Harry’s Place

I don’t knowd why people are against a national DNA database. Taking a sample is an uninvasive procedure, it’s just a sample of your cheek cells. No cutting, no scraping. You are so right in saying that society needs information to function. I get fed up with those people who go on about individual liberty and privacy all the time. Unfortunately, they don’t live in supreme isolation. Incidentally, I see there is a programme on telly this week, arguing that Crippen was innocent. (don’t know on what grounds). Perhaps if science had been sufficiently advanced in his day, there would be no doubt about his guilt!

Sue R -

You can volunteer your DNA for the database, if you so wish.

“I’m not really sure what the big fuss over a DNA database is about.”

As far as I’m concerned, two things. (1) I don’t want the State to have the power to force me to give a DNA sample - presumably by a swab? I don’t know - when I have committed no crime. (2) It would be, in the decades ahead, an immensely powerful tool with applications far beyond criminal justice, some of which we have probably not conceived of yet. I don’t trust a future Government with that information.

I’m perfectly willing to oblige. Say I was drowned while swimming off the coast of Cornwall with no identification. My bereaved family would be able to know what had happened to me, when my body was washed ashore in Calais. Anyway, if the Government is going to use DNA for nefarious purposes, they can fake other things as well.

The choice seems to me seems to be between a database with everyone on it, or just those convicted, or none at all.

Those who fear the State should also realise that a full DNA base would prevent arms of the state from fitting up people like Stefan Kizko for example.

Some of the anti’s arguments would also apply to photographs.

Jill Saward’s great grandfather “was Captain Henry Kendall notable for being the first person to use radio to capture a criminal (Dr Crippen)

Which so neatly brings us to this week’s headlines that this link between Saward and Cap Kendall seems like a kind of dream poetic justice.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4232359.ece

Pace David Aaronovich’s piece today casting doubts on the DNA testing, this DNA evidence would have been sufficient to make Crippen’s conviction unsafe and spare him the noose.

Excellent points, David T. David Davis has been badly shown up by this. Shame the media don’t really care though.

I am curious; why do you always call David Davis twice by his second name? Is this a joke?

Yes, it amuses me.

I don’t knowd why people are against a national DNA database.

Can I have your bank account details as well? After all, you’ve nothing to fear if you’ve got nothing to hide.

Not clear logic, Morgoth.

“I’m not really sure what the big fuss over a DNA database is about. ”

All the usual concerns about big government databases from bad data and incompetent management through corporate and criminal compromising of the system to evil laws coming in. Plus the real-world examples of DNA being planted by criminals and by rogue law enforcement. Plus real-world examples of false positives.

Brown’s claims on DNA catching offenders are suspect as well. See here.

Like fingerprints, you leave your DNA everywhere.

Because it is a clear case of the state overstepping its boundaries: it is intrusive, invasive, and potentially could be put to all manner of malign purposes.

It is not the state’s business to hold biological data of those who are subject to it.

That way lies totalitarianism. Indeed, that is a clear shove towards totalitarianism.

Thank God for David Davis

Like Benji’s bumhole.

Not clear logic, Morgoth.

Its crystal clear, Mike. The state CANNOT be trusted with any personal information (the DVLA were caught selling driver details to wheel clampers for example). If Sue is happy for the utmost personal details about her (her DNA) to be given to the State, then she could be consistent and give out her bank account details as well.

And as for the hysterical Jill Saward, well, soon she’ll be arguing that all men should be castrated. That would cut down domestic and sexual violence as well. Her whole post is the equivalent of screaming “Think of the Chilllldddreeen! THINK OF THE CHILD-REN!!!!!!!!!!!!!”.

As a sweaty bloke my DNA is all over the place. In weather like this it falls off me like rain. They could fit me up for loads of crimes.

They’ll have to pry my double helix out of my cold dead hands…

Like it or not your DNA gives considerable insight into your current health, future health, fitness, personality, intelligence, fertility and many other traits. Do you really want a government to have this data, lose it or sell it to third parties, like insurance companies? The state may not own your soul when it has your DNA, but it will have the ability to learn far more about you than from a fingerprint. Such a thing would represent a gross invasion of privacy, not a minor one.

Venichka what are you on? A national DNA database would stop serial rapists after their first offence. In my view that alone is enough to justify it. For the government to have a record of my DNA is no more an intrusion on my privacy than for them to know the colour of my eyes.

And what is all this bilge about the rozzers framing Crippen. They were going to drop the case as they thought he had done nothing wrong when he scarpered. There was no public outcry about a murderer on the loose a la the Ripper until they found the body parts. So its ludicrous to say they planted them to qualm public fears about someone else getting away with murder…

Yeah, a rape victim supporting a DNA database is so much more hysterical than relatives of murder victims supporting capital punishment.

There’s another problem - criminals respond to changed circumstances. There’s a new and deeply horrible trend in sexual assault, where the assailant uses corrosive materials, often drain cleaner, to try to remove DNA evidence from their victim. This has happened after they have killed the victim, and also when they have not added murder to rape. One schoolgirl in North London suffered this earlier this year and the burns left more severe injuries than did the rape. These corrosive materials are poured into all orifices.

I’m afraid a national DNA database might have unintended bad consequences, in addition to the more obvious bad consequences that have been remarked on by libertarians and do not need repeating here.

Re crippen and his innocence what I caught on the radio seemed to be rather convincing that the trial did not have all the evidence at least.

Two pieces of evidence for this that stood out for me were - the remains of his wife that were found were male (which they could not know at the time due to the limits of science at the time) and his wife had withdrawn all their savings days before going missing.

The rights and wrongs of using radio to capture him aside it sounds like one of the most notorious murderers of the twentieth century may well not have been a murderer after all but may have been framed by his wife (and other?)

“Surely this is a good thing? This ensures our freedom, and our liberty. ”

No it doesn’t.

I must say that I look forward to NuLab’s impending defeat more and more with every passing day.

They have no respect whatsoever for human dignity or privacy, the right to differences of conscience from their own perverted and corrupt and dated worldview, bugger all respect for civil liberties and a naive belief in perfectability of man (so long as he/she/it follow the prerogatives and perverted views they favour) progress that, last time it was tried, led to the GULag.

Time to go

(I am not even close to being a libertarian, but rathera moderate conservative: I don’t think objections to the state overstepping its role , not least those based upon recent experience of systems based around this leftist arrogance, per se have anything to do with libertarianism, which to my mind is an amoral and deluded set of ideas, possibly even more dangerous should they be implemented that what this lot of scoundrels unfortunately in government at the moment are about).

