Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government News

UK Government Wants To Bypass Data Protection Act 262

Posted by kdawson
from the you-have-none dept.
rar42 writes "Clause 152 of the Coroners and Justice Bill, currently being debated by the UK Parliament, would allow any Minister by order to take from anywhere any information gathered for one purpose, and use it for any other purpose. Personal information arbitrarily used without consent or even knowledge: the very opposite of 'Data Protection.' An 'Information Sharing Order', as defined in Clause 152, would permit personal information to be trafficked and abused, not only all across government and the public sector — it would also reach into the private sector. And it would even allow transfer of information across international borders. NO2ID has launched a Facebook group to challenge this threat to data protection."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Government Wants To Bypass Data Protection Act

Comments Filter:
  • Someday you people will come to assume that anything the government asks is a portal to one.

    • by Chabo (880571) on Monday March 02, 2009 @09:53PM (#27047179) Homepage Journal

      A portal to a slippery slope? [penny-arcade.com]

      Sounds fun!

  • A facebook group? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    because we all know how well respected they are...

    • Re:A facebook group? (Score:4, Informative)

      by owlnation (858981) on Monday March 02, 2009 @10:11PM (#27047279)
      True. Protesting on Facebook works on Facebook -- hence the Facebook protests that occur every other week about some trivial change to something on the site.

      No2ID have the right idea. But... they really, really need to get their PR machine working. There's next to nothing ever mentioned about them anywhere. They need to be organizing much more high profile stuff. They need to be getting in the press regularly and frequently.

      Having a Facebook group is fine, but it will achieve nothing by itself. Get it together people, because you do have a lot of support, you just need to channel it much, much better than you are currently doing.
      • Re:A facebook group? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Monday March 02, 2009 @10:56PM (#27047483)

        No2ID have the right idea. But... they really, really need to get their PR machine working. [...] They need to be organizing much more high profile stuff. They need to be getting in the press regularly and frequently.

        I don't know which press you've been reading, but NO2ID have been mentioned in just about every article on anything related to this subject that I've seen for the past several years. I'd guess only Liberty manage to attract more coverage opposing these issues, and even that might not be true any more.

      • No2ID have the right idea. But... they really, really need to get their PR machine working. There's next to nothing ever mentioned about them anywhere. They need to be organizing much more high profile stuff. They need to be getting in the press regularly and frequently.

        That's a major affirmative.

        I'm in the US and I've attempted to contact them a couple of times about potentially expanding to help fight similar foolishness in the US. After all, it seems like whatever one idiot English-speaking country does, the rest soon follow, whether or not it's a sensible idea. Noone ever got back to me.

        Perhaps No2ID is actually an MI6 honeypot operation.

        • by FourthAge (1377519) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @05:33AM (#27049063) Journal

          No2ID has been running for several years now without doing anything to discredit itself and its members, such as aligning itself with the far right, carrying out violent protests, or endorsing a particular party. Those are the sort of wrecking tactics that we might expect the Government to use if it secretly controlled them.

          However, its main problem is that it is an unfashionable issue. The main stream media is to blame for this. Instead of warning people about the ID register, they have encouraged complacency and the "doesn't bother me, I have nothing to hide" attitude which is so dangerous in an effective democracy.

          No surprise, then, that No2ID rarely gets a mention. To their credit, the BBC do link to the No2ID site when it's relevant, and they do get quotes from the No2ID people, but they tend only to include these as a token "opposing viewpoint" and not a real argument.

    • by Tensor (102132)
      My thoughts exactly ...

      Way to take this seriously and be firmly opposed ... a facebook group ? WTF ... why not protest on twitter for that matter??

      Evidently people in the UK are way too polite, ideally they should protest at Parliament's doorstep....
      • Re:A facebook group? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by infolation (840436) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @04:49AM (#27048879)
        Protesting within 1km of Parliament in the UK is illegal, unless you've been given Police permission. Even people with blank white placards, protesting that they're not allowed to protest, have been arrested.

        Protester Brian Haw's still in Parliament Square because his protest pre-dated the poorly-drafted Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Xest (935314)

      Facebook groups aren't created with the hope of people in power looking at the amount of people in the group and thinking "Oh, let's do something about that". They're created to spread the word- the point is that Facebook groups are viral, each time someone you know joins it you will see about it on your profile page or whatever. If you join, your friends will see about it too. This spreads and spreads so that more people are aware of the issue than otherwise would be.

