism offences. • In 2006, the former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed plans to introduce [national identity cards](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54010432) which were linked to a government database with the aim of combating terrorism. Although the scheme began its rollout in 2009, plans to introduce this to the rest of UK citizens were scrapped in 2011 on the grounds of privacy concerns. • Parliament’s implementation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 created [control orders](https://www.hrw.org/news/2005/03/14/uk-new-terrorism-law-fundamentally-flawed) continues, under certain conditions, to [limit the civil liberties](https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/06/control-orders-what-are-they-and-why-do-they-matter/) of those suspected of terrorism by restricting their movement and interpersonal communication among other things. The courts have subsequently [interpreted](https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/06/control-orders-what-are-they-and-why-do-they-matter/) the Act in a way that makes it compatible with the ECHR, although individual control orders that breach human rights are duly scrutinised.

**Some curbs on civil liberties are necessary to achieve peace, however these must be necessary and proportionate** France’s [Senate] (https://nation.com.pk/01-Jul-2021/french-senate-adopts-anti-terrorism-bill-with-controversial-provisions) adopted counter terrorism measures aimed at strengthening internet surveillance by analysis of internet algorithms and obtaining data from internet service providers that indicate a terrorist threat. This controversial measure also includes shutting down places of worship and blocking access to the state’s secret archives. Allowing the government to have access to our search histories, to our internet activity can be seen as an invasion of privacy. Whilst some may see it as a necessary sacrifice to achieve peace, it can be seen as heading towards a police state where our actions are constantly monitored. Algorithms can be [biased] (https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/18/21121286/algorithms-bias-discrimination-facial-recognition-transparency) ; they are made by humans, governments and organisations who have biases and agendas of their own. Counter terrorism algorithm measures are likely to unfairly target Muslims and people of colour, and will fail to acknowledge the potential of white terrorists. Preemptively shutting down places of worship is an unnecessary curb on a civil liberty (right to a religion). Again, this will likely affect one group more than another.