ContactPoint children's database suffers security breaches

ContactPoint database suffers 'serious' security breaches during trial phase The controversial database containing personal details of all 11 million children in England has suffered at least three security breaches even before its nationwide launch. (link via Telegraph) I've written about the ContactPoint database before. I've always been against the idea but of course that doesn't matter. Parents don't have a say - unless you are a celebrity or a politician because they are concerned about the security of their children's details, and they can opt out!! And surprise, surprise! The big fear was that it wouldn't be secure (no database is 100% secure) and sure enough there have been at least three security breaches already - before its nationwide launch! I wonder how the parents in England that supported the idea of the database, feel about it now. Can there be anyone who still believes ContactPoint is a good idea?

ID Cards: the political spin about scrapping them

The recent announcement by Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, that the Government would be scrapping plans for compulsory ID cards, was welcome news to just about everyone. And I think most people assumed the Government had seen sense at last and believed that it really was the end of the ID cards scheme. However, people seemed to forget that their personal details would still be stored on the National Identity Register when they obtained or renewed a passport (and almost everyone in Britain has a passport). And today an article in The Guardian by Mr Johnson, reveals the real view of Government: We need identity cards, and soon Identity fraud costs the UK £1.2bn, and untold misery, each year. ID cards are a cheap and effective way of fighting back [Really? How does an ID card fight identity fraud? It's based on a central database and the Government doesn't exactly have a good record with keeping data safe!] and in the article, Mr Johnson declares that "...despite the headlines that would have readers think otherwise, I'm not scrapping identity cards...". So there you have it. The real story is that nothing has changed - apart from saying the cards will be "voluntary" - and personal details will still be stored on a National Identity Register. Edited to add this update: This is an excerpt from PoliticsHome News today (Monday, 6 July, 2009) The Home Secretary has insisted that rather than scrapping ID cards, the government is accelerating the introduction of the scheme, saying it would be "completely ludicrous" to abandon the plans. "We haven't scrapped cards. What we're doing is acclerating their introduction," he said. And please read the comments following the article. I agree with the comment that it is absolute madness for the Labour party to go ahead with this very expensive scheme in the midst of a recession. I also agree with the comment about how this is a spiteful policy by the Labour party to get the ID cards/database in place so that the Conservative Party who are against the scheme, will be forced to waste the money when they get into power and scrap it as they have promised they will do.

British Court Rules Against Blogger Anonymity

I twittered (posted on Twitter) the link to this story in the Guardian yesterday: Publish and be named: Police blogger NightJack loses anonymity High court says detective constable had 'no reasonable expectation of privacy' in landmark ruling for bloggers I thought for sure there would be a debate on Twitter about the repercussions of this case but I was disappointed at the lack of response about it. Perhaps people don't realize the implications. Personally, I prefer to blog anonymously just because I don't think it's necessary for everyone to know my full name but if I did have to reveal my identity it wouldn't be any big deal. However, there are many other bloggers who are posting about their professions and are servng as vital whistleblowers when they expose injustices and wrong-doings. If these bloggers no longer have a right to privacy and feel threatened, I would expect many such blogs will suddenly disappear. In fact it should come as no surprise to learn that the NightJack blog has now been deleted. What are your thoughts about this case? Do you agree with the ruling? Do you blog anonymously? Would you continue blogging if you had to reveal your identity?