      That's why people use Facebook groups-

  • oh the irony (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02, 2009 @09:19PM (#27046997)

    of protesting privacy on a companies site that base their revenue (and databases) on people handing them private data.

    facebook isnt worth million$ for their pretty graphics

  • by timmarhy (659436) on Monday March 02, 2009 @09:25PM (#27047033)
    And the morons choose to protest on facebook, so that anyone and everyone can see who you are and it's stored in one of the very databases this kind of act is targeted at.

    not to mention that if your level of protest is a few mouse clicks, no one is going to take you seriously.

    • by andy_t_roo (912592) on Monday March 02, 2009 @10:16PM (#27047303)

      you could argue that non-anonymously protesting something like this shows the event is a bit more significant that a few mouse clicks -- if these people are right about what they are protesting, then their name would end up in a database of "people known to object to government activities" which can then be shared around.

      i agree that objecting to other things via facebook isn't that significant (if you care send an email, or even better write the email, but print it out and post it), but publicly protesting potential privacy breaches?

    • by Tensor (102132)
      LOL i did not thought of this ... just thought that protesting on facebook was childish and stupid ... forgot about it being public and personal ...

      So summing up ... to protest against public misuse of private databases they decide to make a private database of people protesting against public misuse of private databases ... BRILLIANT, at least it shows a highly evolved sense of ironic humor
  • Raise your hand... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Monday March 02, 2009 @09:28PM (#27047047)

    ...if you didn't see this coming. I don't think anyone believed for a minute that any government worker would idly sit on a data goldmine, and not utilize to its full capability. Which is why the proper response to any request for linking databases or collecting any data outside of that necessary for filing charges is "Are you crazy?"

    I'd also like to point out that facebook groups are the new Internet petitions: completely meaningless. Either call or mail your representative, or take it like a good consumer.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I don't think anyone believed for a minute that any government worker would idly sit on a data goldmine, and not utilize to its full capability.

      They can't. Not with the Tabloid newspapers screaming "Something Must Be Done" every time some brat drinks themselves to death, or a knife is drawn outside of a nightclub.

      The British public support this measure and others like it every single morning when they buy sensationalist, right wing papers whose sole objective seems to be to prevent the Government from actin

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Chabo (880571)

        when they buy sensationalist, right wing papers

        Yes, because The Guardian immune from sensationalism. I'm not even British and I can make this comment!

        There is hope for me about the UK. People are starting to realize that the government isn't looking out for their best interests, especially among the younger generations.

        • by poetmatt (793785)

          In the end, stuff like this amounts to a revolution across many countries, and the UK could certainly be the one to incite one. A global depression is absolutely enough to be a tipping point.

          I think the question is whether the world "violent" will come before the revolution or not, and whether it will have to be, for that matter.

          • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

            by MichaelSmith (789609)
            The UK could be a republic before Australia. That would be embarrassing!
          • by cayenne8 (626475)
            "I think the question is whether the world "violent" will come before the revolution or not, and whether it will have to be, for that matter."

            I think that is pretty much impossible....they have already taken your guns over there in the UK, haven't they?

            So much for the threat of violence.

        • by EdIII (1114411) *

          There is hope for me about the UK. People are starting to realize that the government isn't looking out for their best interests, especially among the younger generations.

          There is no hope.

          Sometimes things just need to get so bad that people want to leave and go someplace else. Then the people who control those people put up 25ft concrete walls surrounding them and shoot anyone trying to get out.

          After awhile, the economy goes to shit, and the standard of living plummets. The young listen to the old about h

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02, 2009 @10:12PM (#27047283)

        The British public support this measure and others like it every single morning when they buy sensationalist, right wing papers whose sole objective seems to be to prevent the Government from acting in any kind of reasonable or rational way. Hence CCTV mania, databases and ID cards.

        The British public do NOT support these kinds of measures. They only think they do because The Sun tells them so. Most of the people in the UK are brainless SkyTV addicted reality tv watching idiots (very much like the Nascar/reality tv watching rednecks in the states). The Sun prints something and they believe it because they want to fit in, are too lazy to think for themselves and believe that everyone else feels the same way. If they ever actually discussed these issues or even saw other real people (reality tv is not real people) they'd find that others dont approve of these measures.

