Chapter 4

[Ian G Batten]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Watkin Simon wrote:

> That's a inclusive societal "we" not an exclusive Governmental "we".  "Our
> privacy" means yours and mine. 

I think it should be made explicit.  We value of privacy of ordinary
citizens, not just Jack Straw and Catherine Zeta Jones (now there's an
image).

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

Quite.  The publication of the process documentation as part of an
ISO9001:2000 accreditation (and yes, I know that 9001 merely insists
that you have a process to manage your documentation: I would hope for
the spirit, not the letter) and perhaps conformance to ISO 15489 would
be a good idea.

> > 10. See the Lawrence inquiry.
> 
> Even TQM systems make mistakes.

They do (although TQM isn't exactly the hip phrase these days).  But
they do try to know that they have made a mistake by comparison with
published processes.

> >     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.
> 
> That's an idea.

I think that, given people who were engergised but not part of `the
establishment', it would probably allay some of the concerns of the
concerned.  Although the Skipjack experience isn't good, I must admit.

> > 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?
> 
> You mean Annex D.  And no.  You know full well that's not what I mean. The
> ECHR found in favour of that person.  Personally I find it disgraceful that
> a public authority exploited that footage in the way it did.

But they did, and no one thought while doing it that it was wrong, and
no one was sanctioned, dismissed, charged, penalised, told off,
_anything_ about it.  Never mind the law, and never mind the codes of
practice: that was just a nasty, spiteful piece of behaviour by people
who should be sanctioned just out of basic humanity.  Perhaps the
sanction should be that their every waking moment for the next five
years should be broadcast live on the Internet.

> >  C 1(j) is simply untrue: it doesn't work with anything like the
> > reliability you appear to believe.
> 
> On what text do you base "my" apparent belief in the effectiveness or
> reliability of AFR?

I actually don't see it as a privacy issue, because it's unlikely to
work like that.  It's an issue for mistaken identity, though.

> >  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?

> I'm not sure that's an answer to the questions.

The more ministers protest that their motives are pure, the less they
are believed.  The behaviour of the DoT over the Jo Moore affair is very
pertinent.  She did something which, legality aside, was just loathsome
at a human level.  She refused to apologise, and never did (``If I
caused offence I am sorry'' is not an apology), and her minister was
apparently completely powerless to do anything other than continue to
defend her.  He later lamented that he had been ``unable'' to discipline
her, which does rather make being a Cabinet minister and head of a
department rather pointless.  Had she immediately apologised, we could
all have moved on.  But the clear impression was given that the Civil
Service and Ministers will never, ever discipline people for breaking
basic rules of civilised conduct, absent a stated policy that ``using
major disasters involving thousands of dead people for petty department
ends isn't acceptible''.

Given that culture, a bland statement that ``we will value your
privacy'' isn't plausible, because when it comes it it, there will be a
great deal of weaseling to show that on this occasion, it was actually
perfectly OK.  The only way to control the government with major powers
is independent oversight, because you cannot trust them (a) not to abuse
the powers or (b) to discipline people afterwards.

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

> What agenda?  Can't you ever recognise progress when you see it?  It's

The consultation document is progress.  I recognise that.

> always got to be the negative comment hasn't it.  It's a question to be

I think, Simon, that you are paying the price for a government of spin.
You probably don't understand the cynicism with which almost everything
government says and does is received amongst quite a significant sector
of the population.

> answered - the consultation gives you and everyone else the opportunity to
> answer it, to say loudly that "yes, unlawful privacy violation should be
> treated as a crime, do something about it, rather more than the DPA". 

And say that I will.  However, it would be nice to know of a single
instance of anyone being disciplined, if only internally, for such
mis-use, to prove that there are people who really think that it is
wrong.  There's no point in passing a law if it'll never be used.

> If it was in as a given, you'd only say "we don't believe you".

If it were [subjunctive, posh stuff this Molesworth hem hem] in as a
given, and made it to the draft legislation, I'd be very, very happy.  I
have a feeling that concrete proposals in the consultation document are
far more likely to make the statute book this time around, simply
because they are worked through.  Anything coming from consultation will
have to make it into the bill from a standing start.

ian