We really need a bonfire of the laws, and then work out which ones we should bring back.

Sorry, but you’ve got the way the system developed back-to-front.

Originally, data access was very tight…which completely screwed-up our service, and most disgruntled were the customers.

Difficulty with removing laws isn’t *necessarily* that people are “used” to them – in most instances I’d argue you’ll find that some group (however small it may be) is benefiting from them, and that they’re the ones who’ll actually bother to campaign in the local press, write to their mp, picket the council meetings, etc.

Whereas a more typical mentality towards legislation might be that of my “robber barons” friend – who’s finally decided to stop using the expression, because he doesn’t want to be associated with the ‘Guido tendency’ . He was bemoaning the fact that making a small change in/removing a piece of legislation took far more time & effort than he, personally, was willing to put in…and even if he did succeed, it’d leave “tens of thousands” of other bits unchallenged…

Which approach is more likely to be effective?

“I used to work in the sports centre of a large academic institution, where a lot of we ‘relatively menial’ staff had access to a wealth of personal data about students, staff, and members of the general public – including addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, credit card details, etc. If that information had been restricted more heavily, then we wouldn’t have been able to provide a decent service to our members across the various staff shifts throughout our (roughly) 12/7 opening hours.”

I suspect that more of you had access to more information then you needed to. However, once you have access to the information, the work environment shifts and you can’t do without it. The same applies to laws. Most new laws aren’t really needed, but if you ever try to get one repealed then there will always be a group that opposes it, because they have become use to it.

MaidMarian:

“Out of interest, is your name on the published voter register?”

I am not sure. How do I check? I am ex-directory though.

I doubt that so many of you needed access to so much information. Of course once you have access to so much information you think that you cannot function without it. That is how society works (try calling for a law to be repealed and you will encounter the same problem).

“So – do you think that 192.com should be closed down? Yes or no? Of course, under FoI right now it would appear that private addresses are public information. Quite who’se interest that situation is in I will let you dwell on. Either way, it is not down to the individual whether it is passed on.”

If 192.com is publishing the details (such as addresses, date of birth, etc.) without the consent of the ‘owner’, then yes. But I don’t know enough about the site to have formed a definitive opinion on it.

“Well…how about some sort of indvidualised card that can only be securely read when an individual approaches the state for a service. Reading facilities could be easily restricted by that route. But then I have a suspicion you wouldn’t be too keen on those reforms and safeguards.”

Actually, that sounds like a really good idea, providiing that it was actually secure and that such information was restricted to only the people directly involved in it.

“Are you seriously telling me that the public only has a interest where state aid is involved? So the examples I provided are not in the public interest?”

Providing companies obey the law, and don’t get any money from taxpayers, how they conduct their affairs is none of my business (unless I am a shareholder). To me the state is like a firm you have hired to do a job for you. You have a right to ensure that your money is being spent properly on what you want.

“Your argument essentially is that we must assume that the public sector always and everywhere acts in bad faith and is engaging in a massive plot to enslave us all isn’t it?”

No, but we should have the right to check that money is being spent properly. There are plently of good, honest civil servants. I know that it is hard for some people to grasp, but it is not their money that they are spending. We have entrusted it to them.

“Really? The article comes over as if your first and foremost concern is the scroing of cheap political points.”

I have made my dislike for big government pretty clear in the past, so if I say my main concern is reform I mean it.

“Sorry.”

Please, don’t apologise. We are having a civilised debate.

‘you don’t have to comment on Pickled Politics, so handing over your e-mail is voluntary.’ I readily accept that the parallel is not a clean one, but how far do you want to take this? Claiming benefit or indeed using state services is not per se something one has to do.

‘FOI are fine apart when it concerns the details of individuals. I don’t believe that there is a public interest reason why such information should be handed over. People are free to hand over their details to whomever they want.’

FoI is purpose blind, it doesn’t matter one little bit what you think or do not think is in the public interest. So – do you think that 192.com should be closed down? Yes or no? Of course, under FoI right now it would appear that private addresses are public information. Quite who’se interest that situation is in I will let you dwell on. Either way, it is not down to the individual whether it is passed on.

