Sharing citizens' data is essential to build "a more prosperous society,"
The government is poised to legislate on how it intends to use your data for public services – but its woefully worded “data sharing” consultation suggests it hasn't learnt much from the ongoing controversies of Care.data. Whitehall is due to publish a response to the consultation, set out in Better Use of Data - Consultation …
People have the right to privacy. It's a fundamental right.
So anytime they provide data to government, there should be a checkbox, "Do not use my data for other purposes", to decline these 'innovative' uses for their data approved by a non-governmental panel.
Looks like the word 'overhaul' is becoming a warning to watch out for corrupt activity (just like 'modernisation', 'reform' and 'partnership' did.)
The old ones aren't quite dead yet. Modernisation gets a mention in the opening paragraph of the ministerial forward, "Delivering on that mission requires modern rules on the use of data in public services"
The problem is that there's no penalty for losing or buggering up our personal data for this government staff. Some minor civil servant in dusty Whitehall office loses a USB key with 25,000 IDs on it and all they'll get is possibly a harsh word from their direct manager, a manager who is probably 27 levels below the PM. When you know there's very little comeback if you break something you really don't give a monkey's about it.
We have companies selling data left right and centre with opt-in or opt-out, they don't care. However, I can with difficulty not give many of these companies my data in the first place by being creative for example when applying for car insurance by getting quotes of a similar insurance class vehicle in my area etc...
However with the government data I can't avoid, opt-out or otherwise obfuscate and that is why this is a joke.
The more they piss on democracy the more pissed off the people are going to get, I give them 20 years so they better enjoy it while it lasts. Viva la revolution.
It is a bit old fashioned but writing to your MP can help. Most of them like receiving post and should forward it to the relevant minister who will then get a mandarin to write some flannel. At least if they get a lot of letters they realise that people are not happy bunnies and may even read one of the well reasoned letters.
Of course if your MP is a time serving pillock you are bit stuffed.
I recently wrote to my MP about RIPA. Several weeks later, I got a copy of a 3 page letter that the Security Minister had written to my MP, allegedly in response - with no comment from the MP. The letter was carefully crafted to respond in generalities to almost every conceivable objection to the bill that might occur and made no specific reference to any of the issues I had raised in my initial correspondence.
To the extent your MP engages with the plebs it's over headline-catching things like individual medical care (where they have no actual responsibility and are simply interfering in clinical decisions) - influence on policy making is reserved for those who have the money or the negatives to steer things in the right direction.
I have written to my MP several times. On no occasion have I had a reply I agreed with, and in many cases I received an obviously stock reply. In one case, I sent an email and the assistant tasked with responding accidentally copied me on their email to Conservative Central Office asking for the stock reply :-)
However, I continue to do it on occasion. Not so much because I think my MP will actually read it or even hear my carefully argued points, but because they measure public opinion by weight. Getting lots of letters on a subject does put the wind up ministers (why else did the PM overrule the proposals on the BBC?).
"The proposals could end up adding more legal complexity, with inevitable mistakes and loopholes, rather than simplifying and improving what we have."
I expect that's the plan. Just the same as the unclear questions are designed to put off responses, or to encourage rambling and uncertain answers.
Be proud of your commodity status, citizen! You are enrichening the prosperitousness of the glorious nation.
Regardless of how the voters feel, we are all aware that this data sharing will occur, even if the Government needs to justify it under anti-terrorism measures. My proposed modification requires all civil servants, members of the Government, employees of non-public entities, local council members and so forth that share or access shared data to permit unlimited public access to the following:
1) Their banking records and transactions
2) Tax records
3) Internet search history
4) Telephone records
5) Time-stamped location data from their mobiles
6) Medical records
After all this level of transparency will instill trust in the public that we do not have terrorists* serving in positions of power.
*Yes, I am aware of the opinion that members of the current Government could be accused of terrifying the populace to support such atrocities as the Snooper's Charter. I am neither confirming or denying I share this opinion in the hopes that I can keep my name lower on the 'Watch this one' list.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022