Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly has had to announce another massive data loss by the UK government: personal details of three million driving test applicants have gone missing.
Kelly has noted that no bank details were in the missing data. That's not the point. This was confidential information and the government had a duty of care to protect it.
Kelly has noted that compared to the amount of data the government handle the scale of this loss is small. That's not the point. To an individual whose privacy has been breached such statistics are irrelevant.
Kelly has noted improved procedures for the future. That's not the point. Even with the best procedures, accidents will happen.
The real point of this latest revelation is that no government, no matter how well meaning, can be trusted to protect individual privacy. We should be tightening rules on internal government data sharing rather than relaxing them. The government should be collecting less data on us, not more.
And, of course, the government must permanently abandon all plans for compulsory national identity cards and a huge, intrusive National Identity Register.
David Blunkett has written a letter to The Times in which he tries again to defend the unpopular ID Card scheme. His letter suggests that he has still not understood the concerns of objectors like myself.
Blunkett contends that ID Cards will make us safer because even if personal data is lost (as it will be - accidents happen) then we will be safer because biometrics will protect us against identity theft. That shows a touching faith in technology, an apparent assumption that biometrics will never fail or be cracked. They will be, it's only a matter of time. Blunkett also fails to address how biometrics will be of any use when talking to a call centre outsourced to India.
Blunkett also repeats his claim that "The database is simply about identity". Nonsense. The database will contain dozens of pieces of personal information together with an audit trail that will amount to a complete record of our lives. As such it represents a massive invasion of privacy. It is completely unacceptable for any government to demand that much information on the people it is supposed to serve.
All this comes before even considering the governments desire to encourage greater data sharing. Data sharing that will be facilitated by everyone having a unique National Identity Register Number to potentially act as a common key.
The threat comes not from ID Cards but from the National Identity Register (NIR) and the threat this poses to individual privacy and hence freedom. Whatever Blunkett's initial ideas, the database as now planned is about much, much more than identity.
"This will be the final blow for the ambitions of the government for the national ID cards scheme — they simply cannot be trusted with people's personal details"
I never expected to agree so strongly with a Tory front bencher.
In the case of this debacle, there is no suggestion of conspiracy or ill intent. It appears to just have been a case of human error. These things happen.
That's the point: these things happen.
If they happen with the benefits records of 25 million people (7.25 million families), how much more often will they happen with the detailed records of all 60 million adults in the UK?
The proposed ID Card scheme will be backed by a vast, intrusive National Identity Register (NIR) that will dwarf the benefits system. The NIR will hold dozens of pieces of personal information on every adult, including an audit trail that amounts to a record of that person's life. Although the NIR won't directly contain bank details, it will contain more than enough information to enable Identity Theft.
No government can be trusted with that much information.
The NIR will be a target for terrorists and organised crime. The government assures us that it will be protected by law, regulation and security. However yesterday's announcement shows that none of this can be enough. Sooner or later accidents will happen.
The only way to prevent NIR data getting into the wrong hands is to prevent the NIR ever being built. The government must now face reality and repeal the Identity Cards Act 2006.
Gordon Brown has ruled out a snap election this autumn and is unlikely to call one next spring either. He's denied that this is because the latest opinion polls show the Tories 6% above Labour - but nobody's going to believe him.
So the Brown bounce has run out of steam, to mix a metaphor. He is now facing the prospect of not getting a majority in the next election whenever it happens. How can he change minds and win the votes of people like me?
Simple: drop plans for ID Cards and a huge, intrusive National Identity Register (NIR).
It's clear that ID Cards have no positive political value. Few people will switch to Labour because they like the idea, many of us will switch from Labour because we find the scheme totally unacceptable.
If you feel the same way and have a Labour MP, this might be a good time to write and remind him or her that there's now time for them to change Brown's mind, get Blair's dangerous ID Card scheme dropped and win back your vote.
David Cameron gave an impressive performance at the Tory conference yesterday. For once he actually looked like a serious conviction politician rather than than a Tony Blair wannabe. Unfortunately the content of his speech was less impressive.
For all Cameron's claims to the middle ground, his speech contained many of the old Tory standbys: reduced regulation of business, more private schools, welfare cuts, more people in jail and opposition to the Human Rights Act. Cameron is still true blue at heart.
And yet... Cameron opposes Labour's scheme to impose compulsory ID Cards and a huge, intrusive National Identity Register (NIR). He's committed to scrapping ID Cards and to defending the right to trial by jury.
Civil liberties - freedom - is the most important issue of all. Cameron has got it right, Brown is wrong. There is no way I will ever vote for any party that supports ID Cards and the NIR.
It's hardly surprising that so few people in Britain bother to vote. The party system means you're offered job lot of policies and values, it's an all or nothing proposition. Yet I'm one of those who stubbornly insists on voting anyway. So if Gordon Brown does hold a snap general election in November, what will I do?
It's difficult. I don't totally agree with the Lib-Dems either, and they can't possibly win. A hung parliament with them having the balance of power would probably be my preferred option. But what if I lived in a constituency where our voting system means the only real choices are Labour or Tory?
Let's assume the sitting Labour MP wasn't one of the ID rebels. What would I do?