I sympathise with the position of someone like Jill Saward, but the solution she proposes is far too extreme, cutting off the head to save an eye

Yeah, a rape victim supporting a DNA database is so much more hysterical than relatives of murder victims supporting capital punishment.

The National DNA Database is a presumption of guilt covering the whole population. Capital Punishment is a specific measure covering an individual following due process in law.

Normally, you’ll find no greater feminist than I (c.f. my position on Abortion and so on), but in this case, Seward is guilty of hysterica clouding her judgement. It reminds me of the post-Dunblade orgy of “Ban Handguns! Think of the Chilllllllddddddddrrrrreeeeeeeennnnnnn!” and utterly sickening renditions of Bob Dylan songs on TOTP.

Its crystal clear, Mike. The state CANNOT be trusted with any personal information

I’m very happy for right wing libertarians to make this argument.

I am also happy for individuals to opt out of providing some information to the state, as long as they also agree that the state will be under no obligation to provide them with services.

I am also happy for individuals to opt out of providing some information to the state, as long as they also agree that the state will be under no obligation to provide them with services.

And for them to opt out of those portions of tax from which the services they’re opting out of, and therefore now need to provision for themselves, woulod have been financed?

I am also happy for individuals to opt out of providing some information to the state, as long as they also agree that the state will be under no obligation to provide them with services.

So….all or nothing it is then. You’re with us or against us. No respect for differing viewpoints, do as we say in all things, follow our command, or sink or swim.

How perfectly Stalinist.

Maybe the sensible thing to do for any Brits who care about liberty would be to emigrate to Poland or the Czech Republic (or, I daresay, in fact, the USA) or some country where the sheer utter evil of Marxist false religion THAT KNOWS NO LIMITS OR RESTRAINT (that still, sadly, permeates so much of the “élite” in this benighted land) is in everyday consciousness, and so, rightly , abhored and excoriated.

Venichka, New Labour are rightly not taking part in this stunt so you will not be able to defeat them. You will defeat rape victims like Jill Saward and the monster raving loony party.

And for them to opt out of those portions of tax from which the services they’re opting out of, and therefore now need to provision for themselves, woulod have been financed?

Sure, if you can persuade people to vote for a Government that allows this, why not?

Whoever gave Venichka a password to post blogs on this site must have been off their nut.

Sure, if you can persuade people to vote for a Government that allows this, why not?

I think opt-in is a more workable solution - private refuse collection with a safety net for the poor, for example. But I was just curious to see whether you’d accept this part as well, and you do. Good stuff.

So make an argument, Morgie, and desist calling women who were gang-banged in front of their fathers and boyfriend crazy-wombed. Given that you support the arbitary execution of minors for non violent offences (and being gypsies), I’ll take your appeals to liberty as worthless.

So make an argument

I have. A two fold argument actually. Its not my fault you’re hard of understanding.

All this talk about opting in. Wouldn’t it lead to the death of civilization ie the cost of the provision of services such as rubbish collection will become extremely expensive and many people will chose not to pay and just dump their rubbish on my front garden. (Enfield where I live has a big problem with fly-tippers). No, as it says in ‘High School Musical’, ‘we’re all in this together…’.

No, Morgie, you’ve reduced a rape victim with 20 years of experience in victim support to a hysterical man hater. Even if this were true, guess what, she can run in whichever constituency she likes. Try to learn the meaning of free speech.

I am concerned about the use of any government database, my privacy and the security of the database. I was one of those who had my bank account details lost in the child benefits fiasco last year and this carelessness with our data still has not been addressed. I don’t want government employees to be able to access all information on me, including information that is largely irrelevant to their work. Consequently, I am opposed to the centralisation of our personal data by the government, although I accept the government has to record data on us or it would be impossible to govern. I am also worried about the way in which the relationship between citizen and state is being changed. No-one in the government is speaking about where the limit should be drawn on government intervention and I am worried about where this is all leading. Until there is some cast-iron guarantee that the state will not go beyond certain bounds and that the citizen’s rights are strengthened, I would oppose all databases, including the DNA database.

Specifically in relation to the DNA database, I would imagine it would be horrendously costly to record everyone’s DNA. It is not a perfect crime-fighting tool and could be easily circumvented (a criminal could plant DNA at a crime scene in order to put the police onto a false trail). The money could be better spent elsewhere on other methods of evidence gathering and detection that are as effective, less political and less costly.

I fully respect Jill Saward’s stand and she is certainly more courageous and offers a more thoughtful opposition to David Davis than the cowardly retreat from debate by the Labour party. If the majority of constituents agree with her, they should vote for her.

Anonymous Constructor of Strawmen, where have I said that she shouldn’t be allowed to stand?

And whilst you’re at it, what’s with the gypsie bollocks upthread?

SueR, the amount of collection would be much the same, so there’s no reason why it would be more expensive. In fact, the absence of a controlling bureaucracy and the introduction of competition into provisioning might reduce the price.

But fly tipping would certainly be a problem.

However, the Irish example suggests this isn’t civilisation-threatening:

Most local authorities provide waste collection services. However, private waste collectors are becoming more common. If you decide not to make use of organised waste collection, you can dispose of much of your own domestic waste by recycling, home composting and use of civic amenity centres. There’s also pay-as-you-go refuse bag tagging.

I must say that I look forward to NuLab’s impending defeat more and more with every passing day.

Because the Tories will be such “Champions of liberty” that they will restrict compulsory DNA profiles to anybody living in a council house maybe?

Would that not include David David’s mum, Graham?

Well, if so, it would include MY mum, Graham.

(NB: expressing delight at the removal of the incumbents does not equate to thinking unqualified joy at the advent of an administration made up of the present day Tory party, or, worse still, and as seems more likely, a Tory-Lib Dem coalition)

Venichka what are you on? A national DNA database would stop serial rapists after their first offence.

And what are you on?

If an inidividual only has one conviction for rape, then you’re hardly a serial rapist.

“Serial” means multiple.

People convicted of crimes, in particular crimes of violence, should have their DNA stored in a data base for future references, if needed.

The rest of us should be left alone in peace AND in privacy!

I’m tired of being pricked, probed, swabbed, scanned and frisked for doing absolutely nothing at all.

Canada’s airports recently installed new sets of security scanners that can see right through your cothing, and so for a distance of about 5 feet everyone now becomes a nudist and is forced to show their naughty bits, and this, even for economy class.

Where will it end?

Will boarding procedures soon require flight attendants to peer up the bared assholes of all passengers just to ensure that their hats are on straight?

Or will hats be banned altogether?