‘But the best way to reduce the number of abuses is to reduce the amount of information available, and limit the access to those who only really need to know.’

Well…how about some sort of indvidualised card that can only be securely read when an individual approaches the state for a service. Reading facilities could be easily restricted by that route. But then I have a suspicion you wouldn’t be too keen on those reforms and safeguards.

‘Taxpayers fund civil servants, therefore they have a right to know what the money is being spent on. If companies are receiving state aid, then again the taxpayers have a right to know. If they are not, then only the shareholders do.’

Cobblers! Are you seriously telling me that the public only has a interest where state aid is involved? So the examples I provided are not in the public interest? Indeed, if the hacks spent more time doing some real journalism rather than relying vexatious use of the FoI act we might have had some scrutiny of the banks pre credit crunch. I have far more interest in how Sainsbury’s gets advice on food production than I do in most of the public sector’s business.

Your argument essentially is that we must assume that the public sector always and everywhere acts in bad faith and is engaging in a massive plot to enslave us all isn’t it? It actually gets tragic when that argument gets so blinkered it can not accept that there is a public interest outside of ‘state aid’ (whatever that means) issues.

I have no legitimate interest in Sainsbury’s taxi bill – that somehow does not mean that I have no interest in the rest of their busines does it?

‘My real concern is how to reduce the risk of this sort of thing happening again.’

Really? The article comes over as if your first and foremost concern is the scroing of cheap political points.

Sorry.

I agree that a review of their data management procedures should occur – but let’s not forget, this is still a case of someone abrogating their personal responsibilities to both their employer and their clients.

I used to work in the sports centre of a large academic institution, where a lot of we ‘relatively menial’ staff had access to a wealth of personal data about students, staff, and members of the general public – including addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, credit card details, etc. If that information had been restricted more heavily, then we wouldn’t have been able to provide a decent service to our members across the various staff shifts throughout our (roughly) 12/7 opening hours.

Ok, they gave over the information voluntarily (although we also had access to the full Uni Registry student & staff databases, to cross-check information, so we could get a great deal more data on anyone we were required to), but it’s still the case that the responsibility for their security lay with our employer (to make sure they didn’t hire dubious numpties – no cracks about “how come they took you on then?”, and complied with the DPA, etc), and with us doing our jobs.

There are many reasons why restricting employee access to data can damage service (make it harder to correct database errors, take longer to cross-check records to prevent duplicate/fraudulent claims, prevent data sharing between departments which reduces the amount of time clients have to spend on form-filling, etc), and balancing this against the potential risk of individuals acting in an illegal manner is always going to be tricky…

“It’s hardly airstrip one, it is a data protection issue and a confidentiality issue. The state investigated this particular incident and then took the necessary action; in this instance dismissing Gillet.

We should be concerned about the collection of data by the state and private companies, but the real issue is how they use this data.”

My problem was that she was legally able to get the information. I am not criticising the state’s response, but rather the system and principle. I agree that companies carry too much information about us as well. What you, and many others, fail to appreciate is that with such a large volume of information available to so many people there is going to be significant abuse of the system.

MaidMarian:

“What happens to the e-mail addresses we have to put on here to contribute?”

Nothing. Nor is there really a parallel, as you don’t have to comment on Pickled Politics, so handing over your e-mail is voluntary. If you are really worried about putting your e-mail in, then simply enter one that you don’t use very often.

“Do you object to the eixstance of things like 192.com? What about FoI disclosures? Apparently public bodies have found themselves compelled to give out private addresses?”

FOI are fine apart when it concerns the details of individuals. I don’t believe that there is a public interest reason why such information should be handed over. People are free to hand over their details to whomever they want.

“What you are demanding here is a copper bottomed guarantee against people acting illegally and using anything short of that standard as a stalking horse for a political attack. Sorry, you are demanding the impossible.”

No system is perfect. I know that. But the best way to reduce the number of abuses is to reduce the amount of information available, and limit the access to those who only really need to know. That won’t solve all the problems, but it will lessen them.

“What this wonam did was illegal and she has been penalised, what more do you want, blood?”

Or reform and safeguards, as I like to call it.

