Another Home Office kneejerk

Like night follows day, you can always rely on the Home Office to come up with a proposal that is not only unworkable, but will get the Daily Mail all in a flutter. They have reported this morning that the government plan to set up ANOTHER database that will detail "every phone call, e-mail, text message, internet search and online purchase in the fight against terrorism and other serious crime."

To be honest this is an old message, and one that we've all heard, and ridiculed before. The fact is that this sort of database is a pipedream and completely unworkable. To set it up would cost so much money, that the Northern Rock bill would look like loose change. Besides with this governments record on holding personal data, or more to the point losing said personal data, isn't exactly great.

So if this pipe dream was ever to become a Bill, the proposal would be unworkable, so expensive that it would be silly, require thousands of additional civil servants to manage it, and probably be as secure as Harriet Harman's blog password was.

Thankfully, when I read this report, I didn't overreact with the vigour of the Daily Mail, if anything I laughed and said "that old chesnut again". The thing is when the government are on a downer, the "threat to our safety" starts up with Labour saying that the opposition would undermine our national security. A popular line when John Reid was the Home Secretary. Perhaps Jacqui Smith is just trying her luck against a new Shadow Home Secretary, after all he has just shown her knife crime plans to be as half-baked as I feared that they probably would be.

Is there no end to how much that this government would love to control every aspect of out lives?

As the dust settles, the spin begins.

Well it didn't take the government long, but the spin has already started to try and nulify David Davis's current stand. I'll concede that a by-election is a hell of a risky move, but after watching David's interview he gave the BBC, as he got off the train at York, I got it! I understood what he was trying to achieve. The government spin machine I believe also understand his reasoning, which is why they are trying to make David out to be reckless. But it's the ascersion that the party is split of this issue that is annoying me the most.

The only party that is split over the issue of 42 days detention is Labour. They were the party that had a large rebellion, with some MPs openly admitting that they only backed the government to save Gordon Brown! At least David Davis is stabding by what he believes in, unlike those Labour that backed an awful bill to save its party's face. So much for principles there then.

The whole conduct of the government in achieve the vote win, along with the accusations of sweetners for DUP, has to be called into question. David said that it was his task to fight the bill and win, he didn't and felt that he should personally fall on his sword. He made the arguements and was beaten by skullduggery. Now doesn't that sound like vote rigging? Anyway, I digress.

The accusations of tory turmoil are wide of the mark, as the messages of support from all quarters of the party are united. Of course David Cameron wasn't happy as he was losing a highly effective member of his team, but a party split? How can it be when all but one MP backed David Davis's arguement in the vote. Perhaps Labour should look a little closer to home when looking for division.

So who will David face? Well it's currently looking like no-one. The Lib Dems, and most of the normal fringe parties are backing David's stand, so won't fight him. But, it also looks as though Labour won't fight either on this issue, by not fielding a candidate either. However, this isn't a surprise as Gordon hasn't got enough money left to buy off David's constituancy as well as the DUP, plus he is a serial election bottler.

David obviously feels so strongly about this that he is willing to risk everything to highlight this issue, and stand for his beliefs. Which is a far better position than Gordon's "win at all costs" in every sense.

Davis's resignation

As far as political shocks go, David Davis' resignation this lunchtime is a big one. To be honest I'm stunned. Not a lot leaves me speechless, just ask the wife, but this has got me stumped. David is one of the best performers on the tory front bench, and has seen off so many Home Secretaries that Jaqui Smith must be breathing a sigh of relief.

So why has he done this? Well, it is a bold move as by resigning as an MP he is putting his whole political career on the line over something that he believes in. Which for an MP to stick to his guns these days is very rare. He stated that his "by-election manifesto"(for the want of a better term - Ed) will over the government's erosion of civil liberties. He is right, and last night's vote on 42 day detention, and how the government have bought their win on promises, and not the substance of the legislation, is perfect proof of how "the party of the people" want to control every aspect of our life.

