Private firm 'may run' phone log

[Whiternoise]

This is the same data you'd get from an itemised bill by the sounds of it (for phone calls) - they're not logging the content. So why the hell waste money on something they can ask the phone companies for? It's data that is already logged for "legal anti-terrorism" purposes.

The same for web data, the legislation already states that the government can log the details of sites visited, etc for a minimum 2 years(?) with extension optional if "the need is there".

Why am i not surprised to see Ms J. Smith with her chubby fingers on the button of this country's liberty removal? The sooner we get Brown's monkeys out of government the better..

[Saracen]

This is the same data you'd get from an itemised bill by the sounds of it (for phone calls) - they're not logging the content. So why the hell waste money on something they can ask the phone companies for? It's data that is already logged for "legal anti-terrorism" purposes.

The same for web data, the legislation already states that the government can log the details of sites visited, etc for a minimum 2 years(?) with extension optional if "the need is there".

Why am i not surprised to see Ms J. Smith with her chubby fingers on the button of this country's liberty removal? The sooner we get Brown's monkeys out of government the better..

The cynic in me feels it's because if the phone companies (or ISP's) hold the data, they have to get authorisation to access it or the respective companies quote the Data Protection Act at them and tell them to get stuffed.

If, on the other hand, the government maintains the data itself (even via a third-party private contractor) then what we'll see is "function creep". It'll start out with the data being subject to very strict access controls, but before you know it. there'll be thousands of government functionaries from local council to the fisheries department that can access it with a simple logon code and password.

There's a common government trick. It can be quite hard to get primary legislation enacted. It has to get past Common's scrutiny, past the opposition, past various committees and then past the Lords. So the 'trick' is to put a facility into legislation that is inactive and requires legislation to activate it. But if that legislation is merely a Statutory Instrument that can be done quickly and easily by the relevant Minister, then it gets nowhere near the level of scrutiny because, after all, the facility itself passed scrutiny when the primary legislation was enacted. The fact that the feature was there as a precaution against extreme circumstances in the first place and gets enacted because of some much less extreme situation gets lost in the shuffle.

After all, was anti-terrorist legislation passed with the intent of using it to freeze Icelandic bank assets or to detain octogenarian Labour activists for heckling a Minister at a Labour party conference, or for that matter, for arresting opposition MPs for receiving leaks? Personally, if (hopefully) Labour lose the next election, I'm itching to see that particular application of anti-terrorist law used against Brown, Smith, et al. I'm betting they'll screech the roof down if they get hoist by their own petard. But it'll serve them right for ramming such measures through in the first place.

[Whiternoise]

Presumably we can't call DPA on them because they have "reasonable cause" to take our data?

Ironically i guess they could argue they need to keep doing it because they'd breach the act if the information was out of date :S

[Perfectionist]

similar thing has been going on with credit agencies for a while, they basically have free run to trade peoples' identity details as they please, a lot are international so regulation doesn't really affect them

[Whiternoise]

Today's XKCD is strangely apt.

[M0nkeyb0Y]

What a pile of ship. I hate them so very much - talk about picking the right day to bury this.

[Saracen]

Presumably we can't call DPA on them because they have "reasonable cause" to take our data?

Ironically i guess they could argue they need to keep doing it because they'd breach the act if the information was out of date :S

Well, they don't actually need reasonable cause to take your data, and neither does anyone else. The Data Protection Act doesn't give you unlimited ability to prevent anyone processing your data. What it does do is give you :-

- some ability to object to it being processed, under fairly limited conditions
- give you some control over what it is or isn't used for
- ability to, in most circumstances, find out what's held about you by most organisations
- correct errors and/or add amendments

There are some circumstances in which you can object to it being held, or processed, or used, but it essentially relates to situations where it causes you "unwarranted and substantial damage or distress". Note .... even that is a long way from stopping an organisation holding or processing data about you. It might amount to that, but it very well might not.

Also, of course, there is a fairly lengthy list of exceptions to your ability to either require disclosure of what's held about you, or what's done with it. The obvious ones are things like the police .... you can't prevent them processing data about you, and good luck getting hold of all the information the police (and CRB or whatever they call it these days) hold.

similar thing has been going on with credit agencies for a while, they basically have free run to trade peoples' identity details as they please, a lot are international so regulation doesn't really affect them

There's a pretty stringent set of controls over what credit reference agencies can and can't do with your data, too. A bank, for instance, can't just run a credit check on you. It needs your permission. Of course, if you ask just about any organisation for any product or service that requires them to extend credit, it'll include an clause in the agreement whereby you authorise them to make that check.

I renewed an insurance policy recently. The broker said they needed to make a credit check. I asked why? They said in case I paid by instalments. I refused the credit check and stated explicitly I would be paying up-front. I'll give it a little while and then get a credit report. If they ran a credit check regardless of my refusing permission, an argument and formal complaint about them will follow.

[Allen]

What gets me, more than the issue of privacy and rights etc, is that this could cost up to £12bn (I know it's the critics who are saying this, but this kind of job isn't going to be cheap, especially when it comes to government implemented IT infrastructures) yet we are already having such huge financial problems in this country already...

Why are they even contemplating wasting so much tax payers money on something which will not work? Do the people who supposedly "lead" our country really know so little about current technology? How do they get to be in such positions!