        • by Xest (935314)

          I think that was his point. The British public support it because they've been told to by the papers and that's all that matters to them.

          What you're saying is "If they were enlightened then they wouldn't support it", but they're not and make no effort to be, hence they support it.

        • by zmollusc (763634)

          the public don't support these measures, but the public is not consulted. At election time your choice is between different asshats. No matter who you vote for, the government get in, and the government is not on your side.

      • by owlnation (858981)

        The only thing keeping the country sane at this point is the BBC and the conservative upper classes. May the gods help us all.

        I'm concerned that you feel the BBC are some sort of beacon of hope. I see them as more the organ of the state. There's next to nothing about the erosion of people's rights on the BBC. There's no critical investigations of the effectiveness of CCTV nor any other measures. There's not even the slightest hint that we may be doomed by Jaquboots Smith, Jackboots Straw, or Gordon Brown-

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          "The Guardian, however, isn't at all in any way."

          What utter bollocks.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/civil-liberties

          The Daily Mail piss and moan about the "nanny state" enough, granted. But that's because there's a Labour government in power right now. If (when) the Tories were in power, they'd be pulling the same shit and the Mail would be praising them for it.

          The Daily Mail are as much a part of the problem as anything. Their fear-mongering reactionary and sensationalist stories about immigrants coming over

        • by Xest (935314)

          You have to realise the BBC are on difficult ground. If they actively oppose Labour's ideas they risk change of management to one more favourable to the government.

          Look at what happened around the Iraq war when the BBC reported the government had exagerated claims about WMDs- heads rolled in the BBC even though we know now the BBC was dead right.

          I don't know what versions of the Guardian you've been reading but they certainly do report the issues with CCTV cameras although by the sounds of it what you're as

      • by malkavian (9512)

        No, most people in the UK do not want this, in any way, shape or form.
        The UK suffers from the "Silent Majority", where most people are just trying hard to get on with their lives, and make the world more livable. The voices that are always heard the loudest are from minority groups that scream very loud about their latest cause celebre, and this is actively encouraged by the current Government.. If you're in a majority group and speak loud, then you're tagged 'Oppressive' and derided; only if you've got s

    • by TubeSteak (669689) on Monday March 02, 2009 @09:59PM (#27047209) Journal

      I'd also like to point out that facebook groups are the new Internet petitions: completely meaningless. Either call or mail your representative, or take it like a good consumer.

      Facebook groups are the new e-mail list.
      They are useful for rallying and coordinating activities.

      Though I doubt the government cares very much, many large corporations have keyed into
      facebook/twitter/etc in order to quickly respond to complaints before they become PR messes.

      • by glwtta (532858) on Monday March 02, 2009 @11:33PM (#27047695) Homepage
        They are useful for rallying and coordinating activities.

        Slight correction: they are useful for making people feel like they are rallying and coordinating activities. They provide a nice outlet for people's urge to "stick it to the man" (usually by complaining), without actually accomplishing anything - everybody wins!
    • by Tensor (102132)
      Or get out off your effing couch and GO to Parliament/congress/whatever ... you'll always be taken as seriously as the effort you put protesting.

      And a few mouse clicks is definitely not the way to show outrage.
  • And we care why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Monday March 02, 2009 @09:38PM (#27047079)

    Really people, stop bitching, and start encrypting everything, using bank accounts in countries like Switzerland, and doing everything possible to minimize the data collected on you. Of course, you'll be labeled a terrorist for going "off grid", but if you want privacy anymore these days, you need to control your exposure. You. Personally.

    • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Monday March 02, 2009 @09:45PM (#27047127)

      Really people, stop bitching, and start encrypting everything

      That only works until the mere presence of encryption (or any dataset that merely appears to be encrypted) is criminalized to a high degree. They'll do whatever they can to make the average citizen perceive encryption as too risky.

      • Really people, stop bitching, and start encrypting everything

        That only works until the mere presence of encryption (or any dataset that merely appears to be encrypted) is criminalized to a high degree. They'll do whatever they can to make the average citizen perceive encryption as too risky.