David Davies went on to say that it's more than just last night, that was just the straw that broke the camel's back, is the database culture of this government, the intrusive ID card scheme, the DNA profiling of children, the removal of trial by jury for certain charges, and the extensive use of CCTV around the country. So in that respect I can understand where David is coming from. This government is going too far in it's assault on our civil liberties, our rights, and our very core beliefs as Brits.

Now, unsurprisingly the government have tried to dismiss David Davies decision, as the "outburst of a madman", but this has left them reeling. If they don't select a candidate to fight this by-election, they will be accused of being scared to debate the issue. But by selecting someone to fight the campaign will see them up against a man how has systematically destroyed three Home Secretaries. Besides Labour is skint and can hardly afford to run a campaign anyway. But, on the flip side what if David is re-elected without a major candiate against him, would that water down his reason for taking this step?

This whole move is risky, David even said that himself, but he is right that these issues need to be highlighted and debated, but whether or not this is the right way to do it only time will tell.


Update: 1800 hrs. Sky are reporting that Labour will not be putting up a candidate.

SHOCK: Home office is right.

Sit down and hold on to your hats, because I'm actually going to agree with the Government. And, if the wasn't shocking enough, it's actually with the Home Office.

Yesterday, the Home Office made their most sensible announcement in a decade "there will be no compulsory national DNA database". The call for which we hear every single time a criminal is convicted on DNA evidence. Now, even though I am pleased that these evil bastards are behind bars, the logging of DNA profiles would throw up a whole heap of issues which would make such a scheme unworkable.

Now, the usual media and police standpoint is that nobody that has anything to hide would have to worry about being on this database, but that is where the problems automatically start. Basically, people that do have something to hide won't want to be on this database, and how would you force them? That would then involve the police tracing the individual, and then arresting them, which would then give the police the authority to take a sample. Wouldn't that be a waste of resources, with officers time being taken up by taking DNA samples, rather than catching criminals and solving crimes?

Also, there is the whole human rights arguement that is currently in the European courts, where innocent people who had their DNA samples taken when they were arrested, and subsequently cleared, that now find their samples on the database for no reason. Is it right that any civilised country keeps such a detailed log on us all.

Another issue is that of illegal immigration. The Home Office has had to admit in the past that it does not know the true scale of illegal immigration into this country, and have even hired illegals within its offices, but that is for a different post. So how could you possible take a DNA sample from someone that the authorities doesn't even know exists?

It should also be noted that DNA evidence is not infallable. Just look at the McCann's case for an example of that.

Besides, if like you me see ID cards as breach of our civil liberty, then what would make the compulsory collection of our DNA. Like the TV series the Prisoner, we really would be just a number.

So, the Home Office for once has looked at an idea, seen that it is not only unworkable but would also be a breach of our civil liberties, and stated tht it is a non-starter. They know it won't work, they know it would be hated, and they know its a bad idea. But, at a time when emotions are running high over the subject because of recent court cases, they have actually shown a level and not got caught up in it.

How many more?

So yet again a minister is forced to make an embarssing announcement to the House of Commons highlighting incompetence, and another three million people have had personal details go missing.

This seems to be a regular theme with the government recently, but when you read between the lines of the statement you begin to worry. For example the details of the data loss were known in May, but only revealed yesterday to the house. However, what I find more worrying is that this "announcement" was only brought about as a result of the review into the data loss at HMRC.

Now bearing that in mind this begins to look like a cover up, or at least a clear attempt to keep the bad news back.

With all of these data loss scandals it is becoming at tad concerning that the government are still insistant on having an ID card scheme. The company involved in this latest data loss are supposedly security specialists, which can't bode well for the governments plans. After all, one their key arguements is that our personal details would be completely safe and secure, but the last few weeks have gone a long way to show that this government cannot be trusted with our details, and vis a vis cannot be trusted to run an ID card scheme.

What I find concerning is that the government is doing the exact opposite, and are using these data breaches to try and bolster their call for the scheme. Just how many final nails are there for this scheme?

