E-borders Referred To In Chief Secretaries Service Delivery Plan 2008!

[ai_Droid]

Fine. Your point of view is that you don't mind the Government keeping a vast amount of personal information about you.

 

I dont agree that my travel details are 'a vast amount of personal information'.

 

When I travel, my movements are recorded by private firms as well as by the government. So what?

 

I would hasten to add that I do not (yet) have a complaint about how the Isle of Man Government handles this situation. However, the situation in the UK, and its encroachment upon the Isle of Man, is very concerning.

 

Why? What, specifically, are you afraid of? Not general 'this is a privacy issue', what could actually happen to your personally that's detremental?

[Cronky]

When I travel, my movements are recorded by private firms as well as by the government. So what?

 

Disagree. e-Borders is a new government project which pools all cross border travel records against your name.

 

Why? What, specifically, are you afraid of? Not general 'this is a privacy issue', what could actually happen to your personally that's detremental?

 

I disagree with e-Borders on a matter of principle. The data collection is excessive. Nothing I do could give cause for concern to anyone. I would imagine that's the same for you.

 

So why monitor our movements?

[ans]

I disagree with e-Borders on a matter of principle.

 

That's the crux of the matter. You disagree with something you don't actually understand. I think you do try to, but you're hampered somewhat by your less than generous intelligence.

 

Personally, I seek to understand things before I decide if I like them or not.

[Cronky]

Have you read the Borders, Immigration and Identity Action Plan ?

 

and would you like to tell us:

 

a. What is wrong with long standing travel arrangements between the UK and the Isle of Man?

 

and

 

b. Why does the Isle of Man have to be included in e-Borders when we are already in the Common Travel Area?

[ans]

Why would I bother to try and debate something with someone who has already made up their mind on principle. not fact? Seems a largely pointless exercise.

[Cronky]

Why would I bother to try and debate something with someone who has already made up their mind on principle. not fact? Seems a largely pointless exercise.

 

Fine. So please can you state the facts which you base your argument on.

[ans]

No, I don't have the patience to explain it to you.

[Dodger]

This is what the UK Government is advising on their website, so hopefully it will be accepted as factual and representative of the UK Governments current position. I have highlighted bits in bold that are worthy of note.

 

"This page explains what our e-Borders programme aims to achieve and how it will do so.

 

The aim of e-Borders is to electronically collect and analyse information from carriers (including airlines, ferries and rail companies) about everyone who intends to travel to or from the United Kingdom before they travel. This will ensure that we can:

 

keep a comprehensive record of everyone who crosses our border;

strengthen the security of those who live in and visit our country;

make it easier for those who are travelling and trading legitimately; and

maintain tight control of our border.

This comprehensive record of passenger movements will:

 

significantly strengthen the security of the United Kingdom by:

identifying in advance passengers who are a potential risk;

telling us who plans to cross our border;

checking travellers against lists of people known to pose a threat;

enabling us to link a person's journeys to form a detailed travel history so that we can:

provide background checks to other agencies; and

compile a profile of suspect passengers and their travel patterns and networks;

strengthen the effectiveness of our border control operations to:

enable us to focus staff resources better to:

stop passengers most likely to pose a risk; and

allow the vast majority of passengers to pass through our border more quickly; and

improve our ability to arrest criminals and people who break our immigration rules, and prevent them from returning to the United Kingdom;

automate processes to enable us to deal with the forecast 50% increase in passenger numbers over the next 10 years;

help identify those who avoid paying tax by claiming to be resident outside the United Kingdom; and

provide more accurate information on migration to and from the United Kingdom, allowing us to plan public services more efficiently.

Information we will collect

We will collect the biographical information contained in the section of a passport that can be read by machine. We will also collect details of the service on which a passenger is travelling, for example the flight number. This information is sometimes known as advance passenger information.

We will also collect other passenger information, for example details of reservations and payment.

 

This information will be collected from the carrier not from the passenger. The carrier will be legally required to collect this information and provide it to us as part of the check-in process. Passengers who do not provide the information are unlikely to be allowed to travel.

A number of other countries already collect this type of information, including the United States, Canada, Spain and Australia.

