UK.gov data sell-off row: HMRC denies claims it'll flog YOUR private info "There is no question of HMRC selling data." That's the promise from Whitehall, which is floating the idea of "sharing" sensitive taxpayer information with private businesses. It's the latest in a series of attempts from the Tory-led coalition to turn public and not-so-public data into a moneyspinner for UK PLC. A period of …
There's an argument to be made that people who dump a ton of scrap metal indiscriminately on other people's property ought to be dealt with through the criminal justice system rather than through civil processes - that would address the issue of data access.
There's no argument to be made that anyone should be guaranteed anonymity solely to shield them from the consequences of their very public anti-social behaviour: that's just demeaning the debate.
"I can't understand how anyone can support data which only exists because people are compelled by law (under threat of punishment by the state) to provide data to government, being used by commercial companies."
Because they see the "Easy money" aspect and not the extortion (by the State) that makes it possible.
The sort of people who test high for psychopathic traits.
Dear HMRC,
Companies are expected to have privacy policies laid out clearly for their (potential) customers to read and at least implicitly agree to if they do business with them.
Changes to those policies (as part of terms and conditions) must be shared with all present customers well before becoming effective, and they entitle the customer to stop doing business with them without any early cancellation fees or similar hurdles.
I'd like to have a copy of your present privacy policies, as a reminder for myself, because I don't think I ever received them. Furthermore I'd like to have a copy of all data relating to myself which you currently hold.
If you intend to change privacy policies in the way described in the article, implicitly by selling data to third parties, or explicitly by informing your customers about plans to do so, I'll consider opting out and will no longer do business with you, dear HMRC.
NB: As there's no competition in the Revenue and Customs sector, I won't have a way of paying taxes any more. I'll put them into a Swiss bank account in the meantime, following the example of big companies who you fail to catch, and who could offer you a lot better "business" (compared to selling data) if you persued their cases.
Sincerely
Upset taxpayer
I suppose it's just a coincidence they've made this announcement when there are currently over 170,000 signatures on the 38 Degrees petition calling on HMRC not to sell off our tax details. Hmm?
Are we opting out of the European Convention on Human Rights? Article 8 States:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
I doubt it would raise enough for the government to be able to claim not whoring out our personal data would affect the economic wellbeing of the country so HMRC's actions would appear to be a clear breach of the convention.
Yes, but the rest of that clause 2 throws a wide enough get-out blanket as to render clause 1 completely meaningless.
Granted, your point about economic wellbeing may be valid, but I'm sure "protection of health or morals" - especially "morals" considering how fluid and relative those are - would suffice. Or "the rights and freedoms of others" - for example, the rights and freedoms of rich politicians and company executives to profit from our data?
Not sure you evan have to go that far in Clause 2 : except such as is in accordance with the law
Make a law that torture is legal part of the judicial system and the only complaint you can have is that it is immoral. Same here. They did it with the NSA, what makes you think they'll have the slightest compunction to not do it for this ?
Cue ominous music and cloaked figure saying "I will make it legal".
So in another article, trials for GP patient data selli.. I mean sharing are under way. HMRC want to sell.. I mean share our data. This is perfectly reasonable, and how else are private medical companies going to know how high to set our premiums, or charge us for treatments? It would be incredibly inefficient to ask more than we could afford, unless they partnered with credit companies..
Anyway HMRC are good at sharing data. They sent me mine quite promptly. Shame their cover letter told me it was in response to 'my FOI request', which normally excludes personal data. And I'd asked under the DPA, which requires data holders to hold reasonably limited and accurate data. And imagine my suprise when I found errors, like starting employment with one company the day after I'd left it. And imagine my disappointment that they wouldn't put this data into their tax return forms, so I could check it for them.
Butt Shirley
Treasury is to Whitehall
as
Chancellor (or Lord of the Treasury if you must) is to Parliament
and Shirley never the twain shall meet (apart from at infinity like parallel lines always do?)
In essence the Treasury is the stooge and not Parliament unless there has been a Ukrainian type putsch in the UK we are as yet unaware of?