Update: Just realised that I'm directly affected by this as I took a theory test in 2004, for my motorcycle licence. That's twice my details have been put at risk by this government.

DNA database has too many flaws

I've been thinking about this post ever since yesterday morning, but every time I try and write it I start going on a rambling rant about the whole issue. So this is the umpteenth attempt at it.

Yesterday Lord Justice Sedley said that he felt every single person in Britain should have their DNA taken and placed on to a National DNA Database. Thankfully the government have said that there isn't any plans for such a database. Which bascially means that they have discussed it, but know it is fair too controversial to attempt without a landslide election win.

However, the Judge does have a point that it could help with detection of crimes. But, there are many flaws that will render this database as dangerously hopeless.

The first of these flaws is Human error. Could you imagine how many miscarriages of justice would happen if a slight mistake was entered on to the database by operators. After all, we see it all the time with medical diagnosis.

The second is the security of information. Do I really need to expand on this, as with every stage of a national database there has been concerns over this, escpecially with the children's database. The moment that any information is placed on a government computer it is not safe, the news that the Chinese have been attempting to hack into our goverment's supposedly secure network. Again, could you imagine the damage that a rogue nation could do with that information?

I know it sounds all very Jambes Bond-ish, but to have that amount of information stored about the general public in one place, and under attack from other nations let alone terrorist groups, makes the mind boggle.

Until those points can be answered the general public will never support the idea, and thats even before the human rights side of the arguement kicks in.

Latest Child database fears.

I am having the strangest feeling of deja vu this morning, after reading some of the online newspapers. I seem to remember a No2ID newsletter, and a number of other bloggers voicing their concerns over the government's planned national database of children, and just how secure the databse will be. I also remember how the government dismissed this as scaremongering.

Then I read this in the Times: "Senior social workers have given warning of the dangers posed by a new government register that will store the details of every child in England from next year. They fear that the database, containing the address, medical and school details of all under-18s, could be used to harm the children whom it is intended to protect."

The article itself I, rather unfortunately, find it not that shocking, in fact it simply bolsters my objection to this planned database. Plus, if social workers can see problems with it, and they would be the major users potentially, then surely that should ring a few alarm bells.

The ID card arguement boiled down.

My opposition to the ID cards bill is well documented on this blog, as I feel it's fundamentally flawed and takes it away some of our liberty to roam freely in this country. I, for one, certainly do not believe Blair and Reid's old line that holding a plastic card prevents terrorism.

However, to the point. Whilst having a quiet drink with a friend over lunch, the subject of ID cards cropped up, in which my friend boiled down the arguement to its bearest bones.

The converstion went a bit like this:

"ID Cards, just a bit of plastic, that won't stop people committing terrorism will it?"

LBS: "Well that's what the government reckons."

"Well your driving licence is just a plastic card, but that doesn't stop a person from committing a driving offence does it!"

At this point I was left a tad speechless, as he had hit the nail right on the head.

ID Cards system has fatal flaw

If, like me, you are against the introduction of ID cards ont eh basis that the system is flawed, then an item by Sky News will do nothing else but justify those concerns.

According to the report, their reporter was able to change his identity by deed poll, with minimal effort and paperwork, and was then free to apply for a new passport in the new name. The scope for frausters selling on these passports, and ID cards if the government gets its way, is immense.

For too long the government have wave the banner that anyone who disagrees with them will put the country at risk. However, ill-thought out legislation and even worse processes, will only exacebate the situation, and certainly not improve the security of the nation.

Now taking away the civil liberties arguements, the thought that this "wonderful system" is actually going to help criminals, and not protect the nation should be the straw the breaks the camels back with this policy. But if the government follow their form, they will come up with some "new" idea that will make the system secure, which in effect will be the re-release of an old idea.

Perhaps, if the government actually stopped accusing the oppostion parties of voting against security, and realise that they are voting against bad legislation, the this country's open door security will finally be solved.

Government prepared for ID card revolt.

