Justice Ministry opens ICO consultation The Ministry of Justice has published a consultation on changes to the powers and funding of the Information Commissioner's Office - a core conclusion of the Data Sharing Review was that the ICO needed more money and more powers to be effective. The consultation proposes changing the current £35 flat-fee arrangement for …
Bring on better powers for the ICO, it can only be good for us.
These Labour MP people are ridiculous; block his pay rise as he supported transparent expenses. Isn't that bullying in the plainest form, threatening blackmail and all in the name of their expenses which are paid from our taxes anyway.
Every MP who has tried to block the transparency of their expenses should be sacked, or voted out next chance!
"there may be a risk of non-compliance even though there are not yet grounds for suspicion,"
Guilty until proven innocent. If you can't prove your innocence? Then you you are going to be offered a spell in Butlitz along with all of the other dangerous people, such as free thinkers, political opponents, liberals, artists.
That strange hum is the sound of various martyrs to freedom turning in their graves... or is just the black helico.........
And should not be allowed, regardless of what field it's in - there'll be mission creep within microseconds.
A search of premises looking for breaches of the DPA is going to cause a huge problem for the workers there, as they'll undoubtedly be forced to cease work until the ICO has gone - either by the ICO themselves or their managers.
And of course, they'll still be expected to complete all the work they were supposed to have done that day.
The ICO does need more funding and (particularly) more teeth - maybe then they'll be able to actually prosecute BT and Phorm rather than simply saying "We think what you're doing is bad. Please don't do it. Pwetty pwease!"
"Labour MPs are threatening to block the Information Commissioner's pay rise in reaction to his insistence that they make public their expenses"
Criminals and scum the lot of them. They dont even care what their actions look like to the average person on the street. Because they are so powerfull now, they can ignore us.
Come the next election, half of them will just defect and go Tory anyway
They don't stand for ANY principles, other than "me, myself and I"
I would put a bet on there not being an ICO this time next year, as it seems (although in their pockets anyway) this is the last post that can cause the MP's any trouble.
I really really hate to say this, but thank god for the EU, they actually seem to be looking after the British peoples interests.........
"The Data Protection Act would also be changed so that the ICO could apply for a warrant to raid premises even where he does not have reasonable grounds to suspect a breach of the data protection principles"
Are you insane? Seriously?
I wonder if they understand that when a person is angry that you take a photograph of them in the street, it's not about you, or the photograph, it's about her being upset at all the cameras and CCTV. You are just the straw that broke the camels back.
And when people are angry that a plastic policeman tries to STOP them taking photographs in the street, it's not about the loss of the right to take photos, it's about you and the trumped up little officials that are in your face every day with ever new petty restrictions they just made up.
And when parents scream about a school that takes compulsary fingerprints to issue school dinners, it's not about the school or the school dinner or the fingerprint. It's about the surveillance, the petty officials in their everyday lives that *require* private information in exchange for something that should be a right. This is just another straw.
And when some illegal immigrant gets something they're not entitled to, it's not about the lack of an identity system. It's that your petty little rules block THEIR legitimate rights, yet the same petty lazy officials fail to do their jobs when it really matters.
And when people scream about losts disks with private details on it, it's not about the disk, it's about the recording of all the private details..
And when companies complain about corps taking all these unnecessary details, its about you, handing census details to US companies under a hated US executive. The company is just an easy example to single out.
So you're proposing to create yet another bunch of jumped up officials that will invade premises without cause and another hefty tax and record yet more information on yet more databases, with yet more penalties.... all I can say is
WHOOOSE Uk.gov, WHOOOSE, that sound is the sound of the point flying right over your head.
Personally, I think David Davis would be a better leader. Brown/Smith etc. are Whoose candidates, they just don't get it. Cameron is just a Whoose*2 candidate, whetever Brown says is the fix, Cameron just doubles it.
e.g.
