Posts by DaveLevy 4 publicly visible posts • joined 7 Jul 2011
I think we need to ask Messrs Sue, Grabbitt and Runne to look at this though the lense of Article 22 of the GDPR,
"... data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated
processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects ....
There is a similar right in the DPD
I recommend that when reading the article, you delete the sub-headings, but as you say the Labour front bench want to use the Committee stage to make the bill “fit for purpose”, which includes reviewing the case for the new “bulk” powers& improving the Judicial Oversight, in permitting the proposed Judicial Commissioners to review the police & politician’s “probable cause”. Starmer stated that it currently wasn’t so. He may be playing for time and behaving in the national interest to find the six Tories necessary to ensure the Government makes concessions, although not all the Tory usual suspects seem to be signed up to their usual positions.
Despite this it is clear that Starmer wants to continue with the currently illegal data retention. (For the pedants, it’s legal under British law, but probably not under EU law. It’s one of the reasons that the Government is in hurry up mode, they want the new law before the pending court cases get to either the ECHR or the CJEU.)
Jon Lansman at Left Future’s examines Starmer & Burnham’s policy making powers within the Labour Party in the article bow, dated 16th March and finds their commitment to listening to its membership, its voters, and those that might to vote Labour wanting.
http://www.leftfutures.org/2016/03/labour-mps-abstain-on-snoopers-charter-straight-talking-honest-politics/
One really has to question whether the country’s former Chief Prosecutor should be Labour’s spokesman on the #IPBill.
I was present at the meeting, which for the record was convened by the Labour Campaign for Human Rights.
I think you'll find that the proposals come from http://www.labourdigital.org . This is a crowdsourcing effort led by Lord Parry Mitchell and John McTiernan although like so many of these exercises how ideas get to the top, no-one knows. This makes @labourdigital a Labour Party caucus or pressure group or a front and as far as I can see not something John Cruddas has been associated with.
You are right in that there is a second Labour review, led by Chi Onawurah MP, a Labour MP, shadow spokesperson for the Cabinet Office. The questions and personnel involved have more significant track records and while the launch was quieter, the thought going into the agenda was broader, better informed and focused on citizenship. It also looks to address those aspects of the public/private sector relationship which are at their worst problematic. These questions are not easy to answer and I know that my reply was weak on this aspect of the call for evidence. The interest, which some Tories share, in solving the dual problems of citizen participation in IT projects and “too-big-too fail” is certainly not one that’s expressed in headlines. It’s a serious set of questions which this article and most commentators fail to understand or question.
While I agree, and stated on several occasions that e-voting is dangerous and unproven, @labourdigital continue to pursue it. It is only 9th on their list of proposals, although Labour’s National Policy Forum included a one line statement to pursue (i.e. repeat) experiments including online voting. I have written at length on Labour List, my blog and on @labourdigital’s crowd sourcing site on why this is a mistake. It was the most controversial item on the @labourdigital crowdsourcing site, which didn’t have a down button, which is good for brainstorming, but not so good when the sorting of proposals is not transparent. I don’t think anyone submitted the idea to the http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/ site, where Labour asked people to contribute their ideas to for the next manifesto. I know that my statement, asked for the support of the EDRi’s Digital Charter which doesn’t call for e-voting.
However we can’t have it both ways, we either want evidence based policy or not. I know that for many, blind prejudice is enough. However if we do want fact based policy, then the people who know the evidence are likely to be earning their living in the business; to write them off as part of the extended public sector client state is ignorant and wrongheaded. It’s certainly the case that better public sector project governance will only come from experts who learn from both success and failure. I am hopeful that modern IT architectures will help make this easier.
You say, "“identifying and requesting data in [a] network using identifiers which are based on contents of data” (US patent 5,978,791), “identifying data in a data processing system” . Isn't this RDBMS indexes? Surely theres a shed load of prior art here? And thats before we go back to the 80's and ICL's CAFS.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
