Worst-ever threat to UK privacy: write your MP now!
"This single clause is as grave a threat to privacy as the entire ID Scheme. Combine it with the index to your life formed by the planned National Identity Register and everything recorded about you anywhere could be accessible to any official body. If Information Sharing Orders come to pass, they could (for example) immediately be used to suck up material such as tax records or electoral registers to build an early version of the National Identity Register. But the powers apply to any information, not just official information. They would permit data trafficking between government agencies and private companies - your medical records are firmly in their sights - and even with foreign governments."
We urge you to write to your MP straight away via http://www.WriteToThem.com - don't wait. The Bill is being rushed through Parliament, even as we write. It contains a number of controversial provisions, but to the casual reader appears mainly to be about reforming inquests and sentencing.+ A CONCEALED ASSAULT ON PRIVACY + (Thanks, Glyn!)As it progresses, NO2ID will be publishing more information but it is crucial that every MP realises how dangerous the information sharing clauses in the Coroners and Justice Bill really are. This will only happen if YOU tell them.
*In your own words*, please ask your MP to read Part 8 (clauses 151 - 154) of the Coroners and Justice Bill, and to oppose the massive enabling powers in the "Information sharing" clause. The Bill is due its Second Reading in the Commons on 26th January 2009.
Request them to demand the clause be given proper Parliamentary scrutiny. This is something that will affect every single one of their constituents, unlike the rest of the Bill. There is a grave danger that the government will set a timetable that will cut off debate before these proposals - which are at the end of the Bill - are discussed.
the latest
latest episodes
Qck, gt th Tnfl nd gt n th clst.
I would write, but my MP never goes against the party line...
Done. Written and sent! May many of you do the same!
@EAI: That's not the point, really. As you've given up hope to make your voice heard, why don't you just quietly sit back and enjoy your fate?
There's lots more crazy stuff in this bill. For example, you could face 3 years in prison for possessing a cartoon showing some who appears to be a (cartoon) child getting married.
It's not quite as bad as it seems. According to section 50D of the bill, an information sharing order can only be made after public consultation, and when the Information Commissioner is satisfied that it's 'proportionate', and 'strikes a fair balance
between the public interest and the interests of any person affected by it'.
The Information Commissioner is independent of Government; the current commissioner has already described the proposed National Identity Register as a 'disproportionate intrusion'; it seems unlikely that he'd be over-keen on granting spurious requests.
@Beanolini:
Until he's replaced by a different Information Commissioner.
And the "public consultation" requirement can be easily finessed. New Labour seem to have a genius for getting away with stuff like that. They just go one Newsnight and patiently repeat that they didn't actually do whatever they were caught doing and--let me finish--accusers don't have all the facts.
Then again it would be nice to only have to tell the government once when I move house rather than go through the whole beaurocratic process with every department individually.
Joined-up government?
@ Beanoli:
You haven't read it carefully enough. The consultation is 3 weeks. The designated authority does not have to get the Commissioner's approval, but if the Commissioner reports to them in 3 weeks they have to let parliament see the report when laying the statutory instrument, that's all.
The determining factor is not that the Commissioner is 'satisfied', but that the designated authority is. And note 'proportionality' is to its purpose, not to any extrinsic factor such as social need or democratic values.
Which is so very different from writing a lengthly message that won't be read to a "representative" who doesn't care, and then quietly sitting back and resenting your fate while feeling righteous about it.
(I don't really need to write to my MP. He's been leading the fight against this stuff for the past couple years, I am fully confident that he'll vote against this one too. Not that it will matter)
the irony is that a democratic society IS a consensus reality. Freedom is not a structure you build with bricks, it is a leaky boat that you better not tire of bailing. Now go write that down.
#4, rwmj:
That's incorrect- that section extends the 'marriage and other relationships' defence. That defence allows for an adult married to (or cohabiting with) a partner aged 16-18, to possess explicit (consensual) pictures of that partner. The description of the defence formerly used the word 'photographs'; this bill adds 'pseudo-photographs' (i.e. photoshopped photos).
#6, bjacques:
That is true; the next commissioner is apparently to be Christopher Graham, currently boss of the ASA.
Reading the article, I see that the job also entails occasionally flinging DVDs full of personal information out into the street for passersby to find.
The idea of an Information Commissioner as watchdog over ISO's is a joke, because some of the reasons can be made "secret" or sensitive (i.e., potentially embarrassing);" like schools passing grades on to the police to spot future troublemakers. Such exceptions could be made to negate any public right to know what the information is, or that it's even being shared in the first place.
"Worst ever"...well, in modern times, anyway.
My MP must be sick of me writing to him - but he's listened and replied to every email, so far.
@12 enjoy it while it lasts. Use it. They know for every email received there are a hundred also angry that don't write - but might vote. Use your leverage.
You Brits must really love Big Brother. Why do your elected officials keep doing this? Perhaps you should vote them out of office?
There appears to be a facebook group here
http://tinyurl.com/coronersandjustice
Done. Thanks!
You're right, Sleze, I should go out and vote right now.
Beanolini:
Then who will rid of us the scourge on society that is "Love is..."?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_is...
Problem is, Sleze, I did vote my MP out last time around - but they went and replaced him with another of those damnable elected officials! Just can't seem to get rid of the blighters!
Watch out Britons - As of January 20, your government is now crazier than ours.