        What is the difference between "compressed" and "encrypted".

        • by artor3 (1344997)

          What is the difference between "compressed" and "encrypted".

          Whether or not it's in the government sanctioned format, of course.

          • They only way that could happen is if the Government banned data which they could not interpret. /dev/urandom would be banned. (along with /dev/null).
        • Re:And we care why? (Score:5, Informative)

          by andy_t_roo (912592) on Monday March 02, 2009 @10:26PM (#27047335)

          compressed data can be "trivially" returned to the original without any extra knowledge (other than the details of the compressions scheme) encrypted data, even with complete knowledge of the mathematical transform done, can't be undone without finding the extra info somehow. (also compressed data is basically always smaller, encrypted data is usually the same size, plus a header.

          It is good practice to use both, so that breaking the encryption on a low entropy message is much harder (as it'll be compressed to a short, high entropy burst, and so no assumptions about "weak messages" can be made).

          If you use an obscure compression method, then to automated filters there wouldn't be a difference.

          • If you use an obscure compression method, then to automated filters there wouldn't be a difference.

            That depends whether the filter is designed to try common decompression methods, or whether it's designed to detect entropy.

            Encrypted data should be indistinguishable from random noise, whereas there is definitely order to plaintext compressed data.

            Stenanography is another matter.

            But really, the best way to combat ubiquitous state surveillance (assuming you can't just legislate it away) is to make it prohibitively expensive, which means ubiquitous personal encryption. Alas, the general public aren't going t

      • Re:And we care why? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Monday March 02, 2009 @11:08PM (#27047549)

        That only works until the mere presence of encryption (or any dataset that merely appears to be encrypted) is criminalized to a high degree.

        Failing to provide any encryption key they think you have is already a criminal offence, potentially resulting in up to two years in jail, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

      • t.o.w.u.t.m.p.o.e(o.a.d.t.m.a.t.b.e.)i.c.t.a.h.d.

        The Only Way Under The Misuse Potential Of Extradition (Or Any Damn Tyrannical Minister Apointee To Be Expected) Is Conversing Together, Always Hors d'Å"uvre.

        --
        Hail Kurt Godel, who proved that anything can basically be transposed into something else.

      • by arkhan_jg (618674)

        Already done. Failure to hand over the keys to any encrypted files they have a 'reasonable suspicion' you have the keys to, is punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Petrushka (815171)
      Using Swiss bank accounts may be a partial solution, but you're still going to have tax records, NHS records, driving licences, passports, etc. that you can't encrypt, and which you can't prevent inappropriate people from seeing (such as government ministers ... including the unelected ones). Encryption only helps with respect to personal communication. There are lots of transactions that require more insecure types of communication, unfortunately.
  • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Monday March 02, 2009 @09:43PM (#27047103)
    what credible threats to the life and liberty of the UK citizenry could possibly justify this?
    • what credible threats to the life and liberty of the UK citizenry could possibly justify this?

      Don't worry, the apparatchik will think of something.

    • by arkhan_jg (618674)

      Well, New Labour might not get elected again if we're not living in fear of terrorists, criminals and illegal immigrants. Got to give the police all the powers they need to fight these terrible crimes and protect us.

      Oh wait, you said citizens. But when 'if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear' is pretty much the win-every-time argument with the citizenry, they're rather getting what they wanted in the first place.

  • UK is FUBAR (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BountyX (1227176) on Monday March 02, 2009 @09:44PM (#27047117)
    Why? Why is the UK so bent on tracking this shit all the time. The purpose of government and legislation is to facilitate interactions between people in some manner. I don't see the social service this provides to the welfare of the people? They are already tracking emails and phone calls unconditionally. All internet traffic is going through proxied servers (as evident during wikipedia incident with "child porn" on an album cover). Cameras all over cities. Seriously has anyone stopped to consider if all this technology is even EFFECTIVE (in use)? Furthermore, the fact that this "bypass" is given exclusive to the Minister is a big warning sign. I bet they're too scared to give people the same rights. The biggest risk of all this; ofcourse, is that augmentation of such data over a long period of time can pretty much be construed to incriminate anyone. What a waste of government resources.
    • Re:UK is FUBAR (Score:4, Insightful)

      by professorguy (1108737) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @06:51AM (#27049391)

      such data over a long period of time can pretty much be construed to incriminate anyone. What a waste of government resources.

