Home Office Loses Confidential Data On All Uk Prisoners

[Cronky]

You just could not make this up:

 

Daily Telegraph - Home Office loses confidential data on all UK prisoners.

 

And to think that the UK wants everyone to have ID Cards with all their details held on a central database

 

and . . .

 

To record all our travel movements on an e-Borders database

 

etc. etc.

 

Just what is the frigging point of collecting and storing all this data on people?

[Albert Tatlock]

We have to store and use data, so you have to be realistic on these things. It's the reasoning, control, access and accountability that's all turned to porridge, which requires a fundamental review as to the 'who, what, why, where, how and when' the data, and how much of it, can be used that is required. This is real back-to-basics-working stuff, which will cost govt a fortune to sort out and build in: anywhere near the required restrictions, physical places of work where such data can be analysed, as well as the accountability and stiffer penalties for breaching the rules - never mind building back any level of confidence with Joe Public that the data can be handled by govt with the due care and diligence we rightly expect.

 

That said, and I take your point, even if all of the problems leading to data loss were 'sorted', just because you can do something technologically and hold data, doesn't always mean you should do so i.e. ID cards and the routine monitoring of citizens, and all of the freedom and libertarian ideals that the UK was built upon, that make ID cards such a bad idea.

[jimbms]

This all goes to prove if you make a system idiot proof there will always be one idiot you missed who can fuck it up

[Cronky]

. . . just because you can do something technologically and hold data, doesn't always mean you should do so . . .

 

Precisely. The principle of 'need to know' has gone out of the window. Instead we have 'Transformational Government', 'Information sharing' and the rest.

 

People have stopped thinking. The individual who lost that anonymous looking memory stick did not understand it's significance. If he or she had a great stack of paper files to handle then it would have been different.

 

Why blame an individual for losing this data? It's pointless. Blame the politicians and policy makers for setting up the culture and practice in the first place.

 

Until they change the mindset of civil servants I expect these types of problems to continue.

[P.K.]

Unfortunately those responsible for law and order know that the more information you have the more success you are likely to achieve. So you have to reach a balance between public safety and need to know. Which, of course, is rather subjective which means it always provokes a real slanging match debate on the subject.

[Cronky]

. . . the more information you have the more success you are likely to achieve . . .

 

I would re-phrase that as:

 

. . . the more relevant information you have the more success you are likely to achieve . . .

 

Collecting a mass of information willy nilly is pointless. You do not need to collect information on me because I have never committed a crime and do NOT intend to commit a crime.

 

If I do something criminal or illegal then that's different. In the meantime I deserve my privacy to be respected.

[slinkydevil]

. . . the more information you have the more success you are likely to achieve . . .

 

I would re-phrase that as:

 

. . . the more relevant information you have the more success you are likely to achieve . . .

 

Collecting a mass of information willy nilly is pointless. You do not need to collect information on me because I have never committed a crime and do intend to commit a crime.

 

If I do something criminal or illegal then that's different. In the meantime I deserve my privacy to be respected.

 

 

Freudian slip?

[Albert Tatlock]

Unfortunately those responsible for law and order know that the more information you have the more success you are likely to achieve. So you have to reach a balance between public safety and need to know. Which, of course, is rather subjective which means it always provokes a real slanging match debate on the subject.

There's nothing 'subjective' about wanting to reverse the relationship between the government (state) and the people. That for many people, is not even up for debate.

[Cronky]

Freudian slip?

It was a fair cop guv, honest!

 

There's nothing 'subjective' about wanting to reverse the relationship between the government (state) and the people. That for many people, is not even up for debate.

Quite, my freedoms, privacy and rights are non negotiable. But what happens when the Government starts taking them away and refuses to listen to reasoned argument?

[Albert Tatlock]

Quite, my freedoms, privacy and rights are non negotiable. But what happens when the Government starts taking them away and refuses to listen to reasoned argument?

My money would be on them getting the same general response as they got to the poll tax - I imagine only time will tell.

[P.K.]

. . . the more information you have the more success you are likely to achieve . . .

I would re-phrase that as:

 

. . . the more relevant information you have the more success you are likely to achieve . . .

 

Collecting a mass of information willy nilly is pointless. You do not need to collect information on me because I have never committed a crime and do NOT intend to commit a crime.

Re-phrase it all you like - you'll still be wrong. When collecting intel you never know if it will ever be be required in the future. So the "safe" option is to collect as much as you can to try and cover every eventuality.

 

Unfortunately those responsible for law and order know that the more information you have the more success you are likely to achieve. So you have to reach a balance between public safety and need to know. Which, of course, is rather subjective which means it always provokes a real slanging match debate on the subject.

There's nothing 'subjective' about wanting to reverse the relationship between the government (state) and the people. That for many people, is not even up for debate.

Being deliberately obtuse once again Albert, how very tiresome. One of the most important issues to folks is public safety, particularly their own. Many non-Mail readers do not view the collation of data as a threat to them, because they will never commit a crime. "Collators Cards" have been in use in police stations for years and years. The only difference now is that it's computerised. Which means idiots can unfortunately lose it. But then you get idiots everywhere, don't you Albert...

[Albert Tatlock]

Being deliberately obtuse once again Albert, how very tiresome. One of the most important issues to folks is public safety, particularly their own. Many non-Mail readers do not view the collation of data as a threat to them, because they will never commit a crime. "Collators Cards" have been in use in police stations for years and years. The only difference now is that it's computerised. Which means idiots can unfortunately lose it. But then you get idiots everywhere, don't you Albert...

Obtuse? I don't think so - and name calling hardly makes for an intellectual debate does it? You know my views on this topic, I have spelled them out in several threads, some of which you have contributed to.

 

There is a very big difference between collators cards, designed to collate information about crime or potential crime, versus, the wholescale collection of information regarding the daily monitoring and activities of innocent citizens - as well you should know with your background.

[Cronky]

One of the most important issues to folks is public safety, particularly their own

 

Is does not seem to me to be a very safe working practice for the Government to collect masses of data about the public. You cannot trust them not to abuse the situation let alone act responsibly. The assumption that more data is better seems very weak to me. I would be more confident in public safety (I assume you refer to security issues) if I felt that those responsible were using basic human intelligence to gather information on known threats.

 

If you want to find a needle in a haystack then why create a bigger haystack?

[Ean]

My question on this is, if media reports are to be believed, that the criminals who's details have been lost could supposedly sue the government for failing their obligations under the data privacy act. I don't have a problem with that but what about the thousands of parents who had their data lost when that child benefits CD was lost? Shouldn't they also be able to sue?

[Cronky]

what about the thousands of parents who had their data lost when that child benefits CD was lost? Shouldn't they also be able to sue?

 

Very good point. You would need to establish who the data controller was for the lost discs and then make a complaint!

 

I suppose that actual loss would only become evident when a child reaches sixteen and tries to open a bank account only to find someone has got there first . . .