“But more than that you never hear any interest in information held in the private sector. What advice have senior figures at Tesco had about food production? What about banks lending strategies – no, in the gospel according to FoI zealots these are less in the public interest than taxi fares run up by junior civil servants.”

Taxpayers fund civil servants, therefore they have a right to know what the money is being spent on. If companies are receiving state aid, then again the taxpayers have a right to know. If they are not, then only the shareholders do.

“Indeed, isn’t interesting that Rumbold seems to want to blame everyone except for Ms Gillett?”

I said that I was happy that she had gone to jail. My real concern is how to reduce the risk of this sort of thing happening again.

Absolutely, and this is exactly why the current moves to the FoI Act are total cobblers. Currently, FoI seems to work on the assumption that the reasons why information is sought is irrelevant. Arrant nonsense, of course. The request could be frivolous, it could be to cause annoyance, it could be in good faith – it does not matter to the FoI zealots.

But more than that you never hear any interest in information held in the private sector. What advice have senior figures at Tesco had about food production? What about banks lending strategies – no, in the gospel according to FoI zealots these are less in the public interest than taxi fares run up by junior civil servants.

Of course, the FoI zealots are mostly hacks who see the act as nothing more than a way to cheap and easy headlines. The public interest does not bother those loathsome hacks. FoI is one big political stalking horse at yours and mine expense.

Indeed, isn’t interesting that Rumbold seems to want to blame everyone except for Ms Gillett?

‘I consider privacy for the individual an integral part of libertarianism: why should people be able to hold large amounts of information about you without your consent?’

What happens to the e-mail addresses we have to put on here to contribute?

With apologies Rumbold for that slightly facetious thought, but I think you are rather stretching the point here a very long way. Do you object to the eixstance of things like 192.com? What about FoI disclosures? Apparently public bodies have found themselves compelled to give out private addresses?

What you are demanding here is a copper bottomed guarantee against people acting illegally and using anything short of that standard as a stalking horse for a political attack. Sorry, you are demanding the impossible.

What this wonam did was illegal and she has been penalised, what more do you want, blood?

And this is before we get to the entirely legitimate question about whether the names of people in hostels should be available under the spirit of the nutcases charter – sorry the FoI Act. Under FoI of course it would appear that pruvate addresses can be given out.

It’s hardly airstrip one, it is a data protection issue and a confidentiality issue. The state investigated this particular incident and then took the necessary action; in this instance dismissing Gillet.

We should be concerned about the collection of data by the state and private companies, but the real issue is how they use this data.

“Hah. Nice responses. ‘Fun-filled interludes’, eh? Glad someone other than Andy and I enjoyed them!”

You know me- Mr. Relaxed.

“I must warn you once again, I will NEVER be a libertarian. All manner of entreaties, caresses and general alluring behaviour will not turn this woman’s head ;-D. I’m a feminist, remember? The very agitative nature of that doesn’t sit too well with libertarianism, I think.”

We will see about that. Anyway, if feminism is simply about women being equal in the eyes of society and the law, then that is a key component of libertarianism.

David:

“This a breach of confidentiality that had potentialy dangerous consequences, nothing more.

I’m not entirely sure why the low status of Gillets job is important here, low level civil servants have access to my personal information each time I sign on. This is not about the power of the state, unless harassing Miss Camacho is state policy.”

It is not official state policy to harrass Miss Camacho, but I feel that the title is still valid, because the post is about how much power an employee of the state can have. The reason I brought up her status was to show that even relatively low-ranked employees can access very sensitive information on us legally.

This a breach of confidentiality that had potentialy dangerous consequences, nothing more.

I’m not entirely sure why the low status of Gillets job is important here, low level civil servants have access to my personal information each time I sign on. This is not about the power of the state, unless harassing Miss Camacho is state policy.

Hah. Nice responses. ‘Fun-filled interludes’, eh? Glad someone other than Andy and I enjoyed them!

I must warn you once again, I will NEVER be a libertarian. All manner of entreaties, caresses and general alluring behaviour will not turn this woman’s head ;-D. I’m a feminist, remember? The very agitative nature of that doesn’t sit too well with libertarianism, I think.

