UK weakens supervision of Data Protection Act
I have concluded that proposals published by the government in relation to “the bonfire of the quangos” (the Public Bodies Bill) and in relation to reform of parliament (the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill) can both serve to weaken the effectiveness of the supervision of the Data Protection Act. There is a …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Number of Lords
We are protected from the complacancy of the lower house by the Lords and the parliament act. Hopefully the PVSC Bill / Act will actually improve this.
Surprise
........what, Never! The tories and underhanded?
If the ICO were abolished
would anyone notice?
The flaccid and corrupt Data Protection Racket in the ICO serves no purpose.
Bleating about a 'surveillance society' by the ICO is just public handwringing by a mockery of a puppet regulator with no independence, competence, or professional integrity.
The uncomfortable truth is the ICO (and the UK Government) don't give a flying shit about privacy and data protection. And it shows.
Up to a point, Lord Copper
"the ICO can be moved from the “safe” schedule to any other schedule (eg the “abolish” schedule or the “merge functions” schedule) at the stroke of a ministerial pen" -- except that the DPA itself, which establishes the office of the ICO, would need amending. Oh and we'd need a replacement body, or the UK would be in breach of EU Directive 95/46/EC, which isn't going to happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive
potential problem analysis?
All machiavellian enough, though I would only start to worry about ICO independence if the ICO were making a significant difference, or giving the government a guilty conscience.
PROPOSALS published by the government
These are PROPOSALS and all Brits who give a damn should e-mail the lazy bum who represents their riding to get working on this.
Since Cameron has such a small majority it should make him more responsive.
Is data about our dealings on and offline safe in the networked society?
It doesn't seem like it is. Even transgressions from as long ago as +10 years are being posted by some firms, take Lloyds of London's stance on private, internal memos, for example:
http://webupon.com/security/lloyds-of-london-and-the-abuse-of-privacy/
This topic is closed for new posts.
