The privacy genie is out of the bottle. The Facebook generation, brought up on sharing even the most intimate details online, has no concept of confidentiality or need-to-know.And it is this same IT-savvy Facebook generation that is tasked with safekeeping our personal data: our private medical and financial records, our purchasing patterns and income history, our web browsing and emailing secrets.

The privacy genie is never getting back into the bottle because, to put it bluntly, the bottle has been smashed.

These were some of the observations made during a debate hosted by Law Society president Robert Heslett on Monday 7 June. Chatham House Rules applied, which means the Gazette is unable to reveal who the speakers were, so I have decided to give them invented names along the lines of Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Reservoir Dogs’.

Mr Red got the show off to a good start. ‘Privacy safeguards have not kept pace with risk,’ he said. ‘There has been no malign intent. Paper records that once required a small warehouse to store them now fit on to a couple of CDs or a memory stick – which is convenient, except they are easily lost.

‘The technology was aimed at doing good for society and, mostly, it has. Except we’ve gone forward piece by piece, the click of a mouse here, a mobile phone there, Facebook here, Google street map there, a CCTV camera here, there and everywhere. Until suddenly, in its totality, we have found ourselves with something scary and intrusive.

‘What can we do about it? Is it too late? Do we need a big legislative stick, with threats of heavy fines and prison sentences, to force businesses to take our privacy seriously?’

Plenty to think about there.

Ms Brown said: ‘Privacy is a grudge purchase. The risk perception is low because there is no risk to life or limb, only to money or reputation. We need stronger regulation, with more bite, to force boardrooms to make the privacy grudge purchase – the same as they make a grudge purchase for security.’

Mr Purple, who works for a search engine company, warned against ‘bundling Big Brother’ with beneficial advances in communications.

Mr Green, from the same search engine company, said: ‘Air travel and the internet have both revolutionised our lives. There are hundreds of deaths each year when aeroplanes crash, but we accept that as the price you pay for speed and convenience. Search engines do not cause deaths. Maybe we should accept the occasional breach of privacy as the price you pay?’

Mr Red wrapped up proceedings: ‘I suspect there would be a public outcry if we ripped out all the CCTV cameras. We are a tolerant society and people believe they are there to protect us.

‘Nonetheless, I accept that the organisation I am representing today has spent too much time jaw-jawing rather than war-warring. There is no silver bullet, unfortunately, but at least this evening’s debate has set lots of hares running.’

The Law Society has joined forces with surveillance watchdog Privacy International to found a privacy rights centre providing pro bono legal help to victims of oppressive surveillance technologies. Heslett has said the centre will be ‘a key player in a coalition of individuals and organisations concerned with the legal and human implications of surveillance in the UK and internationally’. He calls upon lawyers and activists to become involved in the centre’s work. For more information visit the Privacy Rights Centre website.