I thank all ye who have defended me against Douglas. Unfortunately, he misses the irony in his giving someone who only a few people on the Internet care about (DK) more credence than they deserve otherwise.

” Although a certain somebody has been trying to inspire me to join those dirty Libs… and not altogether without success.”

Heh. One day, one day.

”I don’t think he’s as taken in as you might think.”

Douglas won’t listen to anyone when you mention Devil’s Kitchen. It is better to let him tire himself out, then approach him when he is calmer.

”Sadly for him, I don’t TRY to add much to the site, other than a sense of humour and proper spelling (for once)! ;P.”

You do contribute a lot to this site. It is just that Douglas is in DK mode. He will feel better after snacking on some square sausages.

Andy Gilmour:

” Those of us who are sponging, work-shy, social leeches (aka single parents) kinda rely on the (admittedly crap – thanks, Mr. B!) tax credits system having our information…and if some damn woman who works with that information takes a notion to use it illegally to help out her b@st@rd of a boyfriend, that’s not her employer’s fault.”

But she should not have access to this information unless this woman was specifically assigned to her. My point is that the information was accessed perfectly legally, but by someone who in a proper system should not have been able to access it without a good reason.

Robber barons- sums them up really.

Sonia:

“Can’t see what libertarianism there is in this piece frankly. its complete rubbish (sorry rumbold) – information should be frankly free to everyone.”

That is a baffling response. This woman was placed in danger because it was so easy to access confidential information about her. I agree that we should have access to more information about the workinsg of the state, but why on earth is it any of yours, or my, business which particular women are at which particular shelters? How does society benefit from having that information in the public domain?

“Obsession with privacy sound more like being conservative than libertarian. its the old keep yourself to yourself kind of thinking. intellectual property and that sort of thinking.”

I consider privacy for the individual an integral part of libertarianism: why should people be able to hold large amounts of information about you without your consent?

“And also Rumbold you don’t seem to realise (perhaps because you take the advantages of State that you find appealing – law justice, no doubt for granted because everything is relative and you focus on the state powers you are not so fond of) that without the State the culprit could not even have been brought to justice.”

Credit to the police and CPS for bringing her to justice. I don’t think that implies though that Sarah Gillett should have been able to access information so easily in the first place.

“I’ve been coming across this a lot in my work on a mapping project. idiotically, it seems to be i have to get every singe shop owners permission before i can list them on my map(though i dont believe this!) because apparently otherwise we’d be contravening the data protection act.”

That does seem like overkill, as the shop owners have chosen to put their information out in the public domain.

“Oh, shit. Well we’ll have to beat Devil’s Kitchen into a pulp before we join, won’t we? Global warming deniers are why there are only two members of the Libertarian Party. The daft devil and Rumbold.

Did I just say that out loud too?

Cue Rumbold to tell us the current membership. Guess he won’t, out of embarrassment.”

The door is always open for you Douglas. I have no idea what the current membership level is, being only a member. It is a small, recently formed party which has received little publicity in the mainstream media. I wouldn’t expect the numbers to be huge. We care about quality, not quantity. Given that Labour membership is basically obligatory for anyone in a union, Conservative membership is given away free if you join the W.I., and being a Lib Dem is a rite of passage for anyone who has tried to smoke their sandals, it is no wonder that these parties have relatively large (albeit declining) memberships. LPUK is one of the few parties that can claim to have seen membership figures increase by 1000%+ in the last year.

“But I am not a bit astonished. What I am a bit astonished at is the ‘lurve’ that Rumbold applies to.”

For all our sakes, just ask DK out. Then hopefully this jealousy will disappear.

“Well Amrit and Andy, quite franky neither of you add much to this site.”

This is really harsh Douglas. Amrit and Andy are good commentators, and everyone goes off on fun-filled interludes now and then.

“This is a sensible web site, I tend to think. It is not given over to nut jobs.”

Then why are we here? Heh.

“Perhaps. Though I have never seen Rumbold as an enemy. More of a misguided friend.”

Ditto. Hopefully one day you will discard the chains of socialism and join us.

This is not really to do with “freedom of information”, it’s about someone using that information – which is, sorry to say, *vital* for the state to hold in order for various systems to function, and they had legitimate access to as part of their job, in an illegal manner.