Internet monitoring starts today in the UK

Net firms start storing user data Details of user e-mails and net phone calls will be stored by internet service providers (ISPs) from Monday under an EU directive. (link via BBC News) Henry Porter has written a scathing piece in the Guardian about this sinister plan: Using Europe to erode our privacy An EU directive compelling ISPs to retain information on individuals has been brought in without a debate in parliament (excerpt): Today, an EU directive comes into force which will compel all internet service providers to retain information from all emails and website visits. Data from phone calls and text messages will also be stored and made available to the government, its agencies and local authorities. Having seen how local officials have abused anti-terrorist laws, it's not hard to imagine the damage to privacy that will ensure. These powers were brought in by a statutory instrument and so were not debated by either house. The accepted view is that the Home Office now bypasses parliament by lobbying Europe directly in the knowledge that the measures they desire will go undebated and unscrutinised, then be smuggled into British law as a European directive. It is difficult to think of anything that makes the House of Commons look more feckless or more redundant. I hate all this surveillance in the name of security. What are your thoughts? Do you feel safer knowing that all emails and data from phone calls and text messages will be stored and made available to the government, its agencies and local authorities? Or do you think (as I do) this is a step too far and that this invasion of our privacy is a dangerous assault on our personal freedom? And the way this EU directive was brought into power without being debated in parliament, does rather make a mockery of the House of Commons, doesn't it? Related post from my blog: Gov't plans 'Big Brother' database for phones & e-mails in UK

Britain's Database State: Quarter of databases are 'illegal' and should be scrapped

One in four government databases illegal One in four Government databases are illegal under human rights or data protection and should be scrapped immediately, a panel of experts have warned. Another six in ten have "significant problems and may be unlawful" while just one in eight are given a clean bill of health. The UK has become the "most invasive surveillance state, and the worst at protecting privacy, of any Western democracy", the most detailed study yet on data collection reveals. Systems including the DNA database, National Identity Register, the children's ContactPoint index and the NHS Detailed Care Record are "fundamentally flawed", they conclude. The scathing report says a quarter of public sector databases are either disproportionate, run without consent, have no legal basis or have major privacy or operational problems. (link via telegraph.co.uk) It is a report that should make a difference but sadly I don't think the government will take any notice especially after reading the response from a Ministry of Justice spokesman in an article from BBC News, Call to scrap 'illegal databases': But the government says the report contains "no substantive evidence" on which to base its conclusions. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said the government was "never losing sight" of its obligations under the data protection and human rights acts. "It takes its responsibilities seriously and will consider any concerns carefully, adapting existing safeguards where necessary," he added.

Google launches Street View in UK

Google Street View launches in UK Google's 'Street View' service, which gives users the ability to take a virtual tour of cities mapped from thousands of specially-taken photographs, has launched today in the UK. The service, which will initially launch in 25 British cities including Manchester, London and Belfast, was originally unveiled in May 2007, and has since been expanded to nine countries, including Japan, Australia, France and Spain, as well as the US where it launched. And although I dislike Street View because of privacy worries, I think this sounds like a fun challenge: As a cheeky sidenote to the launch, Google have hidden popular children's book character Wally from Martin Handford's Where's Wally series somewhere in today's release, challenging users of the site to find the forgetful traveller, who is wearing his trademark jumper, walking stick and red and white striped bobble hat. (link via independent.co.uk) What do you think about Street View? Do you think Street View is an invasion of privacy, or a fun and useful navigational tool? I will admit it can probably be very useful and also quite a bit of fun to take a virtual tour of just about any location. The privacy issue is a valid one however. I can see why people worry (myself included) about their privacy being invaded even though Google claims they have employed special techniques to obscure faces and number-plates in the images. Cities currently covered by Street View UK: London, Edinburgh, Leeds, Bradford, Cambridge, Cardiff, Belfast, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Oxford, Sheffield, Nottingham, Derby, Bristol, Coventry, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Swansea, York, Newcastle, Dundee, Southampton, Norwich and Scunthorpe. Walk through the UK's streets with Street View Update 20 Mar 2009: Where’s Wally found in London Internet sleuths have uncovered one of the great mysteries of Google Street View -- the location of children’s character Wally, from the Where’s Wally? series. (link via telegraph.co.uk) That was fast!

