Striking the Right Balance between Privacy and Public Protection

[David Hansen]

On 16 Oct 2002 at 13:59, Watkin Simon wrote:

> the need for intrusion is clear

The need for intrusion is debatable. It has been debated on this list 
before. This is the first I have seen of any attempt by the Home 
Office to have such a debate in the light of their rather belated 
claim that they want to have one, which only seems to have come about 
to hide the embarrassment of a party politician.

Starting off with such assertions is not a good way to have a useful 
debate. 

> and would be proportionate 

That appears to be a promise.

However, we know that government promises are worth precisely 
nothing. Readers may recall that we were told a number of things 
about RIP that appear to have been false, as demonstrated by the 
attempt to extend the access provisions to every Tom, Dick and 
Harriet in local and UK government, together with a  number of semi-
government bodies. Readers may recall many other government promises 
in their own fields of interest that remain unfulfilled.

The assumption that the activities of local and UK government are 
proportionate is at best debatable. Matrix Churchill, Guinness, 
Railtrack and Stefan Kiszko are names to ponder on.

> and for redress and sanctions if (when) abuse of power occurs, should
> operate

RIP contains no redress or sanctions for abuse of "power", no matter 
how bad that abuse is.

If the Home Office is seriously taking a look at this "flaw", which 
was pointed out to the Home Office before they were foolish enough to 
put this "law" to the Westminster Parliament, then that is good. Of 
course it would have been better to address this issue to begin with.


Is there a consultation, or a "consultation" on RIP? The former is 
worthwhile, the latter simply a way of wasting activists' time and 
diverting them from more productive uses of their time.

An example of "consultation" was the Scottish Office National Roads 
Directorate's seminar on "consultation". Their flip chart of "the 
consultation process" showed a number of paths, but all these paths 
led to one point, which was labelled "build road". The officials 
appeared incapable of understanding that what they were outlining had 
nothing to do with consultation, but was instead a smoke screen to 
"legitimise" a decision that had already been taken.



--
  David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will *always* explain why I revoke a key, unless the UK 
 government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.