Brown "People with knifes should face stiffer sentences"
Cameron "People with knifes should face compulsory long prison sentences"
Cameron would be just as bad as Brown. Neither is a leader, they don't set a clear agenda, they just respond to the daily hysterical headlines in the tabloids. Neither understands the subtext that led the UK to the mess it is today.
Tony and the to AC's
This is to protect the individuals from the companies/corporations that hold data. The ICO does not hold or collect any data.
The ICO enforces the rights that the individual have to inspect data that companies hold on them.
The ICO enforces that DPA which demands that companies handle your data securely and do not give it to thrid parties.
The ICO is for the Individual and against the Gov/Companies, is giving them more powers to harrass companies for poor practise a bad thing. I think not.
I work for a company that has had ICO enforcement notices and I welcome their extra powers as it is better for the customer and makes companies directors realise their responsibilities.
Perhaps I fail to see this correctly, but the report says:
"Specifically we propose to:
"1. Introduce measures to allow data controllers to provide consent to a Good Practice Assessment (GPA) when they register with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
"2. Introduce an exemption from section 55A of the DPA, which, on commencement, will create a civil monetary penalty for breaches discovered in the process of a GPA where a data controller has provided prior consent to a GPA."
So, were there to be rumblings of discontent and a likelihood, for example, that a government department was about to get serious flak, provided a GPA is started then legal sanctions will be avoided.
As is noted later, the fine will not be imposed.:
"25. As an incentive for data controllers to provide prior consent for a GPA, Government proposes that those who provide such consent should be given protection from the civil monetary penalty under section 55A. We propose that the Commissioner should not be able to issue a civil monetary penalty in respect of any breaches of the DPA that are discovered in the process of a GPA."
The overall import seems to be to ensure that government departments (and others) will become immune to sanction, while the assessments provide potential opportunities for 'joined up government' through cross-referencing of different data sources.
And by focusing on inspection and compliance, discussion of the underlying issue - public concern over the collection of greater quantities of data and its more widespread use - is conveniently sidestepped.
ICO does none of things you say. It's a fake enforcement agency designed to look like privacy is protected whilst doing nothing more than making lists of databases held by companies in a very expensive way.
It is a deflection, a diversion, a fake, a sham.
The enforcement it takes are not to enforce privacy, it's to enforce list making to make sure it's list is up to date and all its taxes collected.
It gives the gloss of legitimacy to data that should not be held simply by letting the company register the database on their list.
It gives the gloss of legitimacy to data that should not be shared, by approving the sharing.
It gives the gloss of legitimacy to hmgovs data pimping, selling and sharing by not rocking the boat.
It is another obstacle that stands between me and my privacy right.
does the law change when it's the government/mps wanting to go their own way.
<quote>Meanwhile Labour MPs are threatening to block the Information Commissioner's pay rise in reaction to his insistence that they make public their expenses</quote>
Oh, I remember - the law changes meaning when the government wants to do something illegal.
"This is to protect the individuals from the companies/corporations that hold data..."
Consider this scenario: You are about to get in your car. You are not drunk or otherwise under the influence, show no signs of fatigure or being in any other way incapable of safely driving home. A policeman sees you and takes you car keys off you on the grounds that he has suspicions that you may be involved in an accident on the way that could lead to loss of life.
That is effectively the situation being proposed by the ICO. It adds very little to the security of the data on individuals.
It does however give power to civil servants to intrude; it also sets a precedent; and most law is based upon precedent. It says that the government has the right to do whatever it chooses, whenever it chooses and is not accountable in any way to the people that elected it. And that is most definitely what this is all about.
The consultation period on this is shortened to 6 weeks, the justification being, apparently, that the "recent events" ( I assume the wholesale loss of unencrypted CDs, USB sticks and laptops with personal data) makes this an "exceptional circumstance".
Can anyone tell me how these new powers would affect that sort of data security lapse?
In addition, notably absent from the list of organisations consulted are the BMA and BCS: I wonder why?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