I’m a believer in profiling. I think that those groups most likely to engage in terrorist acts, be they for religious or nationalist reasons, should be targeted and their communities subjected to greater scrutiny.

What is the point of subjecting everyone to the same security procedures when everyone knows that most of the danger comes from one community in particular?

And it’s a community that, to boot, vehemently objects to showing its naughty bits.

It is a waste of resources, time and manpower, but most of all the massive numbers of people targeted means the effort is ineffective and fruitless.

Yeah, Morgie, because when you were painting Davis as St George fighting the NuLab worm and Saward as a crazy-womb, it was all a laugh. You’re as po faced as Shami Chakrabati. Are you snogging?

And it’s Fred Barras.

Saward does make the mistake of thinking that one can be free ‘from’ something:

[i]David Davis appears to be very concerned about “British liberty.” But what does it mean? I want men and women - including children - to be at liberty to walk the streets of our towns and cities without fear of violence in general - and sexual violence in particular; and to feel safe in their own homes and workplaces.[/i]

But can one be free from risk? Of course not, and it is disingenuous of Saward to try to do distort the context in which ‘freedom’ is being discussed here. Fear of the dark is ironically making us embrace even darker things. I’d like to be free from state interference and from being treated like a criminal, personally.

What a thoroughly depressing thread this is. One the one hand we have crazed reactionaries arguing that a national DNA database is a step to the gulag, on the other New Labour lickspittles arguing “if you don’t support this you support gang rapists getting away with their crimes, so there”.

However, there are grounds to worry about the likely cost (anyone care to give us an estimate?) and efficacy of such a system. On past form the prospect of this scheme turning into an absurdly expensive boondoggle which doesn’t have that much impact on conviction rates is not a worry I’d dismiss likely.

But I think DavidT does get to the heart of the matter with his comment ‘Unfortunately, if you want the State to do lots of “things”: such as paying benefits, organising education, providing health care, and so on, the State needs a lot of information, which it uses to ensure that those services are delivered appropriately’.

The thing is, if you want the state to ‘do things’ you have to ask if the state is best equipped to do the things you want. And, in this case, there is an equal obligation upon the state to ensure that a register of everyone’s DNA will not be misused, that proper safeguards will be in place to ensure that employers, insurers etc will not be able to get at this information, nor that criminals and fraudsters will be able to misuse this information.

On current form, I’m not convinced that I really trust the state enough to ensure this. Not with the current lot, nor the near-certain Tory government next time. I might be convinced that these fears are groundless, but most supporters of a DNA database seem unwilling to even address these and prefer hurling abuse in the fashion of Mike or ChrisC.

And it’s Fred Barras.

Who was a serial criminal and who was engaged in criminal activity at the time he was shot.

How do you equate that to gypsies in general, Anonymous Strawman Constructor (or should I say, Mike?)

If the gang-rape’s a reference to me, you’re wrong. It’s purely Morgie I’m ranting against.

Yes, Morgie, you were positively gleeful about the arbitary execution of someone who didn’t dwell in a proper house.

Well, Bill may indeed be being just a little bit silly, if the “crazed reactionary” is supposed to be a pejorative way of referring to me.

None the less, I AM right. And I have no doubt that the antecedants of those presenting the arguments for a Big Brother State here are precisely those who would have presented “progressive” arguments for eugenics and “social hygiene” (aka abort and contracept the working class to death, because after all they commit crimes and offer nothing positive to civilisation) in the 1920s. And we all know how that turned out

The government knows my: date of birth, car registration number, parents’ causes of death, address, income level and its sources, occupation, route to work today, blood group and marital status.

Precisely what incremental risk of abuse of my liberties would I be running if they knew my DNA profile too?

Oh and case for the prosecution: Crippen installed his girlfriend in his house the day after his wife disappeared and provided her with the wife’s jewellery. Portions of a dead body (including a scar from an operation the wife had had) were found buried in his cellar and considered by forensic experts to have been placed there during his brief period as tenant. I think that outweighs some dodgy DNA result 95 years after the event with all the risks of contamination in the meantime.

Have the supporters of a universal DNA database given much thought to how such a database might be compiled. I think there are only three ways.

Big bang compulsion. Set up hundreds of registration centres and people are ordered to turn up at the centre for swabbing. Risks large scale passive resistance, which in practical terms the authorities could do little about. Would probably appeal to the pro-DNA headbangers here, but would be rejected by anyone with two braincells to rub together.

The long game. Start registering babies as they born. Will cause some dissension and an increase in the popularity of home birthing but significantly less impact that ‘Big bang’. Means that it will close on 100 years to get everyone on the database.

Parasitic vitality. Make access to various public services and privileges dependent on being swabbed. Efficient administration would be dependent on the National Identity Register being up and running for some time, containing a ’swabbed’ status, and being integrated without state databases. PDS, DVLA, IPS. Allows the goverment to claim that it is ‘voluntary’ but could hoover up the 80% with driving licences and passports over 10 - 15 years. There still scope for major civil disobedience, just lkike the forced registration of ID Cards, so in no way an easy route.

The ‘long game’ would probably have the least impact and cause the fewest political problems but not very appealing for a government that wants some bullshit votes for being ‘tough’ on law and order. And it’ll only be their great grandchildren that ‘benefit’.

No wonder a universal database is still not official Labour policy.

Yes, Morgie, you were positively gleeful about the arbitary execution of someone who didn’t dwell in a proper house.

Barras could have been the Queen of England for all his residental occupancy mattered - what did matter was that he was a serial criminal engaged in criminal activity and had no right to be in Martin’s house.

Anonymous Coward’s attitude sums up ZaNuLabour in a nutshell - more concerned with the rights of criminals than with the rights of victims of crime. And that’s one more reason why Broon et al will be kicked out on their arses soon.

“But I think DavidT does get to the heart of the matter with his comment ‘Unfortunately, if you want the State to do lots of “things”: such as paying benefits, organising education, providing health care, and so on, the State needs a lot of information, which it uses to ensure that those services are delivered appropriately’. ”

What, sperm samples before you pick up your benefits? Blood tests if you want to see youR GP? I don’t think you can seriously argue that the only way to deliver these services effectively is via DNA database.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/07/10-people-they.html

On Crippen and other innocent/guilty disputes

Anonymous Coward’s attitude sums up ZaNuLabour in a nutshell -

Ooo, touched a nerve, have I? Not even close.

more concerned with the rights of criminals than with the rights of victims of crime.

That doesn’t even make sense in view of everything you’ve said.

I’m not really sure what the big fuss over a DNA database is about. Possibly, like a savage encountering a camera and a photograph for the first time, Davis Davis thinks that if the state has a record of your DNA pattern, it has stolen your soul.

