Thursday, December 04, 2008
Big Brother again
Today's Independent reports that personal information detailing intimate aspects of the lives of every British citizen is to be handed over to government agencies under sweeping new powers. They say that the measure, which will give ministers the right to allow all public bodies to exchange sensitive data with each other, is expected to be rushed through Parliament in a Bill to be published tomorrow.
As a result, ministers could authorise the swapping of information between councils, the police, NHS trusts, the Inland Revenue, education authorities, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority, the Department for Work and Pensions and other ministries.
I have to admit I thought this was common practice already. Obviously I was wrong. There are naturally some very genuine concerns about the proposal:
Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe's commissioner for human rights, said he believed Britain had gone too far in helping to bring about a "surveillance society". In a report drawing on personal data infringements across Europe but "inspired" by Britain's plan for a new internet, email and telephone database, he added: "General surveillance raises serious democratic problems which are not answered by the repeated assertion that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. This puts the onus in the wrong place: it should be for states to justify the interferences they seek to make on privacy rights."
He said he was "very worried about the downgrading of the protections of personal information", adding: "Of course there has to be a balance to be struck. At the moment we have not got it right."
David Howarth, the Liberal Democrat justice spokesman, added: "The Government shouldn't try to sneak through further building blocks of its surveillance state. Unrestricted data-sharing simply increases the risks of data loss. This is particularly troubling since the Government has already shown itself entirely incapable of keeping our personal data safe."
The data-sharing measure is referred to in the Coroners and Justice Bill outlined in yesterday's Queen's Speech. It could, for instance, pave the way for medical records to be sent to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to identify drivers who pose a health risk, or school attendance data being handed to the Department for Work and Pensions to verify social security claims made by parents.
But civil rights groups warned that the possibility of public records being transferred to private companies on a minister's whim was of even greater concern. Under the existing system, public bodies require primary legislation to authorise the transfer of data to another agency. The new plans would end such parliamentary scrutiny by permitting ministers to use secondary legislation without a full vote of MPs. The Bill sets out how ministers would be able to sidestep data protection and human rights laws that prevent public bodies revealing private information.
There is a further concern as well and that is the link to ID cards. Assuming that the government ever get the technology to work it would be possible for somebody to be stopped in the street, asked to produce their ID card and for a hand held scanner to then be used to download all the linked data held by every government agency on that person, including medical records and other personal data.
I find it difficult to justify that level of intrusion into people's lives and it is one of the many reasons I am opposed to the ID card project.
As a result, ministers could authorise the swapping of information between councils, the police, NHS trusts, the Inland Revenue, education authorities, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority, the Department for Work and Pensions and other ministries.
I have to admit I thought this was common practice already. Obviously I was wrong. There are naturally some very genuine concerns about the proposal:
Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe's commissioner for human rights, said he believed Britain had gone too far in helping to bring about a "surveillance society". In a report drawing on personal data infringements across Europe but "inspired" by Britain's plan for a new internet, email and telephone database, he added: "General surveillance raises serious democratic problems which are not answered by the repeated assertion that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. This puts the onus in the wrong place: it should be for states to justify the interferences they seek to make on privacy rights."
He said he was "very worried about the downgrading of the protections of personal information", adding: "Of course there has to be a balance to be struck. At the moment we have not got it right."
David Howarth, the Liberal Democrat justice spokesman, added: "The Government shouldn't try to sneak through further building blocks of its surveillance state. Unrestricted data-sharing simply increases the risks of data loss. This is particularly troubling since the Government has already shown itself entirely incapable of keeping our personal data safe."
The data-sharing measure is referred to in the Coroners and Justice Bill outlined in yesterday's Queen's Speech. It could, for instance, pave the way for medical records to be sent to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to identify drivers who pose a health risk, or school attendance data being handed to the Department for Work and Pensions to verify social security claims made by parents.
But civil rights groups warned that the possibility of public records being transferred to private companies on a minister's whim was of even greater concern. Under the existing system, public bodies require primary legislation to authorise the transfer of data to another agency. The new plans would end such parliamentary scrutiny by permitting ministers to use secondary legislation without a full vote of MPs. The Bill sets out how ministers would be able to sidestep data protection and human rights laws that prevent public bodies revealing private information.
There is a further concern as well and that is the link to ID cards. Assuming that the government ever get the technology to work it would be possible for somebody to be stopped in the street, asked to produce their ID card and for a hand held scanner to then be used to download all the linked data held by every government agency on that person, including medical records and other personal data.
I find it difficult to justify that level of intrusion into people's lives and it is one of the many reasons I am opposed to the ID card project.
Labels: ID
Comments:
<< Home
There will be a protest against the start of registration of ID cards in Wales next Wednesday (10th December)
12 noon, outside the UK Border Agency (where the registration will take place), 31-33 Newport Road, Cardiff.
It would be good to see you (and anyone else opposed to the scheme) there Peter.
all the details: http://noborderswales.wordpress.com/tag/id-cards/
Post a Comment
12 noon, outside the UK Border Agency (where the registration will take place), 31-33 Newport Road, Cardiff.
It would be good to see you (and anyone else opposed to the scheme) there Peter.
all the details: http://noborderswales.wordpress.com/tag/id-cards/
<< Home
