[FYI] (Fwd) Proposed abolition of data protection controls on public

["Axel H Horns" <horns@ipjur.com>]

------- Forwarded message follows -------
To:             	ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Subject:        	Proposed abolition of data protection controls on public sector data
Date sent:      	Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:36:27 +0100
From:           	Ross Anderson <Ross.Anderson@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Send reply to:  	ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk

This is simply outrageous. Compared with this, key escrow just doesn't
matter. Why should the state bother with the keys, when they can just
legislate themselves the plaintext?

Ross

********

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=000323637725360&rtmo=V15PlF5x&atm
o=99999999&pg=/et/01/6/19/ndata19.html>

Whitehall plans new checks on citizens

By Rachel Sylvester

WHITEHALL departments will be able to share information about people's
tax records, benefit entitlements and family history under proposals
by Tony Blair's personal think tank.

The change could lead to a person's benefit application being
cross-checked with his or her medical record, passport details being
handed to the Inland Revenue, or driving licence details compared with
information on the electoral roll - although the specific areas
affected have not yet been agreed.

A report by the performance and innovation unit, to be published next
month, says that the exchange of information could reduce fraud and
other crime and speed up the delivery of Government services by
cutting red tape. The Government is planning to introduce catch-all
legislation to enable ministers to instruct their officials to
cross-check data without having to put a separate Bill through
Parliament.

That proposal, which has been approved by ministers, will almost
certainly mean rewriting the Data Protection Act, which safeguards the
privacy of information. At present, the Government has to introduce a
Bill every time one department wants to exchange a new type of data
with another. Under the proposed scheme, ministers would be able to
push changes through much more quickly, using secondary legislation.

A senior Government source said: "At the moment the presumption is
that data given to one department are not compared with information
given to another. We want to reverse that so that the presumption is
that they can be."

The report from the performance and innovation unit, based in the
Cabinet Office, says the current arrangements for data matching are
"haphazard" and "piecemeal" because each department has its own rules.
The unit's proposals were attacked last night by one of the
Government's advisers on the subject.

John Wadham, the director of Liberty, said: "We are forced to give our
personal details to the Government, but this information still belongs
to us. Now the Government is seeking powers to take greater control of
this personal information.

"Decisions to violate the principles of data protection and human
rights are wrong however they are made. But to allow such important
decisions to be made by ministers in secondary legislation and
rubber-stamped by Parliament can never be justified."

There are also fears that people may find themselves being
investigated because information held by one department, then passed
to another, is wrong. A Government insider admitted that the amount of
inaccurate data held on Whitehall files was "the next BSE waiting to
happen".

To try to allay public concern, the report will emphasise the
importance of privacy. An officer will be appointed to every
department to control the quality and use of private information.
People will be reminded that they can request to see any data held
about them to check that they are accurate.

But a proposal to give everybody a "unique identifier" to access
Government services online has been dropped because of fears that it
would be seen as a prototype ID card. Although the unit was in favour
of the idea in principle, it decided that problems such as the
potential for "identity theft" outweighed the benefits.

The Data Sharing and Privacy Bill will be introduced as early as
possible. Ministers are aware of the importance of winning over public
opinion. A government project in Canada, which involved compiling a
database of information about individuals, was scrapped last year
after a public backlash amid accusations that it had been undertaken
without people's consent.




------- End of forwarded message -------