With heavy heart I have to say that I'd vote Tory to keep Labour out. It would be the lesser evil. My hope would be that the Tories would repeal the Identity Cards Act 2006 after which we could vote them out again.
So if there is an election next month then it looks like I'll be pushing for "Anyone But Labour".
If you live in the UK then you've just lost another significant chunk of your privacy.
The Mail reports that as of tomorrow your phone records can be accessed - without your knowledge or consent - by a host of organisations including the tax office, the Food Standards Agency, the Department of Health, the Immigration Service, the Gaming Board and the Charity Commission. And, of course, the local council.
That's a lot of people who can now legally snoop on your records. They won't be able to listen in to your calls but they will be able to find out when and where you last called an ex-partner, a confidential support service or a premium rate kinky chat line.
Why does any of this technical legal stuff matter? After all, you've done nothing wrong. You've got nothing to hide. You're not a terrorist, a criminal or subversive.
It's a matter of trust. You may trust this government not to abuse these wide-ranging powers - will you trust the next one? And the one after that?
Will your children trust the government in twenty years time?
School caretaker Miles Cooper has been found guilty of a two week letter bomb campaign earlier this year. He sent seven letter bombs that injured eight people including a pregnant woman.
The establishments Cooper targeted included organisations involved in government surveillance of the UK populace. He was angry at the way Britain has become a surveillance society where we are "one of the most watched societies on the planet". He had previously written to the House of Lords objecting to plans for compulsory ID cards.
Speaking as someone who argues for civil liberties and against surveillance I want to say that there is no justification Cooper's actions. Despite the strength of my opposition to the surveillance state I would never support such attacks. Violence against individuals is unacceptable.
There is a danger here that some on the authoritarian side of the arguments will, at least by implication, suggest that Cooper is representative of all civil liberty advocates. He's not and we need to make that clear
Cooper was right to be angry at the rise of the surveillance state. I share his concerns.
He was wrong to risk harming individuals. I totally condemn his actions.
The BBC reports on a piece of idiocy I didn't know about: you can be fined 500 quid for feeding the pigeons in Trafalgar Square. Apparently a ban was put in place in 2003 and has now been extended to the Square's north terrace.
This is just madness. The pigeons are an integral part of the image of Trafalgar Square. London relies heavily on the tourist trade, it should be investing in iconic images such as these birds. Yes, they cause a mess - so go out and hire more cleaners.
Perhaps the local council could even set up a stall and sell bird food in the square - I reckon they'd get a lot more than tuppence a bag. Possibly even enough profit to pay for the extra cleaning, making everyone happy.
The real issue here isn't one of feeding pigeons, personally I can't stand the critters. This is simply yet another example of the authoritarian attitude that permeates so much of the UK today. Faced with a problem (pigeon droppings) the immediate reaction is to ban something rather than explore other options. That's wrong.
Restrictions on personal freedom are sometimes necessary, but should always be the last resort. Not the first.
When campaigning against ID Cards and the National Identity Register (NIR) I've frequently used the following as a hypothetical example: Most child abuse happens at home, so why not put CCTV cameras in every home to protect kids? After all, if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear.
That was intended as an extreme, ridiculous example to counteract the naive "nothing to hide..." brigade. I never, ever expected it to become real. Seems like I was the one being naive.
The Herald reports on a proposal to install CCTV cameras in the homes of drug addicts - all, of course, for the sake of the children.
It needs to be stressed that this is just the idea of one academic - Professor Neil McKeganey of the centre for Drug Misuse Research at Glasgow University - but the fact that it's even being discussed is worrying. I'm sure McKeganey has the best of motives, but his idea is dangerous. As is his argument:
"What price should we put on our privacy? The question is whether we are prepared to say the principle of the privacy of family life is more important than that of child protection. If we accept that privacy is the most important principle then there will be many more tragic cases."
Now I know what some people are thinking: these are addicts, they're dangerous to the kids, it won't affect me. That's always the way it starts: target the nasty "them", the decent "us" have nothing to fear.
Drug addicts first, who next? People diagnosed as suffering from depression or borderline personality disorders? Anyone who was themself abused as a child? People who smoke? Or who eat too much and might over-feed their kids?
First they came for the junkies...
Remember, most child abuse happens in the home. So once a sufficient critical mass of people have CCTV installed it will be a "natural" next step to put them in every home. All, of course, for the sake of the children.
Could it ever happen? I'd like to think not, but give Britain's surveillance state mentality I can't rule it out.
I remember when mass DNA testing began - it was only for those in the vicinity of particularly nasty and hard to solve murders. The concept expanded until today we are looking at a de facto national DNA database.
CCTV cameras in the streets were initially introduced in areas where there was a history of trouble. Today they're everywhere, even quiet villages.
Only criminal suspects used to be fingerprinted, today nightclubs are fingerprinting customers. Soon the government want us all fingerprinted and numbered for the NIR.
That's the way it goes with freedom: give an inch and they take it all. To protect our own liberties we must protect those of everyone - including junkies. No private home should ever have state CCTV installed.
If the SNP want to prove that they really are better than Labour, the Scottish Executive should publicly condemn and reject McKeganey's proposal.
Digg
del.icio.us
Newsvine
Reddit