Surveillance: Citizens and the State - a report by the House of Lords

Britain leads the world in the use of CCTV. We are the most spied-upon country in the world so it's welcome news to read about a report - Surveillance: Citizens and the State - by the House of Lords that is recommending more restraint over the use of data collection and electronic surveillance powers: Lords: rise of CCTV is threat to freedom The steady expansion of the "surveillance society" risks undermining fundamental freedoms including the right to privacy, according to a House of Lords report published today. The peers say privacy is an "essential prerequisite to the exercise of individual freedom" and the growing use of surveillance and data collection needs to be regulated by executive and legislative restraint at all times. (link via guardian.co.uk) Henry Porter: Reaction to the House of Lords report on surveillance society The House of Lords report on Britain's surveillance society is a devastating analysis of the systems that have been installed by the authoritarian Labour government and the controlling forces emerging in local government. There is no question now that Britain's free society is under threat, and it is time for the public and opposition parties to declare an end to this regime of intrusion. The House of Lords aren't elected but they have spoken up for the freedoms of the British people more than our elected MPs have!

Another BBC scandal: backlash over sacking Carol Thatcher

It's ironic that just as Jonathan Ross has recently returned to British television - after being suspended for three months because of his vulgar, lewd remarks that were left on an answering machine for an elderly man and then were broadcast on a BBC radio programme - another BBC scandal is being reported in the news. This time, it's about a remark by Carol Thatcher that was made in private and yet the BBC decided to sack her from The One Show. I certainly don't defend Carol's racist remark - describing a black tennis player as a "golliwog" - but I do think that since she said it in private, the BBC does not have the right to fire her. Indeed, it seems very hypocritical of the BBC to make such a harsh judgement about what was said in private considering the "Sachsgate" affair when Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross said much worse on a radio programme that was broadcast! Following that incident, the BBC bowed down to overwhelming public anger and eventually suspended Ross for three months but very controversially, the BBC didn't choose to sack him (Brand simply quit). This latest incident is again leading to a lot of public anger aimed at the BBC as thousands complain to BBC for dropping Carol Thatcher in race row. (link via guardian.co.uk) There is also a BRING BACK CAROL THATCHER Petition I think that since Carol Thatcher's remarks were made in private, the BBC had no right to sack her. A private conversation is exactly that. Is the BBC now becoming Big Brother? And isn't it strange that Carol Thatcher can be sacked over her remark that was made in private and yet Jonathan Ross and other so-called comedians and presenters on the BBC are allowed to swear and make vulgar, disgusting jokes and lewd comments on BBC programmes? What do you think? related posts from my blog: The big story in Britain: BBC and the "Sachsgate" scandal Jonathan Ross returns with jokey apology

Children's database ContactPoint launched in England

I've been dreading this news: Children's database ContactPoint launched despite security fears ContactPoint will include the names, ages and addresses of 11 million under-18s as well as information about their parents, GPs and schools. Yes, a database of details on all* children in England is officially starting. Except it isn't all* children: Celebrities and politicians will be able to keep their details off a controversial new database listing the personal details of every child in England, it has been reported. (links via telegraph.co.uk) So, celebrities and politicians are concerned about the security of their children's details and can opt out but the rest of us parents have no say in permitting our children's details to be entered in the database! As usual there are different rules for people in power and another set of rules for ordinary citizens. Charming! And doesn't their concern about security prove that the database isn't secure? It makes me so angry that I can hardly type this post. What is happening to this country and to our rights? What are your thoughts about ContactPoint? If you are a parent in England, are you worried?

Passport or other ID needed to buy mobile phones!

Welcome to Big Brother Britain: Passports will be needed to buy mobile phones Everyone who buys a mobile telephone will be forced to register their identity on a national database under government plans to extend massively the powers of state surveillance. Phone buyers would have to present a passport or other official form of identification at the point of purchase. Privacy campaigners fear it marks the latest government move to create a surveillance society. (link via timesonline.co.uk) It's not just the database (yes, another database!) that's frightening, but the way it can be used to track everyone's movements that is truly alarming: Government faces fight from within for spy database excerpt from The Sunday Times article: Phones can be located to within a few yards using cell site analysis – which tracks mobile phone users as they move from one signalling area to the next. The system would then link with the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system of traffic cameras, which provides live coverage of motor-ways and main roads. It, in turn, is linked to the DVLA in Swansea which holds the records of all registered vehicles in the country. By monitoring a single telephone call it would be possible to identify exactly where its user was and the registration number of the car in which he or she was travelling. This car could then be found within seconds by the ANPR cameras and tracked along its journey. Simon Davies, of Privacy International, said: “If you can do this in real time, with all the databases being interoperable, you have absolute perfect surveillance.” What a fun country we live in - apart from a couple important things like freedom and privacy. Freedom? What freedom? Privacy? What privacy? The government wants the databases under the pretence of security and immigration control but all these databases give the British government immense power over everyone in the UK. You know what really scares me? It's bad enough to think of the way they keep losing data but wait for the time when the data is mixed up either accidentally or deliberately! There is no such thing as a foolproof system. Are you as worried as I am about the direction Britain is heading?