      A waste? Far from it. Having data to incriminate ANYONE is not a problem--it is the goal. Sounds like they got exactly what they wanted, resources be damned.

  • by Black Sabbath (118110) on Monday March 02, 2009 @09:50PM (#27047153) Homepage

    Its not about privacy at all.

    The government has discovered that by enacting legislation like this, they can generate almost limitless energy by sticking magnets on George Orwell's coffin and wrapping the whole thing in a copper coil. (There may be a requirement to immerse the whole apparatus in mineral oil to dissipate the heat generated by the ridiculously high speeds at which Orwell is expected to rotate).

    Genius! Pure genius!

  • As long as your sirname isn't Buttle.

  • I said it before (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mlwmohawk (801821) on Monday March 02, 2009 @09:59PM (#27047213)

    The so called "democratic republics" HATE the freedom they profess to love.

    Until the digital age, actual freedom was pretty hard. With the internet, the ability to reach the masses with ideas and data is virtually effortless.

    In the U.S.A. at least, "We The People" better get off our asses and do something. In the UK, the BBC says the subjects have been careless with their freedoms.

    This stuff is bullshit (sorry), march, protest, resist!!!!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MichaelSmith (789609)

      The so called "democratic republics" HATE the freedom they profess to love.

      The UK is a monarchy. Their entire political system exists because the Queen wants it to.

      • by mlwmohawk (801821)

        The UK is a monarchy. Their entire political system exists because the Queen wants it to.

        Not really. The monarchy exists because the people let it. The history of the magna carta is pretty clear. It was in the best interest of the monarchy to live.

  • And they'll be trying to quarter soldiers in your home!
  • I wonder how they would feel if it was their own data that was being accessed?
  • by unity100 (970058) on Monday March 02, 2009 @10:41PM (#27047411) Homepage Journal

    it is just one step from here to a fascist regime. every kind of laws that violate magna carta has been implemented. british public did nothing. i cant believe my eyes.

    • by AndyboyH (837116)

      I think this may come as a shock to US /. readers.

      Unlike your schooling system, which (as I understand it) teaches the constitution, the amendments and so on - and engrains the whole spirit of 'the government should fear their people', the UK has none of this.

      The Magna Carta is not taught as part of UK National Curriculum. (It may be taught in private schools, but as another poster observed - the upper class that can afford private schools are the ones enlightened enough to fight this... The ignorant masses

  • by freedom_india (780002) on Monday March 02, 2009 @11:24PM (#27047643) Homepage Journal

    Why exactly did Great Britain fight Hitler?
    Churchill said some crap about liberties, freedom & stuff like that.
    (of course he was a racist pig and a cancer-inducing chronic smoker who slept when London burned).
    Seems Hitler's ideas won after all. Lets step back a moment and analyze him:
    1) He kept saying that the Soviets are a menace and communism must be wiped out.
    Which became the mantra of UK and USA after WW2.
    2) He racially profiled people: USA does the same under Truman, FDR and Bush. UK does it explicitly. Hell churchill was an exponent of freedom for all, but vehemently (and violently) denied the same to British Colonies.
    3) He believed in Rule of law (the Reich laws of racism were based on US laws). So does UK and USA.
    4) He refused to prosecute the Reich Police and Armed Forces who violated the law. Tasering police and fasle-evidence-planting police and murdering soldiers go scot-free in UK and USA.
    5) He always thought that the State was bigger than the Individual. Hell yeah!
    6) He was a proponent of tracking the smallest activity of the individual. So does UK.

    So, it is proven as a theorem that Hitler's ideals are what UK is following.
    Looks like he won after all!
    Wow! Our brave Hurriance pilots, the brave lonely men in Bombers who did not return home, the men who braved Omaha and Gallipoli, and the countless WACs who wept when their men died will all be happy to learn this.
     

    • by Xest (935314)

      Whilst your post is rather sensationalist and outright false on some issues, I do have to agree that as a British citizen one of the things that makes me appalled by the current situation is remembering the stories my grandfather, a D-Day veteran told me. Him and millions like him did not fight and die for our freedoms only for them to be taken away by our own government.