In the latest revelation to hit government policy is the news that the government is predicting that some 15million people will revolt against Blair’s controversial ID card scheme by refusing to produce the new cards or provide personal data on demand.

The forecast, revealed in this morning's Sunday Times, is made in documents released by the Home Office under the Freedom of Information Act. The papers show ministers expect "national protests similar to the poll tax rebellions of the Thatcher era, with millions prepared to risk criminal prosecution".

So that begs the question, why bother? All you will do is waste public money because it is endemically flawed. After all how on earth can you have adequate security checks when a quarter of the nation will not register their details.

Reid adds another U-turn to the list.

The last thing I expected from John Reid was yet another U-turn, but that is what we were treated to yesterday when he gave his update on the id card scheme.

In a screeching U-turn, the Home Secretary said the personal and biometric details of every UK adult will instead be stored on three separate, existing databases. By ditching the multi-billion pound system, the flagship of the whole project, it showed that the ID cards scheme is in complete disarray.

But Mr Reid desperate to save cash, with the cost of the project already estimated at a staggering £5.4 billion, but he denied money had been wasted. He added: "Doing something sensible is not necessarily a U-turn".

No, Mr Reid, doing something sensible would be to scrap the whole idea. Besides, what exactly do you have to do to make it count as a U-turn? Cancelling a major part of a project would qualify, wouldn't it?

However, if you didn't think that was bad enough, in a second major development, it also emerged that millions of pensioners will be ordered to hand over their fingerprints and pay out for an ID card, even if they do not want one, or face a fine of up to £2,500.

Living in a dream world.

The Home Secretary is preparing to publish an action plan for the UK's controversial identity card scheme, and will also issue an update on the country's border controls.

The suggestion that we actually have ANY border controls, is the funniest thing I've heard from John Reid so far.


Update: When I posted this I had no idea about this headline, about the suspected killer of PC Sharon Beshenivsky fleeing the country wearing a veil.

I take it all back, the lack of border aren't just a joke they are a disgrace!

Another Day, Another Climbdown

Policy climbdown's seem to be a regular occurence at the moment from the government, and today is no different.

The Government has today performed another policy u-turn, this time on it's plans to put details of patients' records on a national computer system, and agreed to proceed "with caution" with a limited list of medical information.

Or, to put it in laymans terms, anyone who doesn't want their records on a national database has got the right of veto.

Doctors and patients have expressed fears that a compulsory electronic record system could damage the GP/patient relationship, and compromise confidentiality. Following local publicity and possibly individual letters, patients will have eight to 10 weeks to opt out. Later they can view the information on paper or on a secure online site, HealthSpace, and correct it if necessary. They can also choose to opt out now by completing an "Opt Out" letter available from TheBigOptOut.org.

The U-turn by the government was prompted by a report led by patient's tsar Harry Cayton, which argued the system must be introduced with "public support and clinical confidence".

So the fact that the opt out clause is even there, pretty much shows that the public have no faith in it at all.

Your right to Opt Out.

Back in November I wrote a post about GP's being in revolt over Labour's plans for a database holding all of our Medical Records.

Last week NO2ID, together with the foundation for information policy research (fipr), launched 'The Big Opt Out' - a campaign to draw people's attention to the growing database state in the guise of the government's NHS Care Record System.

Their website www.nhsconfidentiality.org pretty much explains your rights, and how you can Opt Out of having you details entered on to the "NHS Spine".

It says:

"You can opt out of having your medical records that are currently kept by your GP uploaded to the NHS ’spine’ - or so ministers have promised in the past. To do this, you need to write to your GP. But before you do, please read the following:

The Department of Health (DoH) have tried to argue that by having your details uploaded to the spine, they will be available in an emergency. You may indeed wish to consider this if you have a long-standing medical condition.

However A&E Departments do have established ways of handling patients for whom they no medical history. Logging in to a centralised database to refer to what might be the right person’s medical records does not happen at present - and seems unlikely to happen in the near future.