Data fiasco firm at heart of £20bn ID card scheme

Data fiasco firm PA Consulting is at heart of £20bn ID card scheme Fresh questions have been raised over the Government's ID card project as it emerged that the firm at the centre of the criminal data fiasco is at the heart of the £20bn project. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was last night under pressure to explain why the Home Office, which had known about the loss since Monday, had not made it public for three days when a whistleblower intervened. PA Consulting, which lost a memory stick containing Home Office data on all 84,000 prisoners in England and Wales and 43,000 of the country's most serious offenders, has been paid more than £240m for Government contracts in recent years, figures show. This includes £100m by the Home Office for the ID scheme and other work and £35m to work on new biometric visas for the Foreign Office. (link via telegraph.co.uk) I would be very surprised if anyone still supports the ID card/database scheme after this latest fiasco. How can anyone believe our data will be safe and secure? Frequently Asked Questions on Identity Cards (link via NO2ID, a campaigning organisation.) We are a single-issue group focussed on the threat to liberty and privacy posed by the rapid growth of the database state, of which "ID cards" are the most visible part.

Travel records of more than one million people every month are being accessed by British Government

Travel records of one million people every month accessed by the Government Britain is fighting a new European Union law which would restrict its access to the data, it has emerged. There were 200 million so-called passenger movements across UK borders last year. By 2015 this figure is likely to have risen to 300 million. For the past few years, the British Government has been using information from travel agents and airlines to spy on electronic records to tackle anything from immigration and revenue offences to serious crimes. The data is handed over to the Home Office through the e-Borders programme. It includes personal information like name, address, itinerary, meal preference, sex, detail of travel companions and credit card numbers. Tthe Home Office admitted it had collected this level of detail on 54 million people since the launch of e-Borders in January 2005. (link via telegraph.co.uk) e-Borders How charming (not!) to think there is a database like this - even details about meal preference! How do you feel about your personal life getting snooped on like this?

Information Commissioner says database 'a step too far'

The UK's Information Commissioner has called for a full public debate about a proposed "super-database" that would log every phone call, text and email in Britain. The database, which would hold the details of everyone's telephone and internet communications and could be accessed by a wide range of security agencies, would be a "a step too far for the British way of life", said Richard Thomas. (link via webuser.co.uk) Official site:The Information Commissioner's Office

FBI to see internet and credit card use of UK citizens

It seemed bad enough to be told that, British visitors to the United States will have to register their trip with the American government 72 hours before they leave under new plans. (link via telegraph.co.uk) But now we find out that, The EU is close to finalising an agreement with the US that would allow the FBI to see the internet browsing habits and credit card histories of UK citizens. (link via guardian.co.uk) Charming! As if there isn't enough surveillance of everyone in the UK already (by the British government) now the FBI in the USA will be allowed to watch us too! This is supposed to make America more secure but it's at the expense of the civil rights of everyone in the UK. I wonder, does it go both ways? The article states that:

However, the prospect of an agreement between Brussels and Washington that will lower barriers to swapping previously private data, including travel history and spending patterns will alarm civil rights advocates.

Does "swapping" mean that the EU will get to demand the same information from American citizens? Somehow, I don't think so. I also wonder if this deal goes through, does it apply to all of Europe or just the UK?