The audit trail of access is sometimes more important than the actual information stored. It is also something that most organisations do not like to release.

If we really want to stop id systems, then if we all on mass request the audit trail of access to our records, it should make the economics of keeping a centralized id database unworkable, especially combined with repeated automated requests,

If unathorized access is found then we form a class action and sue for damages for all those affected. And I am fairly sure they will be a lot of it, curiosity is a problem with those tasked in keeping front of house, and who only require the minimal level of access.

They will probably try and instigate a charge system for the audit logs to minimize request, but this should also increase the damages awarded and once the first case is won, also make the argument for refund requests. Both the snooper (cracker) and those in charge of the miscreant should be personally fined, along with all those up the line.

And note too that as an added layer of security they only bother to flag access if it's a 'high profile' person. I'm sure that they'll do something similar with ID cards so that us mugs can rest easy in the knowledge that if we're not high profile then no one will bother to see who's accessing our data and you'll have no way to ask the government why that access occurred either either.

I take the avoidance of ID cards as an added incentive to finish my PhD on time and get the hell out.

I would actually be perfectly happy to see all my personal details out in the public arena if the pay-off was that I had access to the same information for powerful politicians and billionaires etc and their friends and relatives.

The problem with that response is it starts to highlight the totalitarian nature of the system.

So, yes whilst there are always responses that one would wound them quite a bit in the ideological debate.

Having the right to see the access trail is the only way to ensure centralized data is not abused. Remove that right and one can immediately assume the data is being abused. I am not sure they would be that daft - but I wouldn't put it pass them.

The real solution is to have no centralized databases for personal data. Required split key access, and the right to store at a location of your own choosing is the answer as far as storage of personal information is concerned.

But making the current system unworkable with on mass requests would certainly drive the point home that people are opposed to centralized data storage of personal details. I think quite a few would even go as far as to welcome a revolution of sorts to sort out the current practices, it may beat being slowly boiled alive.

Maybe we should demand on equal data security for the general public AND the people in power. If those with power think they might be at risk then they'll make damn sure that the systems are secure.

C'mon, If you had access to private info, you would access it!! I have had access to this kind of info a lot of times, and I have accessed it, just for fun. But you just have to be carefull.. no gui access, just SQL you stupid!!

Non-Americans incoming though American airports have finger prints taken.

I would expect that bored call-centre staff around the world look up the records of famous people. The only shock here is the reaction to it. Maybe that's because this is one of the few administrative functions that the yanks haven't outsourced - so it's still within their control.

No doubt the credit-card bills, medical records, call-logs and police files of pretty much anyone you can name is available in a low-pay, english-speaking country that hosts outsourced workers. All you have to do is find the right place, stand outside and wave money.

Maybe, just maybe the synapses of whichever of these candidates is unlucky enough to win the elections will fire at some point in the next 4 years and make the connection: personal data in database ..... potential for bad people to access it .... we mustn't store more than is absolutely necessary. However, I'm sure there's almost no chance of this happening.

The first error in this farce was that the contractor trainees were using the live database for training.

Re-tellings of the story on NPR pointed up that the trainees were at one point requested to look up the data of a family member or close friend, (i.e. "We are about to breach data confidentiality. Please pick a target who will be unlikely to sue us or you.") Seems it was during training that the "unlawful access of data" occurred, or at least commenced.

Wiser practices would have had a training database to go with their training exercises.

Aside from the blatant inequality of an access monitoring system for the data records of "high-profile" people, this highlights the pointlessness of log files that are only reviewed postmortem.

It probably was just curiosity. There is a Tory party IT solution I will never name which has some hilarious security questions.

"But, you can't have Politicians, especially prominent Democrats, having their records checked by non Party controlled persons."

Load of BS . What was accessed was not public records. Sorry even politicians have some level of expectation of privacy.

Obama was mentioned cause he was the first person they found out out about. They didn't say much about Hillary either

It made news because the system in place to prevent this abuse did not work. It would of been news if McCain was the first it still would of made the news

"emotionally loaded, logic-free media and "legalize now" pharmaceuticals and the effect on short term memory."

Please turn of fox news now.