Protect Your Data Watch


by Lee Griffin    
5:20 pm - January 29th 2009

Tweet       Share on Tumblr

I didn’t know what to expect when I turned on the feed to watch the parliamentary debate on the Coroners and Justice Bill. Would it be all about protecting people from terrorists? Would it be about efficiency, saving the tax payer money? How would they spin the fact that they are essentially allowing any government minister to abandon the Data Protection Act, and furthermore to allow in the same breath to change *any* act of parliament to suit their needs?

Essentially Mr Straw has created a genie in a bottle piece of legislation. It’s all powerful, its range is almost limitless (you can’t wish for data that isn’t relevant to a “policy objective”), and it’s perfectly fine to possess that genie in a bottle because only good intentioned people are ever going to give it a rub.

But the “uses” of the bill’s power wasn’t the only thing misrepresented in debate.

David Howarth: The Thomas and Walport report [cited by Jack Straw as the driving force and proponent for this legislation] expressly says at paragraph 8.47 that:
“we believe this process would not be appropriate for large-scale data-sharing initiatives that would constitute very significant changes to public policy, such as those relating to the National Identity Register or the National DNA database.”

Jack Straw referenced this report (pdf) a couple of times as if it was asking for the information sharing orders that he’s proposed. This is a lie, and he has completely misrepresented what the report was really setting out to do, as it certainly wasn’t proposing a mass of databases and barely checked sharing of our data to all and sundry.

The authorisation process would not prevent the use of dedicated primary legislation in particular cases of data sharing, if it were considered appropriate for whatever reason. For example, we believe this process would not be appropriate for large-scale data-sharing initiatives that would constitute very significant changes to public policy, such as those relating to the National Identity Register or the National DNA database.

There was also important distinction made in the house regarding what is really the only “safeguard” in the whole of sections 152-154 to what data is used for.

Alun Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me[...]the requirement for balance in coming to a conclusion about whether data should be shared is clearly written into the Bill.

David Howarth: If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that a court might say that on judicial review, he is whistling in the wind. That is precisely the kind of provision that a court would say was plainly political and not for them to judge.

Given the use of words such as “fair” it is clear that the law is being opened up to interpretation here, something never good in judicial terms and certainly not good when you’re talking about reams of personal data that, by the time of going to court, are already long gone with the damage done.

Jeremy Corbyn: In [Mr Howarth's] view, is it possible that information could be shared between Departments about people’s opinions, activities and knowledge, rather than any criminal actions or convictions?

David Howarth: That would appear to be possible, because of the power to allow any person to share any data despite what any enactment says.

What isn’t noted here is that if Mr Howarth is right then information sharing orders could also STOP opinions, knowledge and information about activities from being shared between anyone it wishes. Got a major political rally against the government? Assuming they can find a policy objective there is no reason why they couldn’t prohibit you to promote it, with the bill also seemingly giving them the power to charge you with a newly created offence and imprison you for up to two years.

But what of the support, there wasn’t much of it after all…?

Bridget Prentice: I shall also be happy to meet hon. Members to discuss some of those matters [regarding data sharing] in detail, but I must say that I see data sharing as a positive thing. It will make people’s lives better because they will not have to go through 50 different gateways to get their information through to the right person.

Exagerate much Bridget? Exactly how many examples are there out there of someone having to go through 50 different “gateways” (I assume by this she means holders of data) to get their information to someone they wish to give it to? I expect the answer to be zero since anyone can simply give their data directly to whoever they wish.

I understand the real reason why they want this law, and it is probably mostly good intentioned, to enable services such as child protection to operate freely and without the consent of those that could be under investigation. And that is one example where specific and tightly regulated information sharing could be a benefit to people.

One thing’s for sure, if you ever got uppity about Brown’s presumed consent over your organs, then by god you should be really seething by now at the government’s presumption that it can do what it likes with your information.

So what’s next?

Essentially the time has not yet come to finish lobbying your MP and to try and raise interest on a more high profile stage. The second reading was ultimately an information gathering exercise given the lack of time members had to research the bill in its 232 page entirety, and so it is from here that any real changes will come about, and where the real vote in the commons will come.

As usual I’d suggest writing to your MP (just input your postcode, it lets you fill out your letter online), you can also join this facebook group to try and gain some publicity for the movement.

  Tweet   Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Lee is a 20 something web developer from Cornwall now residing in Bristol since completing his degree at the lesser university. He has strange dreams, a big appetite, a small flat, and when not forcing his views on the world he is probably eating a cookie. Lee blogs independently from party colours at Program your own mind.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Civil liberties ,Westminster


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Kate Belgrave

Fine piece, Lee.

What is really interesting – and there’s plenty in this post that is – is the way that this government is now at the point where it wants to reinvent its own crappy wheel.

You mention child protection as an area where some data sharing might be justified, and you’d be right.

Thing is, I thought this government had already been there, and believed itself to be taking care of data sharing issues where there was possibly some need. I thought the whole point of an exercise like Every Child Matters, for example, was to establish structures for professional sharing of information between professionals who need to do so in the interests of avoiding another Climbie-type situation.

A huge amount of resource has already been poured into that exercise – if memory serves, there was compulsory training for anybody involved in providing services to children, etc, and all councils had to organise that training and promotion of Every Child Matters initiatives. I suppose some party-liner will come on here and tell me that the Baby P story shows exactly why more is needed by way of sharing information with anyone who wants it – for all the world as if the Baby P story was merely about nobody having the right information.

And you’re right about Bridget Prentice. I’ve never had to go through 50 gateways to get my information to people I want to give it to. What is she talking about? Sharing your health information with your GP? Giving your employment history to a potential new employer? Sharing referees’ names with new employers so that they can find out more about your work history? How are these things difficult? What is she on about?

2. Lee Griffin

Thanks for the comment Kate, glad that you agree! I didn’t even think about the points you raise about child protection, essentially I guess I see this as the natural evolution of the ContactPoint database.

We have a strong base to gain publicity on this issue, even the Daily Mail has been happy to draw attention to the data sharing aspects of the bill (arguably one of the first organisations to do so). The committee stage starts on Tuesday and ends on Thursday, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the 3rd reading a week to a fortnight later as they continue to rush this through, and so it’s still vitally important to make sure MPs are clued up on the arguments that are going around and the feelings of people around the UK.

It’s all too easy for MPs to not fully understand the concern this issue may be causing (I don’t profess to know that it is for definite) given how quickly it’s moving through the house and what other bills are being voted on around it.

3. ukliberty

That figure occasionally appears in relation to bereavement – isn’t it dreadful that so-and-so had to phone 50 different organisations to tell them a relative or spouse is dead. The government is less forthcoming about the numbers of people who have had to do this. They also ignore suggestions from the likes of, say, Jenny Willott:

“Does the hon. and learned Gentleman share my concern at how the Government are presenting their case to the public? We saw an example this afternoon, when the Secretary of State talked about families suffering bereavement. I have also heard him give examples involving people moving house. That makes what is proposed sound like a very minor change, made just for people’s own convenience. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman share my concern that, if that is what is going to be done, a change in the law is not needed; people just need to be asked to give their consent? The Secretary of State is using minor examples to cover what is, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, a huge change.”


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    New blog post: Protect Your Data Watch http://tinyurl.com/crpjxh





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.