As is usual with David T, he willfully caricatures his opponents. The protection of civil liberties is about constant vigilance. Gradually, democracy and civil liberties have been eroded in the UK. The DNA database is just one element in that. David T no doubt could make a good case in support of every infringement that there has been. But its the bigger picture of the erosion of democracy and the change in the relationship between the individual and the state that is key here.

One Labour Party figure recently said that no individual in the UK has right to privacy; a worrying statement - indeed authoritarians’ typically barely recognise privacy. However, privacy is fundamental of liberty - without it we are simply licensed by the state like animals.

David T gives us the usual big government paternalistic blackmail; if you want to state to do nice things, like pay benefits, have the NHS, then dutifully accept your barcode. I agree this is leftist authoritarian viewpoint, the standard one - David T is your bog standard left authoritarian in that sense.

But libertarians of all ilks, including left leaning ones, reject such blackmail, which is simply a milder version of Communist China’s. And there are countries with welfare systems every bit as good as the UK’s - probably better - which have better protections of civil liberties.

That doesn’t even make sense in view of everything you’ve said.

It makes perfect sense, AC.

You’re just too dumb to see it.

Peter Risdon: Have you hard of the economonies of large scale production? It’s cheaper per unit to provide lots of a thing than to have individual small amounts.

Would that not include David David’s mum, Graham?

Oh yer old mum is safe enough from the cops on a council estate or anywhere else but I bet that nice Mr Cameron discovers fairly quickly after Davy’s stunt is all played out that DNA testing (like the sus laws) is fine in certain areas….

I’m tired of being pricked, probed, swabbed, scanned and frisked for doing absolutely nothing at all.

I can’t help it - when JP comes out with a statement like that I can only visualise Charles Hawtrey.

What, as if f’ing Labour - who, inter alia, racked with envy and petty-minded self-righteousness, as usual, the party who destroyed that part of the education system that actually benefited the working class, and enabled social mobility - ie grammar schools - , and who created the soulless hells of countless new towns and sprawling council estates, are the allies of people who live on council estates, as if they could be trusted with DNA legislation that would doubtlessly be enforced in exactly the same way and against the same victims of their crazed statist schemes.

The left-wing are allies of no minority or oppressed group. In fact they are their greatest enemies

Implicit in David T’s argument about welfare and the NHS is the reversal of the individual’s relationship with state. In democratic liberal societies, the power is with the people, which they lend to the state under strict supervision.

Under Davis T’s system, as he outlines, the state has the central role, handing out goodies under condition that you accept all these invasive measures, and be happily grateful. Hence the state strictly supervises - licenses, with the threat of sanction - the individual. Hard fought for reforms, that use taxpayers money, and were once progressive - some sort of benefits system, the NHS - are now used increasingly as a form of control. This is just the beginning.

Let’s look at China. They have different words for this authoritarianism, of course, and it’s a notch or two up in intensity, but it’s essentially the same bullshit. Goodies are handed out to the people (who are required to be deeply grateful) under the condition that they meekly accept the biggest and most invasive surveillance system ever known to man - or soon will be - being built with the heavy involvement of the US companies, incidentally.

Where are these countries that have welfare systems ever bit as good as the UK’s, but respect individual privacy? Not Sweden, where NOT inviting the whole class to your birthday party is looked upon as discrimination against the uninvited.

One Labour Party figure recently said that no individual in the UK has right to privacy; a worrying statement - indeed authoritarians’ typically barely recognise privacy

Actually I think it was the ineffable Andy Burnham, a couple of years ago; he actually said that a individual has no right to anonymity. Though I’d argue that it’s a nice distinction, as anonymity puts the individual in charge of his privacy rather than ceding it to the discretion of the state.

What, as if f’ing Labour - who, inter alia, racked with envy and petty-minded self-righteousness, as usual, the party who destroyed that part of the education system that actually benefited the working class, and enabled social mobility etc

I didn’t need a grammar school to achieve social mobility and didn’t you just argue (and I quote:)

NB: expressing delight at the removal of the incumbents does not equate to thinking unqualified joy at the advent of an administration made up of the present day Tory party, or, worse still, and as seems more likely, a Tory-Lib Dem coalition

So why does it mean my joy at Labour remaining in power must be “unqualified”? The only way you can think the left are enemies of minorities and oppressed groups is by believing (contra to all evidence) that there was once a world where such people were not quietly garroted when they got in the way of their betters.

As for your equating the present government with the Webbs and their flirting with eugenics - that is about the whackiest thing I have heard all year.

Well if your unemployed or claiming any form of benefits the state has got your bank details.

I have no doubt that the state has The nut case David Davis’ bank details on fiule so that they can pay him his wage, and the expenses he clams. - Yup I can ee it know DD not taking any pay or expenses in order to protect his liberty - What an arsehole.

GW

I think my concern is the habit all these measures have of creeping away from their original limited use, as it is presented to the public and MPs, and finishing up a long way from its original stated intention. Do we really need the highest concentration of public surveillance by CCTV cameras in Europe, and apparently without any restriction of licensing of their use?

Or the anti terrorist legislation, everytime a new restrictive measure is introduced we get a load of guff about how it will only apply in a few cases, only on the Minister’s authorisation etc, and a few years down the line the law is being used by local government functionaries to check on people putting out their rubbish on the wrong day.

Once passed these measures seem to be abandoned and not properly controlled. The usual suspects spout about needing to make law to prevent the worst kind of criminal cases, but law made to apply to millions when it is based on a handful of incidents and an infinitessimally small population sample, is frankly bad law.

And then there is the absolutely reckless and careless way government tosses about our personal data. It has already been mentioned that the DVLA provides personal information about car ownership to any dodgy clamping firm who pays for it. Why?

Nor does it end there. The government pays no attention to the Data Protection Act, indeed in some areas seems to think it does not apply to government. While anyone who has read the reports on the lost IR files sent to the NAO will know that when it tripped up ministers took to the air blaming junior employees, quite unfairly and untruthfully. Nor are the police much better, look at how they screwed up over Soham. That wasn’t just down to not having Ian Huntley’s dna, it was due to a complete misinterpretation of the DPAct.

If I could be convinced the police and government were capable of handling my data responsibility and not sending it all over the place in the post, in a reckless manner and allowing all sorts of junior staff in local government access to what they hold on file about me, I would be more reassured.

Do all the supporters of giving unrestricted access to the government to hold and circulate their personal data as it thinks fit, want to hand over their NHS records on the same basis?