If you do have a relevant condition, e.g. diabetes or a penecillin allergy, it would be far better to wear a medical alert bracelet, because that way they don’t have to discover your identity to look up the details.

Aside from this there should be no impact on your medical care, unless DoH changes the rules to make it so. Your GP will still have access to your records, held locally on the practice’s systems."

The Opt Out letter for you GP can then be reproduced from HERE.

GP revolt over national NHS database

There seems to be a worrying consistancy with this government when it comes to wanting to control, record and catergorise us. All they want to do is hold as much data about every single individual, as is possible.

First was the ID card and national database which, to be honest, the thought of scares me witless. Would you want "any" agency knowing every last detail about you? But now we find ourselves faced with the new NHS database, which would hold our entire health record, and be accessible by anybody in the NHS, anywhere in the country.

The thought of that prospect should make everyone very, very, concerned. Especially when you add in the fact that half of all GPs will consider refusing to put patient records automatically on to a new national database, in defiance of the government. In a recent poll, conducted by The Guardian, of the 1,026 GPs and hospital doctors questionned, they found many doubted the security of the new system. Four out of five thought the confidentiality of their patients' records would be at risk!

Among the GPs concerns were the potential for bribery or blackmail, and about clinicians not adhering to the rules.

However, nearly half the doctors who saw clinical benefits from a national record thought the confidentiality risks worth taking, with only 11% of GPs and 18% of hospital doctors were prepared to upload details without the patient's consent.

"confidentiality risks worth taking" are you sure! At a time when ID theft is soaring, shouldn't this be a major reason for NOT having a national database.

As pointed out by Dizzy last week, even the "secure" passports have had their security cracked. As, Dizzy quite rightly pointed out then "Security technology is invented by human beings, therefore it stands to reason that human beings will find a way to circumvent it"

So how long will it be before a hacker accesses our health records? or our entire record be stolen and used by someone else?

This madness has to stop.


Update: Labour MP Roger Godsiff has just written an Early Day Motion, concerning the collection of data and the increasing incidence of data intrusion.

ID card cost revealed

The Home Office has finally revealed that the UK's national identity card scheme will cost £5.4bn to set up and run over the next 10 years.

Home office minister, Liam Byrne, has confirmed that ID cards would be introduced "rapidly", starting with biometric cards, which will include fingerprints and facial images, for foreign nationals in 2008. But as many of these foreign nationals come into the country through open borders, this will be unachieveable.

However, in many circles this cost is believed to be an estimate of the true cost of setting up this system. It has been widely reported to the cost could be as much as £18bn! Besides, wouldn't £5.4bn be better spent on the NHS!

ID cards are a costly infringement of our civil liberties and the whole policy should be scrapped. They have been proved not to work in preventing terroism or controlling immigration, in many countries, including Spain, and therefore we must not allow what will be in effect a tax on living in Britain, and the catergorisation of everyone in the country.

Say no to the ID card.

Children's Database would be an end to the privacy of our children.

The government's plans for a database holding the information of up to 10million "children" could be illegal, and would be a dangerous tool for exploitation by paedophiles, according to a report by the Information Commissioner's Office.

The news report in the Daily Mail says:

Ministers are spending £200million of taxpayers’ money to create a file on every child in England and Wales, detailing personal information on their health and education. More than 400,000 civil servants and council workers will have access to the Children’s Index, which by the end of 2008 will link up with 2,000 databases currently run separately by doctors, schools and social services.

However, the Information Commissioner's Office has told government, in it's report, that this database would contravene Data Protection Laws, as parental permission to hold this informtaion hasn't been sought.

This is a clear abuse of it's power by the government, and would bring us a step closer to the "Big Brother" scenario.

According to ministers, the planned database would contain only basic information, including name, address and date of birth, plus details of a child’s school, GP and whether they have a carer or social worker.

However, as has been proved a too many occasions, this informtaion could be accessed by pretty much anyone, and therefore put children at an even greater risk.