PJC Journal – Original

The European Commission is considering new legislation against
identity theft. The proposal is contained in a just-published policy on
EU-wide plans to fight cybercrime.

The European Commission's policy on fighting cybercrime in Europe is
the product of many years of consultation and focuses on greater
co-operation between European police forces.

Though the commission said that it did not believe that new legislation
would be useful at this stage in stopping the fast growth of
cybercrime, it said it will consider anti-ID theft laws later this year.

Which begs the question, if its not going to be useful, why waste the time, money and effort doing it.

“The main feature of this policy instrument is a proactive policy in
reinforcing the structures for operational law enforcement
cooperation,” said the commission statement. “The commission will
launch a reflection on how this cooperation can be strengthened and
improved.”

In a move which could prove controversial, the commission said its
new policy included “actions to improve exchange of information”
between law enforcement agencies.

Ahh, that's the reason then, to sneak in more Data Sharing rules, because the ones it has already written into law have met with a lot of opposition.

Europe's privacy watchdog the European Data Protection Supervisor
recently warned of his “grave concern” that data sharing plans was a
“lowest common denominator approach that would hinder the fundamental
rights of EU citizens”.

Earlier this week, the European Parliament voted to support the
reinstatement of data protection principles into a European plan to
share data across police forces.

When will the European Commission learn that the people of Europe (yes, the people, remember us, we are the ones that you unelected morons raise all that tax money from that you waste so freely), anyway, yes us the people of Europe don't want data sharing.

We want our PII data stored securely. We only want it stored when it needs to be stored, and we only want it stored if there is a very very good reason for it being stored in the first place, and we don't want it shared with every tom, dick and harry across the globe.

(source)

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

The presumption of disclosure under
freedom of information (FoI) laws must trump “unnecessary secrecy” -
which only suggests public bodies have something to hide – the
Information Commissioner is to warn on Thursday.

Richard
Thomas will stress that FoI should not be regarded as a threat – even
when it reveals information that is “embarrassing” or “uncomfortable”.

And
he will caution that “wresting” information from government and other
public authorities risks undermining trust between state and citizen.

The public “respects honesty, not cover up”, Mr Thomas will say.

His
comments, at the annual FoI Live conference in central London, come
amid the outcry over a Tory MP's bid to exempt Parliament from its own
FoI laws.

Mr Thomas is not expected to refer
directly to David Maclean's FoI (Amendment) Bill, but will emphasise
the Act “reinforces good government”. He will say it is becoming a
“fixed feature of 21st century democracy” and should not be viewed as a
“battleground”.

Mr Thomas will
remind public bodies that they serve the public and urge them to adopt
a positive approach to openness. But emphasising that FoI must not be
used for mischievous and pointless demands, he will announce a
“charter” for responsible FoI requests and new guidance for public
bodies to resist “vexatious” applications.

“After
nearly two-and-a-half years FoI is delivering real benefits,” Mr Thomas
will say. “There is a presumption of disclosure, unless there is a
genuine reason to withhold information. This must trump any instinct of
unnecessary secrecy which simply suggests a public authority has
something to hide.”

And he will
argue: “Openness – even where it reveals uncertainties, disagreements
or embarrassments – treats citizens as grownups and reflects the
realities of public life.”

In
his speech, Mr Thomas will rebut claims that FoI has an inhibiting
effect, insisting that potential disclosure encourages a record of
full, accurate and impartial advice from officials. And he will
predict: “Greater openness will deter spin and informal decision
making.”

(source)

Words of common sense that must be supported.