25 November 2008

The most important announcement yesterday for how Britain is governed took place almost silently. The release of the government’s response [1] to the Thomas/ Walport ‘Data Sharing Review’ [2] under cover of the Pre-Budget Report amounts to a scrapping vital constitutional protections. But you wouldn’t know that from the official press release [3], which fails to mention the key point, instead drawing attention to notional increases in the Information Commissioner’s powers that are calculated to have no effect on the behaviour of government itself.

The key recommendation is 8(a) [4], which proposes that whenever a department desires to use existing information for new purposes, ministers should have the power to make regulations to let it do so. They could set aside confidentiality and data-protection in the existing law or allow information that has been collected by government for one purpose to be used for a completely different one – without any new legislation or even a debate in parliament.

This is in line with the database state ambitions set out in previous official documents that give the MoJ a remit to “overcome current barriers to information sharing within the public sector [5]. Such officially identified “barriers” include the human rights of citizens and the basic rules of English law [6].

Phil Booth, NO2ID [7] National Coordinator said:

The government intends to relieve itself of proper parliamentary scrutiny whenever it increases its own powers to handle personal information. This plan would gives carte blanche to a snooping-obsessed state to dispense with the privacy of citizens, whenever convenient.

Adopting this single recommendation wipes out any good that the Information Commissioner might ever do.

-ENDS-

Notes for editors:

1) The government’s response, published by the Ministry of Justice on 24/11/08: http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/response-data-sharing-review.pdf

2) The Data Sharing Review, written by Richard Thomas – the current Information Commissioner, but working “in an independent capacity” -
and Dr Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust – the UK’s largest medical research foundation:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/reviews/datasharing-intro.htm

NO2ID drew attention to the problematic nature of the Thomas/Walport review on its release in July 2008:
http://www.no2id.net/news/pressRelease/release.php?name=Data_Sharing_Review

3) The press statement http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease241108a.htm
from the MoJ makes no mention whatsoever of the new procedures that will minimise Parliamentary scrutiny of future data-sharing powers.

4) ‘…Primary legislation should provide the Secretary of State, in precisely defined circumstances, with a power by Order, subject to the
affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses, to remove or modify any legal barrier to data sharing by: repealing or amending other primary legislation; changing any other rule of law (for example, the application of the common law of confidentiality to defined circumstances); or creating a new power to share information where that power is currently absent.’

5) The ‘Transformational Government’ agenda, as articulated in the ‘Service Transformation Agreement’ –
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/B/9/pbr_csr07_service.pdf – published in October 2007 clearly states (paragraph A.5, p 19) that
the new Ministry of Justice is to “deliver a package of measures over the next 3-5 years to overcome current barriers to information sharing
within the public sector.”

6) See, HM Government ‘Information Sharing vision statement’ (13 September 2006)
http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/information-sharing.pdf

7) NO2ID is the UK-wide non-partisan campaign against ID cards and the database state. See http://www.no2id.net/dbstate.php for a list of
‘database state’ initiatives that NO2ID is actively opposing.

21 November 2008

After years of little more than hot air from a sequence of Home Secretaries, we’re finally getting to see the fine detail [1] of what “ID cards” will really mean to the average person. It may be quite a shock to those who haven’t been paying attention.

It is not just the sheer amount of personal information that you will be required to surrender – a wake-up for any remaining who thought this was a simple card – it is the threats that will be used to force compliance. You could have £1000 penalties sent to you by e-mail [2] if IPS thinks you’ve been bad – and why might they think that?

If you fail to turn up at a time and place of their choosing; refuse to be fingerprinted, photographed or hand over documents (e.g. birth or marriage certificates); fail to tell them you’ve moved house for 3 months.

And anything that *they* reckon is “deliberate or reckless” provision of incorrect information could lead to 2 years in prison. Welcome to a lifetime of state identity control…

Phil Booth, NO2ID [3] national coordinator said:

So the state ‘managing’ your identity boils down to telling them everything there is to know about you, under threat – and coughing up time and again for the privilege.

This must be a wake-up call for everyone who bought the line that ID was just a simple card.

-ENDS-

Notes for editors:

1) ‘Identity Cards Act Secondary Legislation – A Consultation’ can be found on the IPS website:
http://www.ips.gov.uk/identity/downloads/NIS_Legislation.pdf

2) Only the first official warning need be by letter, and that will give you just a fortnight to comply.

3) NO2ID is the UK-wide non-partisan campaign against ID cards and the database state. See http://www.no2id.net/dbstate.php for a list of ‘database state’ initiatives that NO2ID is actively opposing.

4) Other dubious ‘highlights’ include:
•  a tax on marriage – women who change their name will have to buy a new card;
•  those without bank accounts won’t be able to get ID – you can only pay by credit or debit card, or cheque;
•  the homeless will be able to nominate a park bench as their ‘address’

6 November 2008

Much of the content of Jacqui Smith’s speech about the ID scheme to a hand-picked audience in central London this morning has already been leaked, but the Home Secretary has yet to answer FIVE crucial questions:

1. How were the airports involved chosen? BATA says is universally opposed, so what bribery or threats were used to chip these two off?

2. How many individuals will the trial cover? (Manchester Airport says it will enroll ‘new starters’ from October 2009, not all its workers.)

3. You announced back in February that ‘airside workers’ would be enrolled from 2009, citing 200,000 people. You are now doing the minimum to save face. Is this a climbdown in the face of concerted resistence from airlines, airports, pilots and groundstaff unions? Or is it that the Home Office is incompetent to get the scheme running, as the independent experts seem to think?

4. If this is voluntary will people be able to leave the scheme when they leave the airport? Or is it the Hotel California card? (The way the ID scheme is designed once you are registered there is no way off – ever – which puts those who ‘join’ on a par with a tiny minority of sex offenders.)

5. How will you know if the ‘pilot’ is a failure? If it is, will you abandon the ID scheme?

- ENDS -