Much as I respect her view, on this occasion, Jill Saward is wrong.

http://armchairnews.co.uk/2008/07/01/crime-victim-is-wrong-on-liberty/

The reason that the national DNA database is scary is because once you’ve given your DNA you can’t take it back. Therefore you have no protection against what any future government will want to do with it. This is compounded by the fact that DNA is a science in its infancy and we don’t know what DNA will be capable of revealing about an individual in the future.

Unlike any other information the government holds about you (fingerprints, bank accounts, salary, marital status, car registration number) DNA is a predictor of future events. Today for example DNA can predict the likelihood of developing certain types of cancer. Treating cancer is expensive and early intervention a) greatly increases the sufferers chance of survival and b) generally reduces the cost of treatment. Therefore in a world of taxpayer funded healthcare there is a social benefit in identifying potential cancer victims, monitoring them and potentially providing intervention treatments that prevent or delay the onset of the cancer. Is this kind of thing an appropriate use of a national DNA database?

If we can identify potential cancer victims why is it wrong for say insurance companies to use that information to properly assess their risks and adjust premiums accordingly?

We also cannot prevent future governments from using DNA to segment the population that aren’t likely today. How do you protect a future anti-semetic government (hopefully an unlikely prospect) using a DNA database to identify every Jew in the country?

I do understand the attractions of a national DNA database and there is a lot of force in those arguments. I also accept there is a lot of merit in David T’s point that the government needs a certain level of information about the individual to provide services.

I just haven’t seen any explanation of why the fears of future misuse are unfounded from those who champion such a database.

Why isn’t a national DNA database a statement of trust in ALL future governments?

[i]How do you protect a future anti-semetic government (hopefully an unlikely prospect) using a DNA database to identify every Jew in the country?[/i]

I assume you meant “prevent”. I wouldn’t want to protect such a government.

If so you’re quite right. And come to think of it we can’t prevent a future homophobic government using our medical records to identify gay people preparatory to their execution. So presumably you’d also like the NHS’s records to be deleted in order to protect our liberties.

Of course we could either (1) assume the British people have a strong enough track record of commitment to liberal democratic government that we/they woudn’t tolerate or elect an extremist anti-semitic government; or (if you’re not so sanguine about the British) (2) acknowledge that if we were to find ourselves lumbered with such a government the only possible impact of the absence of a DNA database would be to delay government measures against the jews for a few months while they created one…

With David T AND Luke Akehurst on side, how can Jill Saward fail?!

I think I’d vote for her if I live in H&H too. Surprise, surprise.

I think Ven needs some help, judging by the non-sequiturs and over-heated exaggerations.

You see, if we had his DNA, then the calming, restful-but-firm hand of Big Brother could find out was wrong and take remedial action. It might involve a stint in NuLab’s latest NHS service - the People’s Sanitarium (very definitely for the many, not the few) in the Outer Hebrides. :)

How is it that Benji manages to make bloggertarian wingnuttery (a perspective thankfully in rather short supply outside the extreme fringes of David Cameron’s lovely shiny new Conservative Party) sound so superficially reasonable? And, not only that, make David T and the rest of everyone sensible commenting here sound like a sinister conspiracy that hates freedom and little lambs and wants to enslave everyone in the UK? You have to take your hat off to the disingenuous twat, sometimes.

Chris C, yes I meant prevent. And as always a serious question gets an ill considered answer. You address a specific example and ignore the wider point. NHS records do not identify every gay person in the country and by the way, they provide an obvious and direct benefit to people. The DNA database doesn’t.

If you are of the left do you trust all future tory governments not to misuse such a resource.

ag. To answer your question: Yes

And what was so ill-considered about my answer? If this country every ended up with a fascist government the presence or absence of a DNA database would have little impact on the its ability to oppress its enemies.

1) My Dad has received phone calls at five year intervals from the Teachers Pension Agency, a private sector contractor. Both times he asked if they were checking that he was still alive. It was true.
2) The state already has biological data on me. I am one of 2,000,000 blood donors and my blood wouldn’t be much use to anyone else without that data.
3) I’ve just been involved in issuing block security keys to 238 tenants on a Council estate. They all accepted producing two forms of ID because they didn’t want people who weren’t legitimate tenants to get into the balconies that give access to between 5 and 27 flats.
4) when last in the United States, I was asked for ID for use with my credit card and showed the plastic part of my UK driving licence.
5) When last entering the United States, I was photographed and fingerprinted at entry. I think that’s legit, even though the USA is the only prosperous democracy where more people are shot dead than killed on the roads.
6) I dread to think what some posters would think of a Housing Benefit application form.

You would have to say that all the objections given against DNA databses were used against Bertillonage (look it up if you have too!) other forms of Anthropometry, fingerprinting, photographing criminals and (if you go back far enough) having a police service at all!

Our doughty “fighters for liberty” are surely battling progress and can surely only hope (if they succeed in putting off the inevitable) in making the UK a haven for world criminality as crooks flle the countries which will take up the new technology in great numbers.

or “flee” even.

What is it that people believe the government is going to do with them? It all sounds to me too much like these ZOG, NWO conspiracy theories.

I have never been convicted of any crime, or so far as I am aware, ever come under suspicion of commiting one. So I do not see why the state needs my dna. I don’t need eliminating from any enquiry because there is no reason to check on me in the first place. I would just be cluttering up the records. David T et al can offer theirs up if they want to but why should those of us who have squeaky clean records be made to hand it over?

Where does it stop, the state collecting and holding personal information about you, and the use they might put it to? What if the government recorded how you voted and later used that information in a political way (to select who it appointed to jobs) or what if it sold your medical records to prospective employers for payment?

Nor has anyone here mentioned how it would help the increasing number of cases of identify theft and muggings carried out by people who have no entitlement to live in the UK at all and are even not recorded as UK residents.

My son was mugged at knife point a couple of years ago, while a student in west london, by a Somali gang of illegal immigrants (this is relevant to what follows). He was made to hand over the contents of his jacket and pockets, (mobile phone, credit cards, season ticket, driving licence, watch etc) then marched to a cash machine still at knife point where he was made to tell them his pin number, and draw out as much cash as possible and hand it over.

He staggered dazed around to the police station (Chiswick) where the police took very little interest and were very reluctant to record it as a crime until he insisted. However his credit card and driving licence turned up in a number of scams over the next few months (buying computers, cameras, renting houses all sorts of things - big money scams) and we got used to the summonses arriving for non payment and having to try and clear them with the companies concerned.

