"those with nothing to hide...''

[Ian G Batten]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Watkin Simon wrote:
> If you were seeking to prove a sex-position crime then asking what
> sex-position someone used would be inviting them to self-incriminate
> themselves.  You wouldn't want that and you would expect anyone to do
> that :o)

Their silence can be taken as an admission of guilt, can it not, under
recent legislation?  The investigation alone would get into an enhanced
disclosure certificate, yes?

> Anyone read Chapter 4 and Annexes C-E of the Access paper yet?

Yes.

C4.  1.  Probably.

2.  My mother is well, and my apple-pie is baking nicely.

3.  Correct.  

4.  `[I]ntrusion of privacy is undertaken only when necessary'.  Was it
    `necessary' to release the names of the Lawrence inquiry witnesses?
    I suppose it must have been, as otherwise the government wouldn't
    have done it.  `Unjustified privacy violation...represent[s] a
    crime'.  Well, the release of the Lawrence witnesses' names _must_
    have been `necessary', as no one was charged in the aftermath.  Or
    am I missing something?

5.  `We value our privacy'.  Yes, government values its privacy and that
    of those in power.  It's the rest of us that don't get those rights,
    and therefore the phrase `We value your privacy' is notably absent.

9.  `Knowledge of processes'.  Why not have the agencies ISO9000
    accredited and show us their quality systems?

10. See the Lawrence inquiry.

11. I'm sure people who work closer to the NHS than I do will be
    laughing uproariously at this point.  Tony wants to keep his child's
    vaccination status private, but anyone and his dog in the NHS can
    find out my children's.

12. `[S]crutiny' and `sanctions' are the key words here.

13. None of which is currently true.  Especially, `protected', `redress'
    and `oversight'.

14. People should only have their privacy intruded upon after scrutiny
    of the requirement, and subject to an openly published code of
    practice.  Breaches of that code, or failure to seek scrutiny,
    should be punishable by up to ten years in jail.  Signing a warrant
    which is subsequently found to be excessive will result is
    dismissal, with no right of appeal.  In essence, incorrect invasion
    of privacy becomes a strict liability offence.  A panel of lay
    people, appointed on strict three year terms with no possibility of
    renewal and with very restricted powers of removal, will scrutinise
    a randomly chosen sample of requests.

15. Yes.  The question is para 14 and Annex E.  I put it to you that
    E(a) is the core question, and one which the government interprets
    one way for itself (when they want their own children kept out of
    the media) and one way for the rest of us (when we want the same
    rights). 

By the way, Annex C 1(i) is a joke, isn't it?  Or is the sale of CCTV
coverage of an identifiable person trying to kill themselves for the
titillation of television viewers the sort of `reasssurance' you had in
mind?  C 1(j) is simply untrue: it doesn't work with anything like the
reliability you appear to believe.  E(e) and E(g) requires us to believe
what ministers and civil servants say when discussing difficult topics:
does the name `Jo Moore' provide any insights as to how hard this is?

E(h) Yes.  That you regard it as a question, not as a given, shows the
agenda the government has.

ian