PJC Journal – Original

In February,
participants in the forum were asked what they thought of the government
sharing data between departments in order to better deliver public services.
Seventy per cent voted in favour, Ben Page, chairman of the Ipsos MORI Social
Research Institute, told The Register. 

After the forum,
participants took home sheets asking them to consider the pros and cons of government
data sharing, as well as other policy matters.

To provoke their
thinking, the sheets gave specific examples of how data sharing was beneficial.
But they made only passing reference to the fact that some people were
“concerned” about the idea, while it made others “worry about
civil liberties”.

Supporting
information consisted of web addresses to a BBC article
about the Citizen Forum that touched on some of the pros and cons of data
sharing, and a 2003 survey that found that, having considered them in more
detail, 60 per cent of people were concerned about the idea.

Citizens were
also referred to the government's Information
Sharing Vision Statement, which described in detail why information sharing
was a good idea. (a very poor argument). 

What would the
Citizen's Forum have made of data sharing if they had been made more aware of
the arguments against the idea, or told why the DCA suspected government data
sharing might require the peeling back of laws designed to protect their
liberties?

Unlike the Prime
Minister, the DCA has not conducted its part of the policy review with the
public. It has refused
since September to discuss its deliberations, and did so again this week. 

The
Government still has not explained why it needs to share your personal details,
both here in the UK and across Europe, and it is suspected to the US.

What
the public need is an online portal that shares Government services, government
information flowing to the public, not the other way around.

Say
NO to Datasharing, Say NO to the Database state.

Related Reading:

Un tour du monde des écoliers, à portée de main

Front Page (Sterling Main Street)

Structured Experience Kit-Main Pages

Old Yishuv: Musta'Arabi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Four Holy Cities, Jerusalem, Main Page, Safed, Tiberias,Jaffa, Deluge Myth

Driving Change: How the Best Companies are Preparing for the 21st Century

In February,
participants in the forum were asked what they thought of the government
sharing data between departments in order to better deliver public services.
Seventy per cent voted in favour, Ben Page, chairman of the Ipsos MORI Social
Research Institute, told The Register. 

After the forum,
participants took home sheets asking them to consider the pros and cons of government
data sharing, as well as other policy matters.

To provoke their
thinking, the sheets gave specific examples of how data sharing was beneficial.
But they made only passing reference to the fact that some people were
“concerned” about the idea, while it made others “worry about
civil liberties”.

Supporting
information consisted of web addresses to a BBC article
about the Citizen Forum that touched on some of the pros and cons of data
sharing, and a 2003 survey that found that, having considered them in more
detail, 60 per cent of people were concerned about the idea.

Citizens were
also referred to the government's Information
Sharing Vision Statement, which described in detail why information sharing
was a good idea. (a very poor argument). 

What would the
Citizen's Forum have made of data sharing if they had been made more aware of
the arguments against the idea, or told why the DCA suspected government data
sharing might require the peeling back of laws designed to protect their
liberties?

Unlike the Prime
Minister, the DCA has not conducted its part of the policy review with the
public. It has refused
since September to discuss its deliberations, and did so again this week. 

The
Government still has not explained why it needs to share your personal details,
both here in the UK and across Europe, and it is suspected to the US.

What
the public need is an online portal that shares Government services, government
information flowing to the public, not the other way around.

Say
NO to Datasharing, Say NO to the Database state.

Related Reading:

Driving Change: How the Best Companies are Preparing for the 21st Century

Indian Literature: Sanskrit literature, Main Page, Mahabharata, Classical language, Sangam literature, P?li Canon, Vedas, Indian epic poetry, Assamese ... Bengali literature, Bhojpuri language

Philby: intelligence service aux mains d'un agent soviétique

Structured Experience Kit-Main Pages

Stop the War Coalition: Main Page, Osama Bin Laden, John Rees, Communist Party of Britain, Communist Party of Great Britain Provisional Centre, Committee

Labour's ruling National Executive Committee is
expected to agree a timetable next week for the leadership election to replace
Tony Blair.

The BBC understands
Labour officials have settled on a seven-week campaign for both the leader and
deputy leader to run simultaneously.

If, as widely predicted, it is after the
Scottish and Welsh elections on 4 May, the country could have a new prime
minister by 22 June.

Time to again remind Special
Advisors (SpAds)
that they are not allowed to participate in the Labour Leadership and Deputy
Leadership campaigns.

The Code of Conduct for Special Advisers can be found on the Propriety
and Ethics section of the Cabinet Office website.

The code is
clear, they can't assist in any way in a leadership campaign unless they are on
leave.

So if you spot a
SpAd in the Portcullis coffee shop making the case for votes for their boss,
you know what to do. Call the national Shop-a-SpAd
hotline on 0709 284 0531 or fax evidence to 0709 201 2337.

Related Reading:

Old Yishuv: Musta'Arabi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Four Holy Cities, Jerusalem, Main Page, Safed, Tiberias,Jaffa, Deluge Myth

Philby: intelligence service aux mains d'un agent soviétique

Soviet Main Street

Front Page (Sterling Main Street)

Driving Change: How the Best Companies are Preparing for the 21st Century

The
Times has finally seen the proposals highlighted
in this blog for a centralised database of fingerprints from across the
Continent, fuelling fears on all sides of a Big Brother Europe.

The Times only
explains the scheme for a computerised collection of personal details drawn
from all 27 countries in the EU is the latest in a raft of anticrime measures
in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in the United States.  

Britain would be expected to contribute all the
details held by police. These include fingerprints of suspects and people
released without charge, as well as those convicted of crimes. The plan
coincides with the Home Office preparing to expand the range of people
fingerprinted to include those caught speeding or dropping litter.

