Some sneaky amendments to the Data Protection Act hidden away in the Coroners and Justice Bill have been brought to my attention by the excellent NO2ID Campaign.
I wrote to my MP. You should too.
Dear Mr Brazier,
I would like to bring your attention to a clause of the recently introduced Coroners and Justice Bill – due for a second reading on the 26th of January.
Hidden away towards the back of the bill in part 8 is clause 152 which is an amendment to the Data Protection Act of 1998. This clause allows the Treasury, the Secretary of State, or ‘an appropriate minister’ to issue an Information Order which would, as far as I can tell, allow the overriding of any of the existing rules of confidentiality and misuse of personal data without any oversight. It would mean data could be shared between government departments (and even private companies) without permission, simply by the order of the minister in charge of that department.
Even if you are in agreement with this measure, I do urge you to consider objecting to the way in which it is being introduced through the back door without the proper parliamentary scrutiny. This is hardly the sort of measure that encourages trust in our political system.
Best Regards,
Ben Charlton
Last year, New Scientist revealed that the US Department of Homeland Security is developing a system designed to detect “hostile thoughts” in people walking through border posts, airports and public places. The DHS says recent tests prove it works.
Don’t suspect a friend, report him.
Terrorists need air – if you see someone breathing then make sure you tell someone!
It’s been a while since I updated here, so I’m back to posting with a good one (or bad, depending on your point of view).
Boing Boing reports:
A Londoner was stopped by a London Transport Police officer under S.44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and had the presence of mind to whip out his video camera and record the officers tearing through his stuff. They officers admitted that they had no suspicion of him, no reason to search him and told him he’d be arrested if he refused. They riffle through his books (looking for terrorist words?) and go through his things.
When did it become OK to start searching people randomly in the street for no apparent reason?
Liberty provides some useful advice if you’re searched under Section 44…
A businessman was stunned when he detained a yob for smashing a shop window only to be charged by police with assault.
Steve Kink apprehended a thug after catching him breaking into a mobile phone shop late at night.
Although the 47-year-old was punched in the face, he managed to pin the offender to the floor.
Passers-by called the police while he stood over him until officers arrested the 25-year-old man.
Mr Kink, who owns a tattoo parlour, was stunned when he found out the next day the suspect had been let off with a caution for criminal damage.
But his shock turned to fury when days later police officers turned up at his house to arrest him for assaulting the thug.
Bad news from the British Journal of Photography:
Local restrictions on photography in public places are legitimate the Home Secretary has stated in a letter to the National Union of Journalists.
While Jacqui Smith reaffirmed that there are no legal restrictions, she added that local Chief Constables were allowed to restrict or monitor photography in certain circumstances.
Grrr.
I have just written to the MEPs for the South East using WriteToThem regarding amendments to the ‘Telecoms Package’.
More details at the Open Rights Group.
Dear Peter Skinner, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, Caroline Lucas, Ashley Mote, Sharon Bowles, Richard Ashworth and Nigel Farage,
I am extremely concerned about the reform of European law on electronic communications (”Telecoms Package”). Amendments have been submitted in the last week just before the parliamentary holiday which reintroduce the so-called ‘three-strikes’ legislation to cut off alleged file sharers simply by accusation and completely bypassing due process.
This move had already been condemned by the European Parliament back in April.
In addition these amendments mandate the use of monitoring and filtering technology to intercept individual communications, and allows businesses to remotely control a user’s electronic communications without their consent.
The amendments are currently being negotiated in two European Parliament committees: Internal Market (IMCO) and Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE). If passed these harmful amendments agreed will be included in new draft law on the telecoms framework and consumer rights in respect of telecoms services. The Telecom Framework is what sets the rules for telecom operators and internet service providers across the EU’s single market.
The Open Rights Group has an excellent analysis of the issue and links to further documentation available at http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/07/02/write-to-your-mep-say-no-to-3-strikes-through-the-backdoor/
I would urge you to review these documents carefully and if you believe in freedom of expression, bring any influence you have against these amendments to an otherwise sensible reform.
Yours sincerely,
Ben Charlton
From the New York Times:
The United States and the European Union are nearing completion of an agreement allowing law enforcement and security agencies to obtain private information — like credit card transactions, travel histories and Internet browsing habits — about people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
The potential agreement, as outlined in an internal report obtained by The New York Times, would represent a diplomatic breakthrough for American counterterrorism officials, who have clashed with the European Union over demands for personal data. Europe generally has more stringent laws restricting how governments and businesses can collect and transfer such information.
So, it appears the European Commission is planning to give the USA which has a terrible record of personal data protection access to a whole bunch of stuff based on some vague promises of appropriate safeguards.
This is the same European Commission that is unelected – the members are nominated by the government of each member state.
If passed, it will allow the Americans to ask for information about citizens without any investigation – it will simply be presumed that handing the data over is legal, and that it won’t be misused. This is the same government that’s willing to redefine the meaning of torture and illegally ship innocent people to countries where human rights are ignored. Whose secret ‘terrorist watch list’ contains the names of over 700,000 people, and regularly means that children, US Marines and even Federal Air Marshals are prevented from boarding their flights. I think the concerns that this is going to adversely affect a huge number of innocent people are well founded…
Grrrr.
This is slightly old news, but worthy of a mention:
NIM39140 – National Insurance Numbers (NINOs): Format and Security: What to do if you suspect or discover fraud.
(This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)
(This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)
(This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)