      As more people of that era pass away less and less people realise how important and how hard fought for our freedoms were. I still have tw

  • by DieByWire (744043) on Monday March 02, 2009 @11:48PM (#27047751)
    But at least it's a polite police state.
    • You haven't dealt with the police lately have you?

    • They even allow you to remove your spectacles before they administer a beating and they always take a 15 minute break for afternoon tea; indeed, the whole process might almost be called, civilized.
  • The arguement (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Demonantis (1340557) on Monday March 02, 2009 @11:51PM (#27047769)
    The most powerful argument I have heard for use of surveillance technology is that people that don't break the law should not fear it. The problem is what if the laws change to suit the people in power. We don't need to give the government power that it does not need, but if we need to give them power to protect us it must come at a great cost to them. Regulate the access of the information. Make the process completely transparent. If abuse occurs make the system stop functioning or let the abused go free. It is safe guards like these that ensure the legal system. Why can't it be applied to all government functions.
    • by mpe (36238)
      The most powerful argument I have heard for use of surveillance technology is that people that don't break the law should not fear it. The problem is what if the laws change to suit the people in power.

      In many cases there are so many laws that people will break several a day. Thus it can be more a case of changing which (and how) laws are enforced...

      We don't need to give the government power that it does not need, but if we need to give them power to protect us it must come at a great cost to them.

      Gov
  • Elected dictatorship (Score:4, Interesting)

    by redelm (54142) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @12:27AM (#27047919) Homepage
    Please excuse the sensationalism, but the UK-style parlementary systems look very much like elected dictatorships. There are no checks & balances against the government power where the executive is not even separate from the legislative.

    As a concrete exampke, I offer the spectacles of Tony Blair putting down three separate back-bencher revolts against him. Labour traditionally had no business supporting the US, particularly over Iraq. Most of the Labour voters were against Iraq. But for some reason Tony thought differently. And was able to impose his will. How would be interesting to know.

    Please note, I am not claiming US-style presidential systems are better. They are certainly less democratic in the sense that the people's will is often thwarted.

    On this privacy issue, UK citizens may need to fall back to the EU courts and constitution. Rather ironic, the birthplace of freedom (Magna Carta) have to rely on the continent with fewer and a horrible history of citizens serving the state.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by arkhan_jg (618674)

      The government can only rule as long as a majority of the house of commons support them. In the back-bench revolts you mention, Tony Blair survived due to
      1) having a HUGE majority, so able to weather a large number of dissenters
      2) support from the opposition parties, when the legislation was one they rather liked.

      The upper house can make passing bad legislation very painful and drawn out indeed, though not block it altogether.

      Finally, the UK government does not control the military; the Crown is nominal hea

  • by AHuxley (892839) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @12:55AM (#27048051) Homepage Journal
    The UK just wants to cover itself.
    The good old days of standing before the "house" and saying 'we' do not spy on UK citizens is over.
    Allowing the NSA spy at will from bases within the UK.
    Spying on "Ireland"
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/gchq-spies-eavesdropped-on-irish-1106575.html [independent.co.uk]
    The problem is not the spying, or allowing US bases to spy.
    The problem for your average UK MP critter is getting exposed lying to the house.
    A baited question about domestic public/corporate surveillance and this helps with that.
    The MP can face questions in the house knowing they will be covered as they spin.
  • one government database being up-to date and containing accurate information.

    Now imagine a dozen of them with conflicting information.

    They'll wind up knowing less than they did in the beginning.

    I'll wind up with a dozen aliases that even I did not know I had.

  • I did. It isn't hard and mine is going to vote against it. Of course he is in the opposition so it isn't too surprising, but wherever you are in the UK you can write to your MP (by email- its very easy) and a letter writing campaign by valid constituents is going to be noticed. A facebook campaign isn't quite the same thing. Here is my letter and the response [theopensourcerer.com] and here is where you go to write to your MP [writetothem.com]
  • , would allow any Minister by order to take from anywhere any information gathered for one purpose, and use it for any other purpose.

    If I had the right to do that I would start by taking the bill and shoving it up the Prime Minister's arse.

Real Users hate Real Programmers.

Working...