The DVLA never seemed to have cancel his stolen driving licence, although it issued a new one, and Lloyds did not get around to cancelling his stolen cheque guarantee card either as it kept being reused - indeed it took 4 months after the theft to persuade them he was not rolling up a large overdraft on his own account and to get them to reimburse the stolen money from his account. The only people who were on the ball were the mobile phone company.

However about a year later the organised crime squad turned up at our house and revealed he had been caught in a much bigger racket, by an international crime gang, in which young illegal immigrants, often North African, were used to mug and steal documents and then pass them on to their bosses who used them to acquire all sorts of things illegally.

My son offered to give evidence and the police promised to get back to him. Time passed. Then a year ago, he received a summons for joy riding a hire car out in Essex, at a time when he had been at work. His stolen driving licence had been used along with a stolen credit card (not his) to hire the car (a top of the range BMW) from Easyjet in Victoria station. It was hired by a gang of young Somalis who, wonder of wonders, had typically english names…….. we struggled to prove it was not him to Essex police. Time passed.

Then a couple of months later he had another phone call from the police. An observant copper had noticed a group of Somali lads driving a top of the range Mercedes down the Kings Road in London and had their suspicions aroused. The police checked out the car on their database. It had been stolen the previous day in in Manchester.

They hauled the young men in for questioning and found my son’s driving licence and the credit card used to hire the car from Easyjet in their possession, one of a set of stolen cards held by the gang.

The police told us the cards were handed out by their crime bosses as some sort of payment to the young men for services rendered. My son agreed to give evidence in court and even if necessary go to an identify parade.

Time passed. Eventually he got a call from the police who said that as everyone involved was probably here illegally and only small fish in a much bigger racket the police had decided to let the case drop. Meanwhile his driving licence is still circulating out there somewhere. Only now he is in New York so it is easier to prove it was not him using it in England.

I am relating this at some length as this sort of crime is very common in London and other big cities in the UK and I don’t see how having mine or my son’s dna on file would help catch the criminals concerned. These are not sex crimes but muggings and identify theft . If the police or indeed the CPS are not inclined to prosecute, and indeed the Home office has no record of these guys even living in the UK, what difference would having their dna make, however many times they were picked up.

Meanwhile my son keeps getting his name added to the police database for crimes he did not commit. He has no idea what data has been saved on the police database about him in any of these cases.

David T

….is the HP equivalent of a Fox News liberal.

Thanks for that intelligent comment Tagnutter

You HP commenters use the same debating techniques as fox news too

Actually I think it was the ineffable Andy Burnham, a couple of years ago; he actually said that a individual has no right to anonymity.

Still, to give him credit he has certainly achieved anonymity himself.

I am fairly libertarian in my outlook. And that actually makes me pre-disposed towards DNA databasing. Because it is an aid to those whose task is the safeguarding of my right to go unmolested about my own business.

But in order to give this system my full support, I would need full confidence in those who access it and use it. I would need to feel confident that they were seriously committed to the detection of crimes. Against me, or anyone else. I would need an unassailable standard, like English Common Law (used to be…) And an unimpeachable agency, like the Police. ( used to be….)

And part of me suspects that if we could ever retrieve those gold standards of policing and jurisdiction, we might not need DNA databasing anyway. Because we would have a civil society.

As things stand, I trust neither the parliament, nor the police, to act on behalf of the law-abiding. We, the public, have become recast as the enemy. We labour under the following indictments:

1. We harbour an unreasonable expectation of lawful protection of our personal safety.

Wrong! people can kill you, and not go to prison. You obviously weren’t worth it.

2. We harbour an unreasonable expectation of lawful protection of our private property rights.

Wrong! The state can confiscate your property, on the assumption you made your money from crime, without any criminal convictions.

3. We harbour an unreasonable expectation of lawful protection of the integrity of our electoral process.

Wrong! Postal ballots are an assault on the democratic integrity of this land, and it has led to a significant degree of fraud.

4. We harbour an unreasonable expectation of equal treatment under the law.

Wrong! Try standing on a soap-box in your local market this weekend, and just repeat one of the speeches of Abu Qatada. He gets to say it, you don’t.

So having established that I have no confidence in the British legal establishment, why would I wish to deliver them yet another loose cannon to fire upon the public?

It’s like being broadly in favour of the sacrament of marriage, while recoiling from a bride covered in suppurating poxy sores.

What an awful story, Mrs Ben. Man, talk about a perfect storm! My sincere sympathies.

Mrs Ben, youlve totally missed the point about “anyone who has read the reports on the lost IR files sent to the NAO”.

There is no good reason for any Civil Service files to be sent to auditors. The auditors also have responsibilities for data security and protection. Their best way of fulfilling those responsibilties is to visit the places where the data is secure.

Requesting copies is a mark of maladministration.

” Eventually he got a call from the police who said that as everyone involved was probably here illegally and only small fish in a much bigger racket the police had decided to let the case drop.”

With the exception that they will continue to persecute your son every time his name surfaces, because of the criminal behaviour of those who mugged him. They won’t be letting that case drop.

“An observant copper had noticed a group of Somali lads driving a top of the range Mercedes down the Kings Road in London and had their suspicions aroused.”

Yet another example of disgraceful racism at the heart of our police “service”, showing just why Shami Chakrabarti is right on top of it.

*Ducks*

But, seriously, that does sound dreadful. I would be tearing my hair out.

I have no strong views, per se, on a DNA database, an ID card, 42 days. (Well, actually, I feel I ought to have strong views on the last one given the amount of crap I get shovelled for being a fascist regarding believing the government as regards it.)

What I do have strong views on is the fact that a small number of really quite out of touch people, largely white, largely middle class, largely living safely in decent areas, largely people who think they own what it is to be of the Left in this country - think they can shout the rest of us down in stentorian tones for not measuring up to their peculiar and out of date views on being progressive/left/liberal/socialist/whatever buzz word takes their fancy. And this type today, in this crazy world of ours, co-operate with another kind - the right-wing libertarian brigade.

Now, in a sense, this is merely a personal bugbear (though one held by a not insignificant number of people I respect).

In another sense, however, the “liberals” are parasitic, dangerous and counter-productive filth.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I can think of arguments against the three keynote fascist polices above. Some of which I have some sympathy with (the ones regarding cost). And it is perfectly possible to advance other arguments in reasoned tones which, whilst I disagree with them, I can discuss.

But we all know the kind of person. They crop up here a fair bit, plenty of them at CIF, and some of us have the singular displeasure of having to meet them socially on a not irregular basis.

The reason they are “filth”, of course, is not because they have the temerity to disagree with me. Most people seem to these days. The reason they deserve the epithet is because they are unbalanced. Their view is not considered. It is not amenable to reasoned argument.