And who will rid us of the scourge on society that is poor grammar and not previewing?
the UK is no "officially" in recession. This affords a point of attack. Any imbecile proposal to further enslave citizens should be immediately branded "a waste of public funds in a time of emergency:"
What's an "MP?"
a festering, crapulent.... no no , "Member of Parliament"
NelsonC
"Sleze, I should go out and vote right now."
Protest then. One has to wonder what the role of the English aristocracy, including the Queen, is behind all this. Perhaps they got tired of being little more than public figureheads and are making a bid for real power. Perhaps they'd like a real Monarchy with real peasants who show a little proper respect for their betters. I still think the French had the right idea. It's not too late!
Somebody pleeeze remind the Limeys [sic] that 1984
is NOT a road map to the future. What's gone wrong over there?
Tak@22
I lol'd :)
My MP is written to. I wonder what side his politics bring him down on..
give her a break, she did her job. After she's gone, the crop of pygmies following will be easy pickings.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=oqhBqLHnsT4
I'd say that the UK government went beyond the US in terms of insanity a while back. The US stopped doing any new damage a year or so ago while UK keeps thinking up new ways to fuck it's people.
Well ... I managed to scrape my cynical & jaded ass off the floor - and as a result, a Mr John Denham should have (hopefully) received a faxed copy of my epic *ahem* defence of our tattered civil liberties.
While I was researching the matter - I came across this site (http://www.theyworkforyou.com) .. which you can use to find out your MP's general stance on matters like ID cards, Iraq, etc. Quite useful, really.
Regrettably, my MP (Barnsley: Eric Illsley) has voted strongly for ID cards and strongly against an open government, according to theyworkforyou.com, but I tried anyway.
Hopefully seeing this bill will shock some sense into him.
Here's what I wrote:
I've recently read the Coroners and Justice Bill, and have to say I am greatly alarmed.
I would like to draw your attention to part 8, "information sharing". You can read it at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/009/09009.vi-x.html
I read that you've voted for identity cards in the past, so you may not understand or care why people care about their privacy. But I implore you, please ensue that part 8, clauses 151 to 154 are given proper parliamentary scrutiny, and please oppose this radical rewrite (or rather, removal) of the protections of the Data Protection Act.
In case you don't see the harm in it, it proposes that unspecified persons be given the ability to create "information-sharing orders", which will grant to anyone the ability to use and distribute any data, regardless of any other laws about access to that data.
If I read it right, the orders can also become de facto laws that don't have to be passed by parliament ("An information-sharing order may provide for the creation of offences triable..."), and can rewrite any existing laws ("An information-sharing order may... modify any enactment."). But I might be misunderstanding what it means by "enactment" there.
Anyway, the whole of part 8 is terrifying. Please do your best to kill it dead.
Worst evar? Really?
I wonder what Wat Tyler would think of that...
But by all means, yes, Britishers get up and fight for yer rights. We're all rootin' for you on this side of the pond!
--Charlie
Nice letter Dewi. I shall go and do mine now.
Dewi, my guy sounds like a proper mixed-bag (conservative, I wasn't expecting much), some good votes and some bad votes:
How Mark Field voted on key issues since 2001:
Voted for a transparent Parliament.
Voted very strongly against introducing a smoking ban.
Voted strongly against introducing ID cards.
Voted strongly against introducing foundation hospitals.
Voted strongly against introducing student top-up fees.
Voted moderately against Labour's anti-terrorism laws.
Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.
Voted strongly for an investigation into the Iraq war.
Has never voted on replacing Trident.
Voted very strongly against the hunting ban.
Voted moderately against equal gay rights.
Voted strongly for laws to stop climate change.
Noen @27:
*blink*
I've sent my email, although I feel that it will probably fall on deaf ears (see below):
How Andrew Miller voted on key issues since 2001:
Voted against a transparent Parliament.
Voted moderately for introducing a smoking ban.
Voted strongly for introducing ID cards.
Voted very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals.
Voted strongly for introducing student top-up fees.
Voted very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws.
Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.
Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.
Voted very strongly for replacing Trident.
Voted very strongly for the hunting ban.
Voted very strongly for equal gay rights.
Voted moderately for laws to stop climate change.
Hardly ever rebels against their party in this parliament.
@ #34, #38, #40
You are making a common, but very dangerous, mistake in using TheyWorkForYou
How an MP votes on selected hot issues tells you nothing about what he thinks - unless it is a rebel vote, or one of the rare occasions where the party has no policy declares a "free vote". It tells you what party he is in. Party dominates the surface of British politics completely.
There are a handful - the 20 or so members of Labour's Socialist Campaign Group, mainly - who rebel regularly, but even that is on a small minority of occasions on a small minority of totemic issues, where they know they may have the support of a lot of party activists.
That's why writing to your MP is important. It won't change how he votes, in all probability, but it will change what he says within his party, and how far the party whips feel they push people, how the Bill is amended in its passage and thus what votes are actually held. If enough MPs are concerned about this, then it may be quietly dropped during the passage of the Bill with no risk to the Government of the embarrassment of either lots of publicity for it or a defeat.
Thanks, Anon #41. That's an insightful and useful viewpoint, and does make me feel much more inclined to contact my MP.
revolt NOW! We did and are slightly better off for it.
Just got my reply back from my MP - and it seems that he is 100% against this bill and puts it is pretty strong language:
"This means that Parliament will be asked to vote on proposals which contain no safeguards and no serious sanctions for abuse of the new powers. This is simply unacceptable"
"The Government has displayed its incompetence and complacency in relation to data time and time again - it is no wonder public trust in the ability of the Government to keep our personal details safe is at an all-time low"
I never realized that I would agree with the politics of my MP!