"Last year’s consultation made it very clear that there would be a rigorous accreditation process for anyone wanting access to the data and that any access would take place in a secure environment. Those accessing data would be subject to the same confidentiality provisions as HMRC staff, including a criminal sanction for unlawful disclosure of taxpayer information."
Rigorous accreditation process and confidentiality provisions really?!
Sorry but i'm not convinced by that statement.
In the several years I've been coming here and all the HMG infamy covered, instance after instance, barring the few trolling and lunatic comments, I've seen so many intelligent responses that ought to be argued in a less esoteric public arena. Arguments that should be in the newspapers and on the TV; indeed, forming the basis of Class Action lawsuits against the Government (IANAL). Is it that everyone here with a brain despite grasping the situation unlike the public-at-large, like the public-at-large doesn't want to get involved?
Btw on the subject of UKIP: I contacted them some years ago in response to an anti-Euro rant they sent me. I told them the real enemy is the USA. Never heard back from them! With UKIP it would be business-as-usual.
Although I can't agree entirely, it's worth pointing out that in Sweden and other parts of Scandinavia, there is a very different attitude to taxpayers' privacy. There isn't any, and there's no significant public disquiet with that state of affairs.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100150768/if-tax-transparency-turns-us-into-scandinavians-so-much-the-better/
doing a YouGov survey, it occurred to me that interaction with organisations over time will eventually erode any concept of anonymity whatsoever.
For example, I'm 47 now. 48 in May. I started doing YG surveys back in 2002 or 3. In that time, I've completed surveys including their age range questions for their records.
Of course, since then, I've gone from 36 (35-40) through (41-45) and now (46-49).
It would be fairly trivial to analyse my previous surveys to establish my current age, and birthmonth, if not birthday. Add that to my gender, and geographic location by postcode, and you would work out who I am, even if you only had the handle "LoveRat."
Don't believe everything you read in The Guardian & The Daily Mail.
I'll repeat (because I know the people who actually make the policy decisions on this): HMRC do not have the powers to release anonymised tax information to other government agencies, except in very limited circumstances, for example to the Department of Work and Pensions.
Agencies have been denied access to the data. For example, NHS statisticians would dearly like to get hold of anonymised tax data to study correlations between income and health. But it would be illegal for HMRC to supply them with this data.
HMRC are looking at the ways at how such data could be provided, and charging accordingly because it won't happen by magic or for free.
You don't own the data that you submit in your tax return. But HMRC have a duty of care to protect it. They're not interested in selling data for a profit; just being able to provide anonymous data legally, for the costs incurred to them, and to parties where it is in the public interest.
You don't own the data that you submit in your tax return.
I missed this gem.
I hate to have to upset your applecart Mike, but you as an individual are legally liable for the information HMRC hold about you. Statements about how you don't own that data, whilst factually being legally liable for it are somewhat incompatible.
But when you read the consultation document is is obvious why - they only wanted to consult with potential buyers not the actual owners of the data. It claimed to be a public consultation but if you are a member of the public forget about being consulted.
No where in the document does it propose the question of "Should the data owners be allowed an optout from sale of their data." Nor does it ask whether, having had your data sold off are you entitled to a share of the profit. Indeed would data owners be entitled to compensation should their "anonymised" data prove to be less than secure.
Our government aren't that intelligent... they let American companies collect and store it so the American government gets it for free... and they send a spare copy anyway... all your bank data, the census, the tax information, your flight plans... even where you drove last week.
What they don't give away deliberately they leave on seats in taxis or chuck in bins - unencrypted of course.
1 - HMRC overpowers HMG who in turn overpowers HRH thus enabling HMRC to do what the heck it wants when it wants and avoids accountabiities at all levels?
Or
2 - HMG hums and haws about the basic principle of personal data and data analysis anonimised or not and takes 4, 5 years or more to reach a conclusion eventually shared with UK subjects and electorate (bitch smacking HMRC in the process?)
Or
3 - HMG drastically takes decision that personal data belongs to the Crown and in anonimised form made a valuable to all UK subjects, all UK registered organisations paying UK taxes and makes the data freely available (choke on that HMRC and Whitehall sociopaths, people haters and ... ?)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
