back to article Sharing's caring? Not when you spread data across gov willy-nilly

Privacy campaigners and academics have called for the removal of personal data sharing proposals in the forthcoming Digital Economy Bill. The Bill puts government ministers in control of citizens' personal data, "a significant change in the relationship between citizen and state," wrote 26 signatories in a letter to The …

  1. zebthecat

    Wha!?

    I thought that sharing personal data without consent was contrary to the data protection act?

    Might be pretty hard to get the private to play nicely if the government decides it is above the law

  2. Marc 25

    The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil

    but if they can't share the information with the Police forces then how will PreCog even work?

    If your browser history shows you conspiring with ISIS or watching BDSM porn then the gov needs to send round the thought police to pop you into clinky with Gary Glinter asap.

    I think these people are just busy body nimby's with no regard for public safety and should be locked up immediately for not towing the party line.

    “The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”

  3. Teiwaz Silver badge

    If your browser history shows you conspiring with ISIS or watching BDSM porn then the gov needs to send round the thought police to pop you into clinky with Gary Glinter asap.

    The BDSM porn will be harder to access in Blighty soon enough. We'll be back to foraging for paper based versions in the woods and shrubbery. Just another facet of the return to traditional values being pushed on us. Next on the schedule rule by decree (May is already challenging Parliaments right to a say) and serfdom shortly after.

    BDSM is the purview of traditional British Public School Education after all, they probably have IP claims they want to pursue.

    1. Dave 15 Silver badge

      rule by decree

      This is a difficult one.

      In this case I almost agree that parliament should pretty much waive the leave from europe through on the grounds the people voted to leave.

      What worries me is that a lot of the nastier legislation (like depriving me of my evening porn show and spying on my every move, illicit bunk up in the woods, bit of speeding on the M1 or park a little dubious for 2 minutes to get cash) are being passed through without MPs having the gonads to stand up and say no to it. This is of course nothing new, Blair said to them we should go to war because he had a vision (or was it a quick chat with an American) and some (faked) evidence that was too secret to share and the mps dutifiully nodded it through without any issue. Several smaller things sneak through as well... we have a major traffic jam 24 hours 7 days a week at heathrow so some idiot says lets add some more traffic to the road and 15 years of roadworks and they all nod sagely and let them without one asking a sensible question, they sneak through a rise in road tax (you don't get the remainder back when you sell it and the new guy has to start again from the beginning of the month... meaning every car sale nets the exchequer an extra months tax), and allowing local councils to supplement their incredibly greedy local tax bills with charges for you to park your car at work (while of course failing to provide an alternative beyond the dole).

      No MPs are useless, even if we give them a chance to vote they get it wrong. Frankly I think Stalin would make a better leader than ANYONE we have had since 1960

      1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

        Re: rule by decree

        In this case I almost agree that parliament should pretty much waive the leave from europe through on the grounds the people voted to leave.

        Er, no. The population voted in an advisory referendum to leave the EU. There was nothing about the precise terms of what "leaving" should mean, and since the vote was announced we have had bugger-all in terms of a clear vision and plan for what this move should actually entail. In fact we have had utter melt-down in the Labour opposition and the appointment of Ms May to the Conservatives as the least-worst choice, and that takes some biscuit for sure.

        As such it is perfectly right and proper that the current government should present the details to parliament for approval before acting. The fact the don't like/want to do so shows both the arrogance of the prime minister and the utter lack of a coherent plan.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: rule by decree

        "In this case I almost agree that parliament should pretty much waive the leave from europe"

        I agree although I suspect "waive" wasn't the word you intended.

  4. Dave 15 Silver badge

    Matt Hancock

    A useless MP if ever there was one... his tongue is so far up the governments sun never shines that everything and anything the government says is backed to the hilt by a straight copy of the governments own statement... I know, he is my MP and I have questioned several different pieces of legislation and decisions made including heathrow (really, add more capacity where the roads are already over full, create more jams while you build the stupidity, a terrific terrorist target in the tunnels and dont even consider what happens when London is hit by fog or snow), the snoopers charter (really do I want a future government of unknown character and ability having access to a long term database of everything I ever did or though... even if I were stupid enough to think the current government was actually trustworthy... which I dont)... and a whole pile of others. The responses are always to toe the government line, tell me I am stupid (politely of course) and ignore me.

  5. ArchieTheAlbatross
    Stop

    Rats

    Smith, O'Brien will see you now, room 101

  6. SVV Silver badge

    How has this got through?

    "personal data provided to one part of government can be shared with other parts of government and private‑sector companies without citizens' knowledge or consent,"

    Civil service incompetence, we can now take as a given. Nothing we can do to change that.

    But sharing it with private companies without our knowledge or consent? For what end? Advertising purposes? Setting of insurance premiums? Employee blacklists?

    Seems like our privacy has now been commoditised and sold off. Why is this not headline news? Or do people simply not care because they don't realise the implications?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019