 

The information will be kept for no more than 10 years. It will be protected in keeping with the Data Protection Act and appropriate security controls will ensure it is not used or accessed incorrectly. It will be given only to organisations that are legally authorised to receive it and that need it to carry out their official duties." http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/technology/eborders/howebordersworks/

 

Why is all this data needed for travel, have we that high a level of risk from people travelling too and from the UK? Or is it more about catching those who spend more than 90 days in the UK to pay UK tax? Business people will not be so keen to visit the UK if that leaves them open to the possibility of UK tax. How will this affect those with football season tickets? What about family, students?

 

Ai Droid states "What, essentially, is the problem with the governmnet keeping a record of where you've been?" The worrying thing is that no matter what argument is given, from what source, there seems to be a denial of the fact that there is a lot of data that will be collected and stored for multi agency use which will be updated everytime you travel and the 10 years on the database will continually be updated with the latest travel, therefore all your history past 10 years will also be kept. Lets not forget that minors criminal records are supposed to be destroyed at 17 (I think, unless they have changed the age limit) and that I know of one person who had his juvenile record brought up 20 years later! Again FACT.

 

Can anyone who is in favour give their reasons as to why this is a good idea? Based on facts and not just opinion!

[Dodger]

No, I don't have the patience to explain it to you.

 

That's sad in a forum set up to debate issues!

[ans]

No, I don't have the patience to explain it to you.

 

That's sad in a forum set up to debate issues!

 

Only so many times you can bang your head against a brick wall. I've tried to explain things to both you tinfoil hat nutters before and it's pointless. You have no willingness to understand and no desire to explore alternative points of view. You either wheedle your way out of pointed and specific questions or you just choose to ignore them.

 

This isn't a debate, it's a collection of cut and paste articles you've gathered from the internet. Your blind acceptance of everything you read on conspiracy based websites is worrying. I'm pretty much done with the pair of you, I really can't be bothered wasting any more time.

[Dodger]

No, I don't have the patience to explain it to you.

 

That's sad in a forum set up to debate issues!

 

Only so many times you can bang your head against a brick wall. I've tried to explain things to both you tinfoil hat nutters before and it's pointless. You have no willingness to understand and no desire to explore alternative points of view. You either wheedle your way out of pointed and specific questions or you just choose to ignore them.

 

This isn't a debate, it's a collection of cut and paste articles you've gathered from the internet. Your blind acceptance of everything you read on conspiracy based websites is worrying. I'm pretty much done with the pair of you, I really can't be bothered wasting any more time.

 

So you think that the government website is conspiracy based - Hmm

 

Neither you not Ai Droid or Slim for that matter have provided evidence that there is a need for this data collection, the question as to why does the government need to have this level of intrusion into our lives still hasn't been answered!?

 

I haven't seen any factual evidence been used to argue the case for E borders..........

[ai_Droid]

I haven't seen any factual evidence been used to argue the case for E borders..........

 

You've been given it over and over. Centralised systems like this are far more effcient and fit in with the way the rest of the world is operating. The issues systems like e borders aim to solve are international problems, and cooperation and information sharing are important to protect our society. I don't think anyones got anything to lose by such systems, if you're behaving yourself, and everything to gain.

 

As it says, it's working off information captured by agents anyway, so the data's out there in airline computers, travel agencies, insurance companys, feh, it's everywhere. What's the problem? Don't see it, just another tin hat nutter waving the privacy and human rights card to hinder advancements.

[Dodger]

I haven't seen any factual evidence been used to argue the case for E borders..........

 

You've been given it over and over. Centralised systems like this are far more effcient and fit in with the way the rest of the world is operating. The issues systems like e borders aim to solve are international problems, and cooperation and information sharing are important to protect our society. I don't think anyones got anything to lose by such systems, if you're behaving yourself, and everything to gain.

 

As it says, it's working off information captured by agents anyway, so the data's out there in airline computers, travel agencies, insurance companys, feh, it's everywhere. What's the problem? Don't see it, just another tin hat nutter waving the privacy and human rights card to hinder advancements.

 

Now who is the tin hatter! What international problems, tax collecting?! Money Laundering? The issue here is that the UK Government want to store everyones data in one central database and log your every move, whether by train, plane or boat.

