The Youth Justice Board and the Information Commissioner (ICO) may have reached a polite gentleman’s agreement that, even if the law is being broken, that’s OK for now, because the ICO got it wrong in the first place. But it may be too little, too late for children’s rights organisation ARCH, which is now threatening local …
So they took on a CESG CLAS consultant...so what?
Just because they took on a CESG CLAS consultant who should have advised them that what they were doing was wrong, it still does not solve the issue. They need to sort this out soon. Lets just hope they took on a good CLAS Consultant who actually unders the DPA.
Well that seems like a plan.
I would like to thank the judge and jury here assembled for raising the issue of my recent acts of burglary, fraud and GBH, but would assure them that prosecuting me is not necessary as I am in the process of discussing these issues with a network of multi-agency consultants. I'm sure I can reach an agreement with my consultants on a way forward which suits both them and myself.
If you get nicked for anything, be sure to opt for consultancy rather than prosecution. You know it makes sense.
"... be sure to opt for consultancy ..."
Yeah. Them Clockwork Orange options is good deal, innit.
.. I wonder how this will pan out?
Surprised that the ICO got something ao significant wrong. they are so determnined to jump on NHS organisations of they don't get everything right.
Ah, the little tin gods
Like the child courts held in private with no appeal?
Now THAT is a police state.
Section 29 or Section 33 (2)?
Section 29 of the DPA exempts from certain provisons of the Act personal data processed for the prevention or detection of crimer, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Section 33 (2) of the DPA provides that for the purposes of the second DP principle, the further processing personal data only for research purposes is not to be regarded as incompatible with the purposes for which they were obtained, but not to support measures of decisions with respect to individuals or cause susbstantial damage or distress to any data subject.
They need a proper lawyer and a set of balls, rather than a CLAS consultant.
Power to ARCH's elbow
The people at ARCH have consistently tried to prevent the implementation of ghastly technological fixes such as RYOGENS, the predictive database system that would supposedly identify likely criminals. And they have consistently opposed the control-freak mindset that has developed in recent years.
When the closure of the Contactpoint collation of children's data was announced, various Reg commentators expressed misgivings; concerns that the data would not actually be discarded, and that aspects of the system would continue to be developed behind the scenes.
The gentleman's agreement reported here seems to confirm that these fears and concerns, that systems in children's education and health care will be extended to allow their use for intrusive social control, were not misplaced.
Communication via continuous genital displacement actvity
Obviously not thinking of the youngsters, while engaging in megalomaniac empire wars.
It's a sad fact..
We are a statistically driven society, before we do anything, politicians, business leaders and indeed charities like to know the statistics. In order to do that you have to gather information and process it. So if you want to target action positively or negatively against a group of individuals you need to know where they are.
The information ARCH are complaining about could let you identify an individual, but not always, if you are the only boy in an area with a criminal record, the Gender and Postcode is enough. But in some areas there may be several. The exact postcode is too much, but for statistics you need at least AANN N to have any value.
Also I wonder if ARCH have actually seen the contents of the upload, which may not go to street level, even if it does it is doubtful that it reports at that level. I suspect ARCH believe that no information should ever be reported on, but you can bet that this information also affects budgets for the offender management process., and amenity investment.
You have nothing to fear from the State, citizen. Move on now...
"Also I wonder if ARCH have actually seen the contents of the upload, which may not go to street level, even if it does it is doubtful that it reports at that level. "
I have first-hand knowledge of this. Each YOT keeps their data on a bespoke, proprietary system (mainly purchased from YOIS & RAISE). These databases are periodically adapted by the suppliers to meet YJB reporting requirements.
YJMIS requires a built-in reporting routine to be run every month, which extracts a vast dataset and sends it to London. Although some items are 'optional', the software doesn't recognise this optout and sends the whole lot anyway (yes, really) The dataset is very detailed, and individual offenders can easily be identified.
Staff in the youth justice system (traditionally a bunch of stinking hippy do-gooders...) always suspected that the NewLab Home Office had plans to use this database for direct targeting and tawdry media stunts. But YJB pays huge grants to YOTs so nobody dared to refuse.
Rediculous bunch of idiots
I really cannot believe that the YB (a) let this escalate into what is rapidly become a farce and (b) that they think that a CLAS consultant will have even the foggiest clue what to do about the situation.
All that a CLAS certification tells you is that the holder knows about government rules. It doesn't guarantee that he/she knows how to negotiate, knows the relevant law in question or is able to find a route towards compliance that doesn't lead through the courts which is wasting time and money for everyone. Apropos money - realise that it's tax money spent..
YJB statement today (05/10/10)
"As an interim measure, the YJB has commissioned technical changes that will result in key non-mandatory data items being removed from the core dataset available to Youth Justice MIS users. Mandatory personal data items required to fulfil statutory functions will remain. The YJB has also taken the decision to temporarily remove the date of birth, although a mandatory data item, until a longer-term approach is resolved. In addition, the YJB will restrict user access to view this data, so only those users with a need to know will have access to sensitive personal data."