Monday, March 02, 2009
Should the Data Protection Act apply to MI5?
Personally I do not see why not. After all it might improve the quality of the information that MI5 hold on us if we are able to review and correct it. That is especially so when the target is an emminent historian who has been honoured for his work.
The Guardian reports that the Labour government is being challenged to explain to parliament why one of Britain's most eminent leftwing historians has been barred from seeing a file kept on him by the Security Service, MI5:
Eric Hobsbawm is 91 and a Companion of Honour, an award given to only 45 Britons for outstanding achievements and whose motto is "In Action Faithful and in Honour Clear". He has been told by MI5 he is not entitled to see the file, for which he applied under the Data Protection Act.
Ministers face the potentially embarrassing task of having to explain to parliament why Hobsbawm, who joined the now defunct British Communist party in 1936 and is widely regarded as one of the world's leading Marxist historians, is worthy of receiving such an exclusive distinction from the Queen but is not trusted to see his own security file.
"To the best of my knowledge I have never been involved in anything of security interest," Hobsbawm said yesterday. "I think the only reason can be that the security people don't want to give away who snitched on me to the authorities."
Which is fair enough but then that sort of information would be excised from a file handed over under the Data Protection Act.
The Guardian reports that the Labour government is being challenged to explain to parliament why one of Britain's most eminent leftwing historians has been barred from seeing a file kept on him by the Security Service, MI5:
Eric Hobsbawm is 91 and a Companion of Honour, an award given to only 45 Britons for outstanding achievements and whose motto is "In Action Faithful and in Honour Clear". He has been told by MI5 he is not entitled to see the file, for which he applied under the Data Protection Act.
Ministers face the potentially embarrassing task of having to explain to parliament why Hobsbawm, who joined the now defunct British Communist party in 1936 and is widely regarded as one of the world's leading Marxist historians, is worthy of receiving such an exclusive distinction from the Queen but is not trusted to see his own security file.
"To the best of my knowledge I have never been involved in anything of security interest," Hobsbawm said yesterday. "I think the only reason can be that the security people don't want to give away who snitched on me to the authorities."
Which is fair enough but then that sort of information would be excised from a file handed over under the Data Protection Act.
Comments:
<< Home
How much money did you say Welsh Councils have stashed away.
£650,000 I said it was a billion you say a few million. You were way bloody out.
£650,000 I said it was a billion you say a few million. You were way bloody out.
This comment is off-topic. I was referring to non-earmarked monies. This figure includes earmarked reserves and capital reserves.
the well documented examples of colin wallace and MI5 whistleblower John Francis Smith - both of whom broke ranks to reveal what they knew about MI5 officers attempts to destabilise the wilson governments - shows us that when it comes to the laws of the land normal rules do not apply when it comes to the inteliegence services in britain! They are in effect outside the law! This is plainly wrong and an affront to democracy1
No arm of the state should be outside the law!
Leigh,
swansea.
Post a Comment
No arm of the state should be outside the law!
Leigh,
swansea.
# posted by 
: 6:19 AM
: 6:19 AM<< Home
