chrisbray.co.uk

As the Open Rights Group have just pointed out there are yet more disturbing proposals going through Whitehall at the moment!

Our government has already force our internet service providers to store their traffic data without our permission, but even worse it is now making plans to store that data themselves in their own central database so they can access it without even asking the ISP, let alone the consumer!

I agree entirely with the ORG when they say:

Check out their new site StateBook highlighting the dangers of this surveillance society that the Labour party seems intent on introducing.

I have already emailed my MP, the Home Secretary Ms Jacqui Smith, voicing my concerns and I would advise you to do the same, the ORG have details of how you can do this on their site.

Once again, thanks to the Open Rights Group for making me aware of this issue by virtue of their ORG-action mailing list.

I strongly urge my readers to to both join the ORG-action mailing list and Support the Open Rights Group

Ms. Smith,

Re: Coroners and Justice Bill : Clause 152

I have recently been made aware of a disturbing clause contained within a bill passing through the house at the moment, the Coroners and Justice Bill, Clause 152 states:
"..a designated authority may by order (an “information-sharing order”) enable any person to share information which consists of or includes personal data."

As a constituency member of yours, I would like to voice my opposition to this bill and to explicitly refuse my consent for any of my personal data to be used under any information-sharing order.

I strongly object to these powers on the basis of principle and practice. On principle, they would sweep away fundamental democratic liberties of information privacy. In practice, the Government has consistently failed to manage large-scale ICT projects, resulting in massive data losses and vast expense. This clause would contribute only to further these losses by allowing extended distribution of personal data.
Just as importantly, Parliamentary scrutiny will be sidestepped by introducing information sharing orders via secondary legislation, overseen only by the toothless Information Commissioner's Office.

Polls also continually show the public are against the proposals, which would give Government far too much power over our personal data.

This continued degradation of our privacy is not acceptable and must stop.

Chris Bray

Thanks to the Open Rights Group for making me aware of this issue by virtue of their ORG-action mailing list. I strongly urge my readers to to both join the ORG-action mailing list and Support the Open Rights Group

Further materials:

1. This Privacy International Black Zone report includes extended commentary and a detailed list of data-sharing examples: http://www.privacyinternational.org/countries/uk/uk_data_sharing_report.pdf
2. This NO2ID briefing indicates both the broad concerns and gives a detailed legal analysis of the proposal: http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/2009-01-22-coroners-and-justice-bill-briefing.pdf
3. NO2ID also have an extensive archive of background material: http://www.no2id.net/datasharing