I've become quite cross after reading this article
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/11/criminal-checks-parents-scouts?showallcomments=true

The comment at the end from Martin Narey in particular makes me seeth with fury. Anyone stupid enough not to draw the logical conclusion of that comment should be watched 24 hours a day as they are clearly only one step away from forgetting how to breathe. Stupid cunt.
(Bazongaloid, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 12:01, 29 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

I heard this being discussed on R4 this morning
And I was glad that they clarified that it wouldn't go as far as checking parents who were going to take their friends' kids somewhere. Nevertheless, it still strikes me as incredibly paranoid, and still smacks of presuming everyone guilty until they can prove otherwise.

If nothing else, surely parents, i.e., people with children of their own, are less likely to abduct someone else's kids? If you had to put up with your own brats whining in the back of the car, why would you want to steal more to add to your collection? You'd end up wanting to beat the little fuckers savagely to death and rape their lukewarm corpses before dumping the bodies in a ditch behind the paddocks just off the edge of the village and...erm, actually ignore that last bit.
(LongJohnBaldry, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 12:10, Reply)

But
if they were taking two or three kids to away sports matches more than once a month, they could technically fall foul of this law.
(Bazongaloid, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 12:14, Reply)

something tells me
you're not a child person, are you Crow?
(bamboozled Can hear you getting fatter, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 12:15, Reply)

Let me put it this way
I'd quite like to have kids at some later stage in life, as long as they're nothing like other people's revolting kids.
(LongJohnBaldry, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 13:08, Reply)

I heard the 8:10 interview.
I thought Humphreys did a pretty good job of skewering the scheme...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 12:24, Reply)

Yeah, I was pleased about that
because the minister, whoever she was, was being a slippery shit.
(Bazongaloid, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 12:25, Reply)

I also heard the interview
I'm really hoping that the final version is watered down, something like this would put me off volunteering- partially the money, partially the whole bother of it all.
They've gone and made it all pinickity over 'frequent' and 'intense' contact with kids too which has caused further confusion.

I really didn't see the need for the Children's minister to be all slippery, what is needed in a situation like this is clarification.
I think a nice Venn diagram would work to illustrate to everyone just exactly who would need to register and who wouldn't, with another to illustrate who would have to pay.
(Evilweevil is covered in bees, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 14:10, Reply)

*pesudo quote from someone who I can't remember*
Why would you beat your own wife? You wouldn't key your own car.

wife - child.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 12:35, Reply)

the words
'oh' and 'for fuck's sake' spring to mind.
( ascorbate, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 12:18, Reply)

This is why I think ID Cards are a good thing.
The only bit I disagree with is selling the database to comercial enterprises, something they've already agreed to do if it scheme goes ahead.

Imagine having all that data, your medical records, criminal records, any other kind of record.... all in one place, so administration is easy.

Almost in the same way that the army use dog-tags.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 12:37, Reply)

The database is the whole problem with the "ID Card" debate
It's not the card that's the issue for most people, lots of countries have compulsory ID cards that you have to carry. It's the overarching loss of privacy that the scheme entails, let alone the poor planning and vast expense for no discernible benefit.
(Bazongaloid, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 12:39, Reply)

Let's say it's done properly*,
I like the idea that if I get hit by a car and am knocked out, an ambulance can quickly see if I'm alergic to anything. Or if I need benfits, most of the form's information will be sorted out. Or if I need a criminal-record-check, it can be completed in weeks instead of months (or however long it takes).

The thing that I dislike is it being used for comercial gain. I admit though, it would be a bugger to update it. For example, if I don't pay a credit-card off and they give me a bad rating, but the mistake is rectifide but it not being on the database.... but I consider that comercial gain.

To be honest, I can argue both sides on this one.


* and to be honest, it probably won't be, and as thus, I class it as a "Good idea, but bad implimentation".
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 12:46, Reply)

Plus the data is already out there.
So linking it all up shouldn't be that big of an issue.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 12:47, Reply)

But it's not a health database
that's nothing to do with it, it's being sold as a security issue. Do you actually trust any government to competently look after your data? The issue is, if this database is considered to be all powerful, then when the mistakes happen, and they will happen, how do you prove they are mistakes?

You can argue good things about national databases, but the inevitable negatives will always outweigh any potential gains as far as I'm concerned.
(Bazongaloid, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 12:49, Reply)

I totally agree that as a security issue, it's bullshit.
I can't see how it's supposed to help security, and I dont' agree with the "If you have nothing to hide, why aren't you for it" argument eaither.

Maybe a good idea would be a linking of all the national databases, like the NHS and GPs, benfits and criminal records (etc).

It would be quite simple, I can think of how it'll work in a technical term, linking IDs with NI Numbers, but can't think of how to say it in a non-technical way.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 12:56, Reply)

Except...
This won't generate an argument for their being compulsory. At present, there are things for which I need to prove who I am; and there's a range of ways in which I can do this. So there would seem to be no need for an ID card there.

The problem with a compulsory ID card is that it shifts the balance between the person and the state. At present, it's up to the state to give a reason to interfere in your life in any way: that's why you don't have to produce identification on spec. With a compulsory ID card, that changes: it's effectively up to you to prove who you are irrespective of whether you're accessing services or not. Were this not the case, there'd be no reason for the cards to be compulsory.

What you're talking about is a centralised database, which seems reasonable enough, as long as information is accessible on a need-to-know sort of basis (as it would be anyway).

I suspect that the sale of information is a lot less of a big deal than some have made it out to be: the Data Protection Act would apply here, and it's quite tight on what's allowed.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 13:11, Reply)

ahem
I suspect that the sale of information is a lot less of a big deal than some have made it out to be: the Data Protection Act would apply here, and it's quite tight on what's allowed.

