The British Computing Society has joined the chorus of criticism of the way the government has hidden major changes to data protection law in unrelated legislation - the Coroners and Justice Bill. The BCS said the bill "runs counter to the intentions and provisions of the Data Protection Act (DPA)" and "severely curtails the …
"Less benevolent government"
That leaves Thatcher and Pol Pot then.
"The organisation also said the law would be unlikely to pass muster under the Human Rights Act, could increase citizens' distrust of government and "could have disastrous consequences in the hands of a less benevolent government"."
"Increase citiznens' distrust of government"??? How is that possible? How could anyone trust this band of troughing, power-mad cnuts who make a scientologist preacher look trustworthy ANY less??
"less benevolent government" - you're having a fucking laugh, right guys? Mussolini was more benevolent than Brown - at least he did something to get the trains running.
(Prizes for understatements to the BCS!)
"The organisation also said the law would be unlikely to pass muster under the Human Rights Act, could increase citizens' distrust of government and "could have disastrous consequences in the hands of a less benevolent government"
A less benevolent government than one with this one's track record?
What stone have you been asleep under for the last ten years?
The only examples of less benevolent governments I can think of would have their own laws to deal with whom they wished however they liked, from Poland to France or China.
Less benevolent government?
> "could have disastrous consequences in the hands of a less benevolent government"
That assumes, of course, that our existing glorious leaders are considered benevolent.
No, there really ARE no depths...
to which NuLabour will not stoop in order to cloak legislative process and tighten it's stranglehold on UK society.
Yet another set of wide, sweeping powers, with little or no checks or balances. A dark path, we are indeed heading down.
"Less benevolent government"
It's like "older woman" (or "larger woman" for that matter) - the comparative form is just to appear PC.
So read 'less-benevolent' as 'non-benevolent' and consider that they didn't say they weren't referring to Labour.
Oh I see........
the comment in the article, quote, "....The only thing a minister has to do before changing data sharing laws is the get the opinion of the ICO first...."
Yes ,after all the did this with Iraq did they not, got the advice of the AG and still went ahead. And another time did the Govt not get advice on the BAE investigation and went ahead.
This Government is corrupt and stinks to high heaven as does everything that it lays its hands on.
The obvious reaction to Ms. Smith's police state laws
Civil disobedience. Lots of it. Throughout society.
A little violent rioting may be necessary to get the point across.
Beware, however: Guantanamo is still in business and Ms. Smith seems to be vindictive enough to send perceived civil disobedience ringleaders there for thought reform.
The BCS is also concerned...
... as to why such major changes to data sharing law are included in an unrelated piece of legislation rather than in a separate bill so the issues would be properly discussed.
The answer is in the question!
The Government doesn't *want* this stuff to be "properly discussed". I'm willing to place a small wager right now that this bill will be rushed through Parliament and subject to a guillote to ensure that there is *not* sufficient time for proper discussion.
Papers please citizen
<...>could increase citizens' distrust of government and "could have disastrous consequences in the hands of a less benevolent government".<...>
As someone pointed out in comments to an article a few months ago - create the apparatus for a police state and eventually that is exactly what you will get.
Quite un-believable that anyone still trusts the motives of NuGov. ID, IMP, RIPA, NPfIT ..... the list keeps growing daily. They have gone completely off the rails.
Loved this one in light of yesterdays BMA story ...
Nice government. Sit!
Trouble is, we, the great British public, voted these nutcases in - except me - I don't vote. Can't stand politicians, don'cha know. Devious lot of ********
So, just recently, that makes the BCS, Their Lordships, the Information Commissioner, the former head of MI5, 99% of Register comments and 99% of the people I've talked with against total surveillance.
And one thoroughly discredited band of tyrants in favour, forcing its shit through as fast as it can.
You don't need "anything to hide" to feel fear.
Par for the course...I don't think anyone can or should expect anything different from this bunch of snakes.
How did Tory B Liar imagine we controlled things in Northern Ireland without such totalitarianism? What is the one eyed Scottish idiot not seeing that we can all too clearly?
Or did Mugrat Thrachet know more about secrecy than this bunch of muppets?
Do something about it
It's easy to write to your MP about this at www.writetothem.com . Many MPs will not be aware of this provision in the bill. Let them know. You won't even have to leave your keyboard.
If you do, the details are as follows - the bill is the "Coroners and Justice Bill" , and the nasty DPA-breaching bit is at clause 152. The parliamentary schedule brings it before the commons again on the 24th and 26th February (unless I've misread this:
One possible line to take is that the powers would apply retrospectively - ie. you gave up your data knowing it was protected from unforeseeable use by the DPA. The Bill would remove that protection without requiring the further permission of the Data Subject (i.e. you).
You missed the "International Commission of Jurists"
Frankly I can't see how Wacqui or her predecessors could be so belligerently *stupid* with regards to this Orwellian shit. It will cost £billions with little benefit to national Security and is a sure-fire way to lose votes. I don't see how even Smith & Brown can be *that* thick! It's like putting you life savings on a horse you *know* has been doped.
Why *are* they doing it. Surely not just to save face?
George Orwell -
- was an optimist.
Write to Your MPs on this one folks
As IT professionals we have a moral duty to use our expertise to monitor what the government is doing and use our knowledge and skill to influence the direction of IT in this country.
If we don't, who else can?
So let's all get writing to our MPs and make our concerns known.
When it comes to data sharing between government departments in France, the departments wanting to exchange data must seek approval from a third party organisation and justify why the data needs to be exchanged.
We should be adopting a similar approach here in the UK.