If you want to argue as a supposed lefty, with some complacency, I might add, against the relevant policies, then I want to hear - not that they are a threat to our “traditional freedoms” - but, rather - why are their benefits disputed, and what would the “type” do instead to improve the lives of ordinary working people, or otherwise, with the money? One imagines some of the type would simply like to have a tax cut. Not ignoble in itself.

But what is ignoble is the use of these issues to advance a set of views which are in fact politically charged and extremely controversial, rather than obvious and clear to everyone except us NuLab authoritarians.

The view is suspicious. It is not, in its inherent nature, a million miles from the mentality of the conspiracy theorist.

The view is anti-state. It does not believe, in its heart, that govt can be or is an activist force for improving the common life of society.

The view gives succour to the right who promote the libertarian wing of the view. It is only necessary to consider the trajectory of “Liberty” to confirm this.

It should not be necessary to explain the reactionary nature of the conspiracist, the “left” anti-statist and the right libertarian. They each, in their own distinct way, poison the popular debate and sap the belief in, and the will to, collective action to solve social problems, because the state is seen as the problem, and not a part of the solution.

So I am happy to - indeed, actually disposed to - listen respectfully to a progressive critique against a comprehensive DNA database, an ID card and 42 days.

But what I need to hear from those advancing these arguments from the left, is not why I am a fascist, a NuLab authoritarian, a neo-conservative. What I want - what I need - to hear, is why these people think they are on the left themselves, and why their view (not intrinsicially, but in the way many of them play it) does not provide succour to the worst kind of right wing extremist libertarians.

Then we can have a sensible discussion.

The option is there, but hysteria is too easy and too simple. And that is yet one more problem facing a progressive government. Some of its supposed critical supporters - those who consider themselves the guardian of the left conscience of the government and of the party - have actually betrayed their supposed views. They would rather slander friends, colleagues and - to use a rather old-fashioned word - comrades, as of the right.

So we see the grotesque spectacle of “Tony” Benn and “Bob” Marshall-Andrews gearing up to support David Davis.

And that may be an indication of the broader choice of that broader perspective that these two could be seen to represent. The stuff about David Davis is in itself not key. The point is the sickness - the betrayal of the government and thus of working people (sweeping? Moi?) - clear to see in parts of the supposed left - in its basic atavistic urges, in its tactics and in its language.

And history (well, for those geeks who are bothered) will record it.

So I am happy to - indeed, actually disposed to - listen respectfully to a progressive critique against a comprehensive DNA database, an ID card and 42 days

Well that’s a welcome change of tune :)

My critque of ID Cards is that it is a policy in search of a problem to solve. We already have ‘ID cards’, the most notable being passports and driving licences. There are problems around the issuance of passports - multiple identities and susceptibility to forgery, but the ID Cards programme appears a massive over-reaction and over-engineered solution to these issues. In order to understand how the NIS has evolved it is helpful to look back to when ID Cards were first mooted by the Home Office, 2 days after the Sept 11 attacks. Then the McGuffin was biometrics - indeed, Blunkett sold the whole scheme on biometrics and the alleged unforgibility of biometric ID Cards. Since then both the US and the UK have retreated substantially from that position. Because of the costs and unreliability of biometric technology and the UK ID Card is now left with only one biometric, the fingerprint, which now appears more of a fig leaf than any serious attempt to frustrate forgery. The line then - and occasionally still now - is that the ID Card was purely about ’secure identification’. But when the 2004 consultation paper was published, which set out the basis of the scheme, and the national identity register, it again appeared massively over-engineered to its purpose. The NIR appears to be master population index, whose primary key will appear as a foreign key in other government databases. One can understand why the Home Office wonks might want this as administrative convenience but it has little to do with a ’secure form of identification’, and the systems integration required to implement it accounts for the bulk of the programme’s estimated £20 billion cost. But one man’s ‘administrative convenience’ is another man’s unwarranted sharing of data. The fact is, there has been very little public debate on untrammelled data sharing between government departments and when the subject arises, the overall public mood is hostile. many pro-ID people have chosen to describe such feeling as ‘paranoia’. I would say that they reflect a desire by the public for control over how and when, and with whom, their data is shared. It’s an empowerment argument, not paranoia. Data protection laws do not authorise private companies to share data. for ‘efficient delivery of service’, without the express permission of the customer. I see no reason why the same should not be expected of government.

The government’s strategy on ID Cards has been confused. Is it about data sharing or a secure form of identity? Is it about ‘convenience’ or catching terrorists. Some of the justifications are utterly half baked. Prevent benefit fraud? Only a tiny proportion (about 5% of the annual running costs of the NIR) are down to misrepresentation of identity. The ‘identity theft’ statistics have been muddled, mixing up fraudent unattended credit card transactions with using stolen utility bills to gain access to credit in another’s name. The collection of offences is so diverse, and the efficacy of ID Cards to prevent them so varied, that they fail to make a new McGuffin for ID Cards. The reasons flip flop between prevention of terrorism, identity fraud, benefit fraud, crime prevention. None of them scoring a very convincing hit and then next week the merry-go-round turns again.

Another problem has been the government’s reliance on coercion. Right from the get-go, this was to be a compulsory card, which we were initially told would have criminal sanctions applied to those who declined to register. Later on these were attenuated to a £2,500 ‘civil penalty’ and then later dropped from the final act but the implication that it would return. The act still refers to ‘compulsory registration’ so there can be little doubt on that. Not surprisingly this element of compulsion has annoyed people and the spectre of a ‘paper please’ society informs much discussion. The act itself rules out compulsory carry, prefering to rely on ‘parasitic vitality’, tying of public services and other privileges - travel & driving - to the ID Card. But most people I have spoken to simply don’t understand the point of spending all this money and time on card that isn’t going to be compulsory to carry. Whether or not compulsory carry were to be introduced would depend on the public mood, but it undoubtedly severely undercuts the crime prevention justifications for the card. The fear that it could become compulsory to carry also informs the view that it is a form of social control, and I am afraid that the government saying that it won;t be is unlikely to convince many people as it has already played the compulsory card so strongly.

My own view - tightening up the procedures around the issuance of passports was a good thing. All the rest is bullshit and I will not be at all sad when the Tories can it. Labour has only itself to blame. It is fucked up a perfectly simple idea with too much complexity.

The reason they deserve the epithet is because they are unbalanced. Their view is not considered. It is not amenable to reasoned argument.

Give me a break. This kind of “my arguments are reasonable but others people’s are unbalanced and unreasonable” stuff is a tad boring, especially from someone who labels others as “filth” or (as you have done elsewhere) “cunts”.

