The Coalition government has enthusiastically signed up to a draft European directive on exchange data on airline passengers, even though UK and European data watchdogs have already said the directive goes too far. Minister for Immigration Damian Green told the Commons yesterday that the UK was opting in to the directive on …
Ok ... but...
If this is vital information to catch terrorists then it's treated like any other military secret.
Anyone selling this to marketing companies, sending it to be processed in some cheap 3rd world country or leaving it on a usb key on a bus is treat like they are a terrorist - no trial, no evidence, no lawyer, just straight to some third world prison for the old electrodes on the testicles.
The magic quote
"a time when governments must exercise greater vigilance to keep their citizens safe from harm."
It is ALWAYS a time when the gouv must exercise greater vigilance. This isn't something new. That is why at ALL time, the gouv needs to be asking itself "is this right?"
That it will "help" catch criminals is not nearly as relevant as the politicos would like to make it sound.
"Hmmm... It appears they are not in order..."
If you thought the PSN hack was bad enough ...
Just wait for someone to rifle through that database ;)
I remember a certain Mr Cameron promising a referendum on any further powers given to Europe.
"...and other serious criminals."
That's the bit that pisses me off. Terrorists are one thing, but "other serious criminals" usually translates into 'whoever the police etc are interested in'. And "securing our borders"? Tosh.
When they formed the coalition I decided I'd give the pair a year to show they actually cared about undoing the damage to our meagre freedoms that the last lot caused. A year on, and they seem to be identical. So that's three parties I'll not be supporting next time. Damn, the choices are diminishing.
Re: "Damn, the choices are diminishing."
I think your choices are now either to not care who governs the country or to become a terrorist. The system is broke and the people have voted 2:1 not to fix it. Clearly they like it this way.
Re: two choices.
I agree the system is broken, but I won't accept either of the choices you mentioned. I will always vote no matter how I feel about the main parties, cos that's how I play my part as a citizen - it is my right and I'll exercise it.
By saying I won't vote for any of the top three (until at least one of them gets the point that we really do matter and aren't just voting fodder), I'm saying they've given up any right to expect my support. Someone else will get it. Sure it won't change anything, but you never know - new successful parties do occasionally arise.
Your vote ...
As the anarchists used to say, "If voting changed anything then they would make it illegal!".
when asked why it was ignoring data protection advice
Wrong question. You should have asked...
How will this prevent a known criminal entering the UK or a terrorist boarding a plane?
When they come to board a plane and give their name, we will check it against our other database of known terrorists and apprehend them. Easy.
As long as they don't try and get around the system by using a false name or address, there will be no problem. Oh wait...
We will therefore need to put *everyone*'s name and address on the database so we can stop that ruse from working. That will work. Easy. Oh, as long as they don't then pretend to be someone else. Oh wait...
Re: Well obviously
I think you've missed the point of rhetorical question, the obvious answer is simply "it won't", no further explanation required, except to maybe the numbnut who downvoted my comment.
Of course they'd sign up. It's beautiful politicking. "Here, have some data. It's not ours, so we don't care. And you'll make the sand devils go away with it, eh? Carry on then." No skin of their nose everybody else's data is now that much more exposed.
And might end up left behind in some train, taxi, or heck, maybe even on an aeroplane seat. Or kept in some database or other for seventy five years, or whatever the time span was, some ninety nine years, depending.
So much for this bunch being more clueful than the last bunch.
no title for you, chummy
So much for the garbage about rolling back the database state.
Oh dear, it was that wacky Jacqui Smith that done for him
The fellow seems to have been rather affected by his arrest. But not in the way one might have hoped.
for an agreement that will benefit
Damien Green ?
Meal choices ?
Just how exactly does knowing the meal choice of someone improve security against terrorism ?
Because terrorists only choose halal dishes ?
Well I'm sure that, after my state-enforced lobotomy, I'll be convinced that it is a good thing.
Did anyone really believe they would roll back the database state?
Be honest. And if you did, you really are hopelessly naive.
Sorry folks, it's not really new but ...
I work in the Industry.
Let's just say, that during the UK-Irish Troubles or more recently post-911, the forces of Law and Order would always be able to access all Passenger data currently on the system.
Hypothetical example (ahem!), "they" would check the Madrid-London flights to look for transfer passengers who originated in Bogota, Colombia. I wonder why?
What I feel uncomfortable about is exactly what El Reg quotes:
"In the EDPS' view, the current Proposal and accompanying Impact Assessment fail to demonstrate the necessity and the proportionality of a system involving a large-scale collection of PNR data for the purpose of a systematic assessment of all passengers. "
IMO, let the Airlines or their IT Suppliers store the data.
NOT the Government.
- Breaking news: Google exec in terrifying SKY PLUNGE DRAMA
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Google CEO Larry Page gives Sundar Pichai keys to the kingdom
- Adobe spies on readers: EVERY DRM page turn leaked to base over SSL