The aim is for
the database to be up and running by the end of next year. The sensitive
information it contains could be shared with third parties, such as US law enforcement authorities.  

This
will be supplemented in due course by biometric data collected as part of the
ID card and ePassport schemes, also highlighted
in this blog, showing the eEuropean roadmap.

“This rings alarm
bells in terms of civil liberties and in Brussels overreaching itself,” said Baroness
Ludford, a Liberal Democrat MEP, who called the project “Euro Big Brother run
riot”. “It is irresponsible of the European Commission to act like this”. 

The documentation
for eServices is available on the IDABC database in Brussels, and if we look at each of
the countries who are implementing such schemes we can see that all have filed
their documentation – except the UK and Croatia.

If
we look for instance at Sweden’s
view of eGovernment, we can see a soft approach to its citizens, clearly
outlining how they will join up government, provide services to the population
and business and in no way suggests that they are stealing our identities. 

Very
different from the UK approach, which is
secretive, aggressive, punitive, whilst at the same time watering down data protection safeguards, removing citizens rights and with doubt big brother in disguise.

DNA samples and
fingerprints could soon be taken in shopping centres from suspected litterbugs
and shoplifters.

The evidence will
be collected in temporary detention centres designed to fast-track petty
offenders, such as drivers caught not wearing a seat belt, the Home Office
proposes.

But the idea
could add thousands of extra names to the national DNA register and sweep away long-standing
restrictions on whose information police are allowed to keep.

The document
suggests fingerprinting those accused of non-recordable offences – which might
include dropping litter, fouling the pavement, throwing fireworks in the street
and trespassing on the railway.

Why on earth is
there a need to build a super database with every citizens finger prints on
it.?
Why the mad rush by the Home Office to get as many people fingerprinted as
possible, through schemes such as ID cards, ePassports and now the Jail in a
shop scheme? 

There is no
reason whatsoever why the UK PNC should not have on line access availability built
in. Its all a question of proportionality. Why do they need all this data, when
simple links can be more than adequate.

That is to say if
a crime is committed in Germany then the German police can obtain access
to the PNC via a link. That would ensure that each
transaction was logged and audited. That would surely satisfy cross border
requirements, and would limit access to authorised requests.

Say
NO to ID cards, Say NO to the Database state.

Related Reading:

Old Yishuv: Musta'Arabi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Four Holy Cities, Jerusalem, Main Page, Safed, Tiberias,Jaffa, Deluge Myth

Front Page (Sterling Main Street)

Structured Experience Kit-Main Pages

Philby: intelligence service aux mains d'un agent soviétique

Un tour du monde des écoliers, à portée de main

The
Times has finally seen the proposals highlighted
in this blog for a centralised database of fingerprints from across the
Continent, fuelling fears on all sides of a Big Brother Europe.

The Times only
explains the scheme for a computerised collection of personal details drawn
from all 27 countries in the EU is the latest in a raft of anticrime measures
in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in the United States.  

Britain would be expected to contribute all the
details held by police. These include fingerprints of suspects and people
released without charge, as well as those convicted of crimes. The plan
coincides with the Home Office preparing to expand the range of people
fingerprinted to include those caught speeding or dropping litter.

The aim is for
the database to be up and running by the end of next year. The sensitive
information it contains could be shared with third parties, such as US law enforcement authorities.  

This
will be supplemented in due course by biometric data collected as part of the
ID card and ePassport schemes, also highlighted
in this blog, showing the eEuropean roadmap.

“This rings alarm
bells in terms of civil liberties and in Brussels overreaching itself,” said Baroness
Ludford, a Liberal Democrat MEP, who called the project “Euro Big Brother run
riot”. “It is irresponsible of the European Commission to act like this”. 

The documentation
for eServices is available on the IDABC database in Brussels, and if we look at each of
the countries who are implementing such schemes we can see that all have filed
their documentation – except the UK and Croatia.

If
we look for instance at Sweden’s
view of eGovernment, we can see a soft approach to its citizens, clearly
outlining how they will join up government, provide services to the population
and business and in no way suggests that they are stealing our identities. 

Very
different from the UK approach, which is
secretive, aggressive, punitive, whilst at the same time watering down data protection safeguards, removing citizens rights and with doubt big brother in disguise.

DNA samples and
fingerprints could soon be taken in shopping centres from suspected litterbugs
and shoplifters.

The evidence will
be collected in temporary detention centres designed to fast-track petty
offenders, such as drivers caught not wearing a seat belt, the Home Office
proposes.

But the idea
could add thousands of extra names to the national DNA register and sweep away long-standing
restrictions on whose information police are allowed to keep.

The document
suggests fingerprinting those accused of non-recordable offences – which might
include dropping litter, fouling the pavement, throwing fireworks in the street
and trespassing on the railway.

Why on earth is
there a need to build a super database with every citizens finger prints on
it.?
Why the mad rush by the Home Office to get as many people fingerprinted as
possible, through schemes such as ID cards, ePassports and now the Jail in a
shop scheme? 

There is no
reason whatsoever why the UK PNC should not have on line access availability built
in. Its all a question of proportionality. Why do they need all this data, when
simple links can be more than adequate.

That is to say if
a crime is committed in Germany then the German police can obtain access
to the PNC via a link. That would ensure that each
transaction was logged and audited. That would surely satisfy cross border
requirements, and would limit access to authorised requests.

Say
NO to ID cards, Say NO to the Database state.

Related Reading:

Soviet Main Street

Structured Experience Kit-Main Pages

Driving Change: How the Best Companies are Preparing for the 21st Century

Old Yishuv: Musta'Arabi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Four Holy Cities, Jerusalem, Main Page, Safed, Tiberias,Jaffa, Deluge Myth

Front Page (Sterling Main Street)