Security, a topic that's been at the fore of every Western nation's policy decisions since Sept. 11, is a need that's hard to dispute. But there's more than one kind of security that needs safeguarding. While high-profile buildings, mass transport and port facilities clearly need strong measures to protect them these days, so does personal security.

Identity theft is rampant, and bank customers once thrilled at the convenience of being able to withdraw cash from automatic tellers at 1 a.m. now double-check the machine's surface to be sure no one has planted an extra mini camera on it to record their keystrokes.

The Czech Republic is hardly alone in neglecting the privacy of its citizens as amazing new technologies and services come along. The United Kingdom has a far more vigorous debate about personal security safeguards than the Czech Republic and has two detailed laws to protect it in place, laws that are better enforced than the 1992 law passed here. That set of rules was updated in Parliament in 2000 but is overdue for another update to deal with things like protecting people from e-mail spam.

Yet, say British civic rights groups, there are still far too few real safeguards against state agencies or corporations gathering detailed information on you and keeping it on file long after it's no longer needed. And, as the Privacy International watchdog group has found, the UK is actually doing worse than the Czech Republic in looking after the personal data security of its citizens, having ranked worst among European Union countries in a survey by the agency (the Czech Republic ranks 18th).

Czechs have proven themselves to be masters at IT and engineering, creating software and systems that export all over the world. What they still lack is a strong desire to protect the rights of ordinary citizens from powerful entities that may be snooping on them.

As Filip Pospíšil of the privacy watchdog Iuridicum Remedium says, we've seen a shift in the past few years in what's considered within the bounds of normal measures.

"Until recently, the only people being fingerprinted were criminals," he says. "Now, it's become commonplace to fingerprint regular citizens. It kind of stands the notion of 'innocent until proven guilty' on its head."

Put that observation up against one made recently by Miloš Titz, former chairman of the Parliament's defense committee, and the divide becomes apparent: "If you're not doing anything wrong, there's no reason to fear wiretapping."

This statement earned Titz some mockery from Iuridicum Remedium, which bestowed on him its "Big Brother statement of the year" award late last month.

Like many leaders in a position to push for better privacy protections, he seems to find the criticism a trifle. "I stand by it," says Titz, apparently unaware that he is paraphrasing a line by Franz Kafka that sums up the arrogance of big government in his powerful polemic The Trial. "Sometimes giving up a little privacy is worth greater security," Titz continues. "Just look at what's going on in the world today. Crime is everywhere."