If you want to argue as a supposed lefty, with some complacency, I might add, against the relevant policies, then I want to hear - not that they are a threat to our “traditional freedoms” - but, rather - why are their benefits disputed, and what would the “type” do instead to improve the lives of ordinary working people, or otherwise, with the money? One imagines some of the type would simply like to have a tax cut. Not ignoble in itself.

You don’t always get the argument you want to hear because people will not always be willing to frame the argument on your terms. The reason people press the point about our “traditional freedoms” is that it is rather important. We live in a liberal democracy and these traditional freedoms - the rights to free speech, freedom of assembly, privacy, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detainment with our charge and various other things I could mention are what makes our society what it is, one which I think is rather a better place to live than ones where these things are not held to be so important, at least by those in power.
What these freedoms do is protect those without power from abuses by those who wield it, and as such are seen by a great many of us as pretty central to what it means to be on the left. However, I would not
be so arrogant to claim that these freedoms are only valued by people on the left, and I am not so narrowly partisan that when people on the right make principled arguments on the subject that I won’t support them. To claim that doing so in some way betrays the left or the interest of working people is just pure unadulterated nonsense.
It follows from this that in order to protect these freedoms, and consequently preserve our liberal democratic society, there have to be limits on the power of the state. This does not mean that the state cannot act for the benefit of people in this country, or that government cannot, as you say, “be an activist force for improving the common life of society” - that is why I consider myself a liberal and reject right wing anti-state libertarianism. However, in that case the state is serving the interests of the people, not the other way round. We have, as Benji pointed out, to be wary of the balance of power between the state and the individual. I would add as an aside that if New Labour has so much faith in the state then why does it have this obsessive belief, regardless of any evidence, that the only way to improve public services is to hand chunks of them over to the private sector?
Following the logic of my argument further, when governments propose legislation which compromises basic freedoms the onus is on them firstly to demonstrate that there will be real benefits from this legislation but also that these benefits override the consequent damage to civil liberties. What bothers me about your position is that you only see the argument in terms of the supposed benefits of the legislation and you either don’t understand or simply don’t care about the principle of upholding civil liberties. The only argument against some of the proposals you mention which you seem to be able to understand is one about cost. Yes, ID cards for example are a colossal waste of money but that’s not the basic reason most people oppose them so there is no reason why they should argue what else they would do with the money as you seem to think they should. And don’t pretend that no-one is making rational critiques against these things because they are. What you can’t do is pretend that concerns for civil liberties should not be an important part of such a critique.

And don’t pretend that no-one is making rational critiques against these things because they are.

And thanks to XofTheX for proving my point so well.

“Mrs Ben, you’ve totally missed the point about “anyone who has read the reports on the lost IR files sent to the NAO”.

There is no good reason for any Civil Service files to be sent to auditors. The auditors also have responsibilities for data security and protection. Their best way of fulfilling those responsibilties is to visit the places where the data is secure.

Requesting copies is a mark of maladministration.” Alan Ji

If you read about it in detail you will know that the NAO only requested a very small sample of randomly chosen data to be sent to them securely for the purpose of deciding how much of the massive system they would need to audit and in what way.

It was the IR who decided to send the unedited data to the NAO, even though this was not requested (nor were address, bank or parent details (also sent) ) > It was later claimed this was done as a money saving exercise by the IR, (as it was too hard to extract a subset and the time required would have thrown a spanner into their internal costing system.)

The IR appears/ed to have no knowledge of the Data Protection Act but why should it ? ter all government departments are specifically exempted from it (Section s63(5) ).

So what safeguards ARE in place to protect our personal data held in government databases? and what redress do we have if it is misused, released into the public domain, through ignorance and incompetence?

None and None it seems.

It is just this sort of incident that makes me mistrust the government keeping information about me on their databases. .

If you have a technical background in IT you can read the whole sorry saga here complete with copies of the correspondence (names blanked out to protect the guilty)

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2007/11/23/the-price-of-penny-pinching/

Mrs Ben,

Thank you for the extra detail, but you haven’t contradicted my main points.

No Council would allow external auditors, whether civil servants or consultants, to request copies of data be sent to some distant place. Very much the opposite; when there is a big external audit, Councils make room for the external auditors to move in and work on site.

Yet another example of how many things in the UK could be improved if the Civil Service was expected to improve to Local Government standards.

Oh come on. For the purposes for which the NAO needed the data there was absolutely no need for them to be present at HMRC’s premises. Why go to the expense of having staff make an unneccessary journey?

After 25 hours I note that no-one
1) thinks that a data base of blood donors is an authoritarian nightmare.
2) claims any personal experience of a Housing Benefit application form.
3) sees anything wrong in checking that a retired teacher is still alive to legitimately receive a pension.

I am beginning to wonder if some of you are against driving licences.

Andrew Adams, that is the effective way to avoid needless risk to the security of the personal and confidential data. In an operation as large as Longbenton, isn’t there enough Audit work to have a permanent base and rotate the auditors?

Mrs Ben has asked about knowledge of data protection principles in parts of the Civil Service. I could ask the same about Risk Assessments.

So Alan Ji, in what way are your remarks about blood donor databases, housing benefit applications and the rest a case for Labour’s identity programme, or indeed for a compulsory DNA database? Or were you trying to make some other point?

I notice that none of the staunch defenders of the NIS here are able to answer the points in my recent post. Pretty much par for the course. Defenders of Labour’s ID programme are pretty good at calling its opponents ‘paranoid’ but not so good at defending the programme from specific fact based criticisms.

Oh come on. For the purposes for which the NAO needed the data there was absolutely no need for them to be present at HMRC’s premises. Why go to the expense of having staff make an unneccessary journey?

It depends on what’s being audited and the nature of the records to be inspected during the audit. Most large IT systems will be distributed so there will be no ’site’ as such for auditors to visit. The database will be in one or more data centres, the application tier will be on a server farm somewhere else and the users many be at multiple offices spread over quite a large geographical area.

I don’t think there is anything inherently unreasonable to have an extract of data to audit, provided of course that the extract can be shown to be accurate and complete. Sending *encrypted* data by CD is not in itself unreasonable, provided it is taken by a trusted courier. In fact that is one of the most secure ways of sending data. Of course sending it unencrypted and through the post is negligent, as was sending a larger set of data than was required.

Surely the point about the blood donor database is that being on it is voluntary?

Surely the point about the blood donor database is that being on it is voluntary?

Or does Alan Ji know something about future Labour policy that we don’t?