 

Advancements that an not necessary!!!!! Under the data protection act the data is supposed to be collected for a specific reason, the government are trying to get around this with this law that allows them to monitor peoples movements. The timeframe for storage isn't going to happen as who will monitor this database and ensure compliance? What about the data that has been shared? Will that be covered by the 10 year rule? The data is to be collected stored centrally and then passed out to agencies that want them, this is internationally! How does this data get destroyed, will it, if that jurisdiction has laws different to ours, does the UK data protection act protect your data no matter where it goes within the world?

 

Who benefits from this efficiency? It will cost more to settup, it will cost more to run it will lead to members of the public having to pay more for the electronic biometric data collections as passport and id cards will cost more due to the cost of the technology in them.

 

Why when we have not needed this level of intrusion into our private lives is it suddenly a must have piece of technology? The present system has worked well for how long? How many external terrorists have we had in the British isles? Most are home grown and clean therefore this surveillance society will not stop them if they are determined and who wins if we become a state that is more interested in the movements of its own people in an effort to"protect" them!

 

You mention nothing to loose and everything to gain, we loose our right to a private life and what do we gain? It won't stop terrorism, it won't stop criminals, therefore do we want this level of intrusion so that we can move about without the need of personal checks at transfer stations airside, where you already have passport control and have already had to provide proof of ID to get airside in the first place!

 

You also mention fitting in with the rest of the world, the transfer between US states does not require you to provide a passport, fingerprints, id cards, credit card numbers and a full security check to see if you are a desirable within the state you wish to enter. We are not an international border and therefore should not be treated as one, we are an internal one within the European Union. Where does the train go...........Port Erin Yeh right! Boat - Heysham, Liverpool and Dublin yeh right. Planes - Possible to get to where that is outside the European union? Yeh right! Can people use us as a soft entry into the UK? Only if they go through another European country which should be providing the same level of security checks as this is an international requirement?!!!!!!

 

You are talking Bol**cks and you have no comprehension of what this data could be used for! Now, 10 years time, 15,20 what other governments may do with this data..........You are blindly accepting that the Government can and will always protect you. I for one do not share your faith! Not in the UK government nor the long term Electronic protection of the data collected as we have seen from points raised in other threads!

[Slim]

Ans is right, you're a waste of effort.

 

My credit card company, the hotel company, my travel agent and my airline already know I'm going to spain. The government gets to know and you start hopping like a taz on speed? Nutter.

 

You've not mentioned, specifically, how this harms anyone. You're still talking in generals about privacy and data protection and not really saying much about anything. Where's the actual harm. Give me a specific example of wrongdoing as a result in government tracking peoples travel.

[Cronky]

Centralised systems like this are far more effcient and fit in with the way the rest of the world is operating.

 

You may not see the problem with massive centralised government rcords of our personal data. However, the UK Information Commissioner certainly shares the concerns of some of the posters on Manx Forums.

 

Here is an extract from an interview he recently gave to the British Computer Society:

 

Q: This is earth-shaking stuff - almost on a par with the Magna Carta. As a freedom loving people, the public needs to understand enough about what they are being asked for, how the government will treat them and the nature of the relationship enshrined in the law. There will be a point quite soon when 60 million people will ask what the deal is and what safeguards are proposed.

 

A: The UK has a different approach to data protection to the rest of mainland Europe. It's due to not having had an oppressor for many years, and therefore people are used to the benign environment. In Nazi Germany they saw the consequences of tyrannical government. The reality of function creep happened in Germany. The original rationale used to bring in ID cards was apparently to prevent bigamist marriages but by 1941 there were 41 different types of ID card.

 

It shows how powerful information can be. There is unease, nevertheless, which you see reflected in many debates and comments, about how information can be used. The ID cards debate shows the relationship between people and the state. Although ID cards were originally probably brought in as a vote winner, they are now looking like an albatross round the government’s neck.

 

The politicians in parliament need to decide what is and is not on. As the regulator, the ICO can regulate within the existing law and make a contribution to the debate going forward.

 

The point of this post is that British people have simply forgotten what happened in Europe in the 1930's. I believe Richard Thomas has hit the nail on the head. British people are conditioned to think that Government will always be a benign force. I do not think we can trust that this will always be so whilst they continue to amass vast amounts of personal information on everyone.