I’m so *terribly* sorry you didn’t like the way I put it, but I think you’ll find that I did, directly, address the issue, quoting your absolutistic (and yes, that’s the right word) statement:

“It is wrong for anyone to hold this kind of information, whatsoever. Public, private, whomsoever.”

(Just thought I’d repeat it to remind you of how sweeping and nonsensical it was).

So which bit of my argument didn’t you like, huh?

I *am* a single parent on tax credits.

Tax credits *are* a screwed-up, inefficient, error-strewn system.

The woman *did* break the law by using the information illegally.

Employers *should* be liable if they can be proved to be negligent in their recruiting practices.

And yet that’s “stupidity”, and “missing the point”?

“Still and all, the fact that you’ll never come back, fills me with optomism. This is a sensible web site, I tend to think. It is not given over to nut jobs.”

Interesting. I like facts and try to stick to evidence-based reasoning. You appear to be an ad hom merchant. But I’m, apparently, the stupid one.

Weird that we’re both SNP supporters (although I’ve got big problems with Salmond’s pandering to supernaturalists).

Judging me by your own standards? Hmmm…

Hope one of them is not that you have to be a PP regular! And worse, have to agree with a PP regular!

What makes this site interesting for me, isn’t the regulars, though that’s great for site continuity, but the drive-thru commentators… adds to the richness of debate ..

I’m sure some of my posts have been deleted before, but not being small minded, I am assuming they were boring and and not because someone in PP disagreed with me, I’ve never been one for high school popularity contests .. ;

What’s your criteria for valued contribution? Also, what right do you have to judge?

I have no idea.

I just judge posters against my own standards, or something.

Which you do too. You see me as stepping out of line, perhaps, which is frankly unfair.

I’ll call stupidity where I see it. And expect to get taken to task when I’m wrong.

I look forward to your future post…

Hopefully, it will address these issues.

As far as I know, there are not seperate rules for you and I. Neither should their be.

Well, what do either of them have to add?

What’s your criteria for valued contribution? Also, what right do you have to judge?

I don’t remember seeing Andy around that much but Amrit does chime in with comments I’ve found interesting (if you doubt her I’d suggest reading her excellent blog). Not everyone likes to post in entirely the same manner, hell there are weeks where I only add a ‘well said’ or ‘that’s bollox’ to the proceedings. Should I be considering whether I should post here still??

The point isn’t whether I agree with Andy either, saying things like ‘Well Amrit and Andy, quite frankly neither of you add much to this site.’ because you don’t agree with them is uncalled for. If someone said your SNP supporting comments didn’t add anything to the site I’d take the same line of defence over your right to post them.

Anyway, play the ball not the man/woman. If you want to take this line of discussion further I’m all for it but not at the expense of a good thread.

Stick around I’ve just the post for it coming up in the next day or so.

Well, what do either of them have to add? Amrit has, at least, indiirectly addressed what I have had to say:

Thank you. I think douglas is just hating on Andy & I because libertarians get him worked up – and because he’s not getting a rise out of Rumbold . Sadly for him, I don’t TRY to add much to the site, other than a sense of humour and proper spelling (for once)! ;P

Perhaps. Though I have never seen Rumbold as an enemy. More of a misguided friend.

And, as for Andy, well, this was what he had to say:

Those of us who are sponging, work-shy, social leeches (aka single parents) kinda rely on the (admittedly crap – thanks, Mr. B!) tax credits system having our information…and if some damn woman who works with that information takes a notion to use it illegally to help out her b@st@rd of a boyfriend, that’s not her employer’s fault – unless it can be demonstrated she’d put “easily manipulated, doesn’t care about the consequences of her actions, and shouldn’t be trusted further than you could spit her” on her job application…

Do you agree with that? From what I know about you, I wouldn’t have expected you to support that statement. I’d have thought that Libertarians have a point here, that freedom of information can be taken a step too far. But, there you go.

@ Leon:

Thank you. I think douglas is just hating on Andy & I because libertarians get him worked up – and because he’s not getting a rise out of Rumbold . Sadly for him, I don’t TRY to add much to the site, other than a sense of humour and proper spelling (for once)! ;P