Tag Archives: Liberty

Government, Legal, Scotland, Technology

Legitimate concerns exist over access to personal information…

GOVERNMENT DATABASE

The rapid growth of information technology and the huge amount of information that can now be stored (and searched for) within seconds has brought some considerable advantages. It has, however, also raised some big challenges, particularly in relation to privacy and human rights.

Recently, the Scottish Government narrowly won a debate at Holyrood on a plan to allow public bodies to access data through an individual’s NHS number. Such data can be retrieved from a database known as NHSCR. Anyone who was born in Scotland or registered with a GP practice north of the border has a Unique Citizen Reference number held in the NHSCR.

The concern is not so much to do with the data that is already held here, but that the government wants various streams of data held by the National Registers of Scotland by postcode to be added to the register and freely shared with other public bodies.

A simple adding of the postcode information would remove by default the consent currently required by the address system.

Protagonists will argue that adding individual postcodes to a database has existed since the 1950s. They might add, as they should, that it helps to trace children missing from the education system and by helping to identify foreign patients accessing the NHS. And with laws currently moving through parliament, it will make it much harder to avoid paying Scottish rate income tax (SRIT), which comes into force next year. It has to be a good thing when better ways are found of ensuring everyone due to pay tax does pay that tax, setting aside of course the Scottish Government’s position on poll tax defaulters who have been allowed to see their debts owed to local authorities written-off in full.

The Scottish Government has tried to give assurances that no medical records will be shared, but there have to be causes for legitimate concern. Losing the crucial consent from the public for the information to be stored under an individual’s postcode is one. The sheer breadth of the public bodies this would be available to is another. What would be preventing Scottish Canals, Quality Meat Scotland or even Botanic Gardens Scotland from accessing personal information on any individual, which quite clearly would be far outside of their own operational domain?

Because no-one can predict the future with any accuracy and political environments can change quite quickly, thinly laid down arguments tend to perform poorly and can easily be lost within the plethora of the wider debate. But that is not the same as raising perfectly legitimate fears about the security of access to an individual’s personal data. The creation of one universal number, the huge amount of data stored by postcode and the number of organisations that would have access must increase the opportunity for abuse, either through wrongful proliferation, malevolent external hacking practices, rogue individuals permitted access to the network, or even by a government agency itself.

The least we should expect is that safeguards are spelled out in parliament so that there are reassurances on these reasonable points before the green light is given on these proposals. Otherwise, the whole plan will be seen as introducing ID cards by stealth by the back door, a process which, similarly, relies on the proliferation of information across a single database.

Standard
Britain, Government, Human Rights, Legal, National Security, Politics, Society

Secret courts: The need to balance security with individual freedom…

(From the archives) Originally posted on April 4, 2012 by markdowe

BALANCING SECURITY AND LIBERTY

Keeping citizens safe and free is the primary role of the state. In attempting to achieve this it must properly balance the requirements of national security with the principles of liberty. In Britain, this tension runs like a thread throughout its history. Over the centuries, the executive has sought to arrogate further powers to itself – usually in the name of protecting the people – while Parliament and the judiciary have acted as a check on its presumption. Invariably, parties in opposition believe the government of the day is acting in an illiberal fashion; yet when they take office, they discover that achieving the right balance is harder than they imagined.

When in opposition, the leaders of the two parties now making up the Coalition were vehemently critical of Labour’s plans for a substantial extension of the state’s surveillance powers. But having flip-flopped, the Conservative-LibDem coalition are now making precisely the same supportive arguments as their predecessors. The problem with this kind of volte-face is that it erodes public trust in government, and makes it harder for ministers to do anything in the name of security without being denounced for their illiberal instincts. This is one reason why the Government’s proposals for ‘secret courts’ have received such a sceptical, if not hostile, reception. In a report published today the joint parliamentary committee on human rights adds its criticism, saying that plans outlined in a Green Paper last year to hear some civil actions involving the security and intelligence services behind closed doors are based on ‘spurious assumptions’ and are ‘inherently unfair’.

The Government is seeking to extend the so-called evidence procedures following the claims for damages brought by Binyam Mohamed and others, who alleged that Britain had ben complicit in their mistreatment whilst in Guantanamo Bay. Rather than disclose information that might damage national security, the Government withdrew from the action and paid substantial compensation. Under plans put forward by the Coalition, a judge would see the evidence and hear arguments from special advocates with appropriate clearance. However, no one else – including the plaintiffs – would be entitled to know what was being discussed. This should go without saying that this is not open justice. The question, though, is whether it is justified.

On balance perhaps it is – so long as these procedures are used only in the most exceptional circumstances and not at all in inquests. There are times when the national interest requires secrecy; it would be naïve to pretend otherwise. But Parliament must ensure that the law is properly framed to balance the requirements of fairness and security.

Standard
Britain, China, Economic, Foreign Affairs, Hong Kong

China should honour its promise of free and democratic elections in Hong Kong…

HONG KONG

For more than two decades, China’s Communist Party rulers have relied on the rapidly rising prosperity of the masses in an economic boom that has been effective in marginalising any dissent there may have been over their dictatorial rule. Given this rising affluence, the Chinese people have appeared content to do without the need to fight for democracy and liberty.

But the tide has changed, as events in Hong Kong have shown. Sustained protest is being made against the determined approach of the Beijing government to control elections to Hong Kong’s 70-seat legislature by screening and vetting all candidates. This implies it will merely reject those candidates it does not like.

The disruption caused by the tens of thousands of protestors – who have blocked main roads and shut down parts of the business district – presents a challenging if not severe dilemma to Beijing.

The Chinese government could suppress the protests, but if it does so in the violent and intemperate way it suppressed the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, it will not only draw worldwide condemnation but severely damage Hong Kong’s economy. Through trade and commerce Beijing earns a lot of money from Hong Kong and will be determined that this position is maintained.

If it allows the protests to continue, it risks the same pro-democracy movement spreading to its mainland and cities, a fear which has been countered by the government’s shutting down of social media networks.

For the moment, Beijing seems to be relying on Hong Kong’s police to contain the demonstrations and to gradually reduce them with mass arrests, while keeping the People’s Liberation Army and its tanks in their barracks.

This is an opportunity for the Chinese government to show that it is a mature country fit to play a leading role on the world stage. It can demonstrate this by treating the protestors with respect. The agreement signed when Britain handed the colony to China promised democratic and free elections. That pledge should be honoured.

Standard