Tell that to the mofo'ing DVLA.
( djtrialprice, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 13:26, Reply)

Word
Rogue clamping is absolutely rife at the moment because few restrictions are placed on who can and who cannot access DVLA data.

From this past performance, I do not trust the government to safeguard my personal information.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Fri 11 Sep 2009, 13:36, Reply)

But the DVLA doesn't clamp you, does it?
And it seems reasonable for agencies that have a responsibility for the roads to have access to at least some of the DVLA database. If you have a beef with a contracted-out clamper, that's quite different, and it has nothing to do with information gathering per se.

As for personal information: the government has nothing to do with it. There, your complaint is about a branch of the civil service. Again, you're misfiring.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 13:40, Reply)

It's a government agency
with whom registration is compulsary if you want to drive and they can and will sell your information to any company who wants it.

My point is (a) the Data Protection Act isn't going to help me and (b) the government can't resist the lure of monetising personal data.
( djtrialprice, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 13:56, Reply)

"they can and will sell your information to any company who wants it."
No they can't and no they won't.

And what's the evidence behind your claim about monetising personal data anyway?

EDIT: I sound like I'm out to defend the government. Really, I'm not out to defend anyone. I'm much more interested in attacking shoddy arguments and unsubstantiated claims. Substantiate the claims, and I'll move on.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 14:24, Reply)

Hmm....
"And it seems reasonable for agencies that have a responsibility for the roads to have access to at least some of the DVLA database."

Yes, agreed. But that isn't the point being made.

"If you have a beef with a contracted-out clamper, that's quite different, and it has nothing to do with information gathering per se"

The DVLA - A government agency if I'm not mistaken is making details available to an unregulated industry in return for a fee. As a result, people are being clamped and charged excessive release fees and being denied the opportunity to appeal. If the government had bothered to set clear guidelines, or ensured the industry regulated itself with consistency and transparency then I might be slightly more comfortable about the government ensuring that whatever personal information it has is treated properly.

Why am I misfiring for being indignant about that?
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Fri 11 Sep 2009, 14:29, Reply)

...
You're running together "government" and "government agency" - that's a category error.

Clampers, I'd've thought, could make a reasonable "need to know" claim for driver information: they don't clamp the car for fun, and everyone has an interest in the owner being tracked down. People being clamped does not result from data being made available - that doesn't make any sense at all. Moreover, it remains to be seen what the standard is by which you judge fees to be excessive.

How and whether clamping is regulated has nothing at all to do with the more general question of the availability of data.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 14:42, Reply)

According to the Times, they do
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6440803.ece

"Newline charged separate fees for clamping and removal, even though the BPA code states that only one fee can be imposed if the car is removed within three hours of being clamped.

The BPA has admitted that PCM and Newline breached its code but it is refusing to suspend or expel either company."

The DVLA has a responsibility to ensure the data it sells to private firms is used properly.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Fri 11 Sep 2009, 14:51, Reply)

Nope.
It'd be possible to clamp without the information, and the availability of the information does not make it inevitable that there's clamping. That is to say: it might be that, sans information, there'd be no clamping; but that's simply because in some cases there'd be no way for the clampers to contact the driver. However, it doesn't follow from that that the clamping comes as a result of the information being available: we could imagine someone setting up a clamping company, getting access to the database, and then deciding to stay in bed all day.

Ergo my claim stands.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 15:01, Reply)

Have I missed something then?
Because, this information is being sold to private firms from a government agency.

Some private firms are flouting the accepted required code of conduct and fraud appears to be taking place. The clamper needs to present a certificate stating that it adhers to the BPA code of practice, however this does not seem to be enforced, nor is there sanction against those who flout the code. Indeed the Lib Dems Transport Spokesperson seems to agree with this view

"Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat transport spokesman, said: “The DVLA is betraying drivers who had entrusted it with their information.”

The government agency is not vetting whom it sells information to. Ergo I do not trust any government agency with my data in the absence of sanction against the agency making the data available in the first instance.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Fri 11 Sep 2009, 15:15, Reply)

Right - but...
you've just admitted that the rules are being flouted, which represents quite a big shift in perspective. I'd like to see the evidence that the rules are being flouted, btw; I'm not inclined to take a newspaper story's word for it. "Some firms", "appears to be taking place" and "does not seem to be enforced" are shifty-looking formulations.

There's a huge non sequitur between your final and penultimate sentences, too. Finally, none of what you've said contributes to the wider question of centralised databases in abstracto.

Right. Work time.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 15:23, Reply)

If the government loses data there is no retribution

Sure someone will get sacked, but no general election is called.

If a business loses data it immediately becomes a liabilty in the eys of it's partners and the people it ultimately deals with. this is why data is ironically safer with legitimate businesses with decent internal rules on secruity and usage than it is with the government.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 12:57, Reply)

I suppose...
it comes down to a question of trust based on past performance.
Think of the following:
- Do you believe that the government is able to safely hold your personal data without risking it being stolen/misplaced/other?
- Do you believe that the government would, in a market predominated by deregulated capitalism, hesitate to sell your details on to an unregulated company if it generated an attractive amount of income?
- Do you believe that the centralised database would make a significant contribution or change to the way our data is stored?
- Do you believe it is right to hold a nation's data on a centralised database, thus putting the onus on the individual to prove they are innocent rather than the authorities having to justify asking you to ID yourself to them?

If you answered "no" to any of the above, you're never going to be persuaded that a centralised database is a good idea. It might be, if one trusted one's government. Until that trust is established, the debate is going to go around in circles. It might be a great idea, but if there's little confidence in the body that handles the data, not many people are going to think it's a great idea.
(Biscuit Burlesque wants to be Dita von Teas, Fri 11 Sep 2009, 15:47, Reply)