Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 09:48 GMT
... a largely undemocratic institution of hereditary peers and political appointees is actually doing a better job of representing the interests of UK citizens than the feckless wasters that we elected to do it.
And the idiots wonder why no one wants them to disband the Lords.
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 10:00 GMT
Now, when ID fraud will actually become a crime?
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 10:00 GMT
our elected 'representatives' are doing everything they possibly can to deny Joe Public adequate protection from this shit!
And they still wonder WHY we're paranoid!
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 10:17 GMT
Lowest common denominator.
It's a strange world where I have infinitely more respect for the House of Lords than the Commons.
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 10:17 GMT
now wait for the government to vote itself and all council data sharers immunity
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 10:32 GMT
Remind me again why we wanted the Lords to be abolished?
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 10:32 GMT
Well, it would have the effect of reducing the data loss statistics OK - nobody would ever admit to any loss in future.
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 10:32 GMT
They would rather save business a few quid than make life better for people. Even when the same people running those businesses are equally liable to be affected by such things as id theft and data loss as joe public. Donations make the world go round!
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 10:53 GMT
Doesn't that sound rather like a certain ISP/Interceptor combo recently not in the news enough recently? Surely BT intentionally disclose personal information to Phorm. Could this be a handy way to negate them using their current viewpoint with RIPA?
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 11:02 GMT
Let's face it the Gov are totally against the principal of accountability. They need to be, or someone might point it at them one day.
The issue of non reporting would need to be dealt with in the same way that California do, make it illegal to withhold information about breaches. Make the punishment for withholding more sever, draconian preferably, and then there will be an incentive for companies to come forward.
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 11:02 GMT
Would this legislation mean BT, Phorm and the rest would be required to positively obtain assent prior to pimping my data - or have a prolonged porridge diet?
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 11:06 GMT
stop this because they know they'll be the first against the wall when the legislation comes.
There are no practical reasons for stopping this legislation, I.T. and data about people have been around for over thirty years. It's time us "data subjects" had some protection; but because of this government's "self preservation first" policy we'll all continue to be exposed to data mismanagement until - well, who knows when.
I'm glad the Lords are still with us, but without a doubt we'll see Labour whipping out the parliament act once again. What a bunch of ar$e-covering, lillylivered arrogant f*ck wits stepping on us to protect themselves.
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 11:37 GMT
I hope its provisions are made retrospective so there will be some redress for all those whose details have been mislaid by incompetent public servants in recent years.
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 12:31 GMT
Compare these transfers of undertakings: All liabilities for loss of personal data from whatever causes, loss of monies from fraud, loss of liberty, etc to be borne by the individual. All accruals from the acquisition of personal data from whatever causes, of monies from fraud, of liberties at the expense of the individual, etc to remain the property of the corporatist state. Not just a tendency, but almost a full blown reality.
Grand Theft Auto to the power of Aleph Null.
The Nu Insect Overlards have a clear embarrassment in the current dead man walking. Unlike their previous favourite, this one is quite incapable of convincing the public that black is white and white is black. It is looking less and less likely they will want to wait 2 years to promote him out of the way.
Meanwhile, the game goes on.
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 13:05 GMT
The way I see it the Lords don't have to worry about the next election to keep their job, so they can actually decide for themselves which option is the better without worrying too much what people think of their eligibility. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong, but they are just human and more often than not seem to get it "right" (I know that concept is subjective...)
MPs on the other hand actually have to worry about if they'll be MPs after the next election as soon as they're elected. This means that if asking people for their opinions makes them look weak ("Look, he doesn't have his own opinion, why should he be an MP?" from other parties, media, joe public) they wont ask and just follow their party line of least resistance.
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 13:09 GMT
"Now, when ID fraud will actually become a crime?"
No, no. How would we keep the government from getting the data to lose in the first place?
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 13:35 GMT
Heck, before this law was proposed, you never heard about data loss until some nosey parker poked their oar in and didn't shut up like a nice little consumer.
And if you sit on the data loss, that's pretty much a signal that the data loss was intentional. After all, we all make mistakes.
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 13:35 GMT
Class.
Given the nature of your question, by "we" you presumably mean "the governing political party".
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 14:42 GMT
If data on a CD is copied from a central source and this disk is misplaced either intentionally or unintentionally sureyl a point of law could be agrued that this is not data loss as the data is still there.
You can hear the coporate lawyers thinking up there cases for the defense already "change the wording to leakage immediatley".
Come to think of it it won't be the head honchos that are driving efficiencies by cutting IT security and opporational budget that gets spanked over it. It will be some poor Schmo ......so the lawyers probabley won't bother.
When will they realise the threat of imprisonment should be targetted at the board if this were the case, they would never think to question common sense security practices or processes.
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 23:22 GMT
Does amanfromMars have a protégé now?
It's good to see that some people outside the IT field recognize the problem and are trying to do something about it.
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 23:22 GMT
I shall keep my fingers crossed that this law is approved and then we shall see how all the incompetent and malicious disclosures of personal data feel when they end up in Court.
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 23:35 GMT
They have ears and they can think and they are in government. Listening to the public and delivering, by means of Leadership Future Solutions to ITs problems. Some heap big Intel below those GreWigs.
I used to love listening to them on 'A Week in Parliament'. Is that Radio Program(-me?) still being broadcast?
Posted Wednesday 30th April 2008 07:40 GMT
Terms such as "recklessly" have some specific legal meanings. It might not apply to as many cases as we might hope.
But if your boss wants you to dump data on a CD and bung it in the mail, get it in writing.
Posted Wednesday 30th April 2008 09:32 GMT
This is good news for the public if Labour block this then you will have the sign they intend to make Britian the next Russia or China. Time to show them who votes them in power can also vote them out..
Thank you to the House of Lords for fighting this through, shame on all Labour MPs who are trying to stop this..
Posted Wednesday 30th April 2008 10:15 GMT
"I'm glad the Lords are still with us, but without a doubt we'll see Labour whipping out the parliament act once again."
Er, unless the last Labour manifesto included a pledge to lose all our personal data, I don't see that the Parliament Act would apply.
Back to the article
