More abuse of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

Following on from my comments about Poole Council spying on familes (including a 3 year old) it seems that this is not a rare event.

It mow emergies that the abuse of counter terror/serious crime laws are being about 1000 times a month by councils (last year they made 12,494, request for this abuse, almost double of that of the previous year). The police made about 19,000 request and one local goverment body admited that councils and other goverment bodies will would soon be carrying out more of this survailance than the police! These are the same scum that will have access to the child index, contact point, socail care records (with data extracted from the Summary Care Record), phone records, who we email, web sites we visit and an ever growing intrusion into our lives.

It would now seem that laws to protect us from terrorist and serious crime is now used to watch where your dog shits,  what are they claiming? That dogs are now a bio hazzard and pose a significant threat to our security? If they are, then heaven help us with all the crap politians come out with these days!

And still they ask us to trust them. Still they say new powers will not be abused. Still they ask for more powers to invade our privacy and Still they lie to us every day. Do you really want these scum to get the chance to get hold of information about you?

Council uses Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to spy on famil

 

This is an example of how laws passed for one thing can be used for another. It seems that a council (Poole Borough Council) used laws for tracking terrorist to spy on a family to see if they really lived in a catchment area. It involved following the family in the daily business. I just hope none of them had to attend the local GUM clinic, doctors or any other health setting.

 

The law that was used, The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was meant to be used for fighting serious crime and terrorism. Under this they can intercept communications, carry out of surveillance and the use of covert human intelligence sources

 

When you consider the amount of data that is being shared with these people by the likes of the children’s act 2004, or the fact they are allowed to find out who we called people all over the UK should be worried.

 

We currently have the government saying that they intend to allow police to access the national NHS database for investigating terrorism and other serious crimes and they intend to share even more information for this reason. If this is their idea of serious crime, heaven help people.

 

This case just goes to show that councils around the UK, along with the police and every other government department are going to be looking into everything we do and be spying on people at every opportunity. If they are allowed to get away with this abuse then every council in the UK would be able to spy on applicants. Then again, this is just what the goverment, police, social services, council, jealth workers, researchers and every goverment department wants.

 

Whilst this council has admited 6 occations, it is not known from the article how many other councils will be abusing, sorry using these powers. Next time you tell the council something, just pray they dont use these powers on you.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7341179.stm

 

Types of people who ‘protect’ data

When it comes to medical privacy there is often a lot of talk from those who want to share/access identifiable data about how data will be protected and they can control access. Unfortunatley these are often grouped into 3 different groups.

1. There are those who have a low standard of protection. An example of this would be most GPs. GPs often tell patients that what they learn in the course of their work will go no further and their records are protected, yet a lot will often start telling people about tye patient so the information can get into the patients records, as one of my ex GPs said “doctors do not do notes, that is someone elses job”. In other words, the min the patient leaves, the GOP will tell someone else. I have also found that most calldicott Gaurdians come under this group. As with GPs, their standard of aproprate sharing of data is often far lower than what patients think and when it comes to privacy, they rarely, if ever, will hear both sides of any complaint, usually deciding to side with their friends who also have a low standard. This is further complicated in that they are often paid by the people they are overseeing even though this creates a conflict of interest. Who have to ask whos interest they have at heart, their own or that of the patient? Unfortunatly I have found they have the interest of their own at heart and most would rather protect the reputation of health workers and the NHS than tell the truth. This group of people are the low of the low as far as I am concerned. they lie to patients to obtain data/carry out examinations and when patients do get told they ether attempt to make the patient think it is for their own good and those patients that see past this Bull are given 2 simple choices, ’share or die’. This group will also often share data so that it can be passed to others for targets or payments. In some cases it will be identifiable but even if it is not, the people accessing the records to get it will have access to the identity of the patient.
2. There are those who think they have a high standard by are not aware of what is being shared. An example of this are some Calldicott Gaurdians and some health workers (not all are scum, just most). Some will tell you that when it comes to the police and social services they will tell them to ‘get stuffed’. Whilst this seems good, they are often unaware of data sharing. for example data from the new Summary Care Record in the NHS in England will be copied in a way that police and social services have access. This means that when they tell the police or SS to ‘get stuffed’, the police and SS will simply access the data from somewhere else (such as SUS) or they will alreday have the information anyway. At the same time anti-privacy laws/legislation in the UK is being introduced faster, meaning any promise about privacy is no protection. Other groups of people that come under this are those who work in Sexual Health Clinics. These people are often unaware that identifiable data can be shared with researchers, but I have to say that some will know but simply not tell the patient
3. The last, and by far the smallest group, are those who do protect data. These people are far and few between. they will store data in a way that others can not access and they will stand up to those who demand it. Some will even not record data. An example of this are some therapist. If you wanted some therapy, you can often tell the person you are seeing that you do not want anyone else to know what you are there for. Whilst some will refuse to see you unless you ‘consent’ to notes being kept others will agree not to keep notes (the disadvatage of keeping notes is that they can be accessed under some UK laws by others. Although this does not happen often, it is staill a risk). Some of those that demand they make notes willl often make them very brief and a broad outline.

No jail for data theft? Goverment backdown?

It would seem that the goverment want to back down on it’s plans for sending people to jail for breaching our privacy.

Comming at a time when the NHS are planning on sharing records online with even more people, you would think the goverment would want to take action.

The plan was to allow people to be sent to prison for breaches of the data protection act as at the moment all they get is a fine. What this means is that if someone steals your medical info, all they will get is a fine. Sending someone to prision would not undo the damage done to you, but it would be a deterent for reporters and others. Giving them juwst a fine is an insult and it goes to show that when it comes to privacy, the goverment do not take it seriousley.

To make things worse the goverment have been increasing the amount of people who know our information for years without the public knowing about it. Now that data is set to go national, they want to protect it even less. Whilst it is good to hear Harry Cayton complaining about the backdown it was dissapionting to here the goverment appoint patient rep (which makes him seem like a goverment rep) talking about how the NHS protects patient privacy, yet we all know that this is a load of bull and the NHS have been expanding the amount of data they share for years. It is not much use talking about legal protecting data when the goverment are doing away with privacy at a much faster rate.

And some people wonder why I take extra steps to secure my medical records. Here is a tip for those that store private data PROTECT IT! In the US and other countries you can be executed for commiting murder, that does not stop murder so why expect a fine or even sending people to prision will stop data theft?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/02/nhs.privacy

http://www.e-health-insider.com/news/3614/patient_tsar_backs_tougher_data_theft_laws

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/01/media.privacy?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Cancer patient privacy

It is not very often I back a goverment/NHS body, but when they do something worth backing, I think it is right to back them.

It has been reported in the news that the Common Services Agency  (CSA) in Scotland are refusing to share patient data with the public. The CSA are going to the House of Lords to stop people who are meant to protect our privacy from sharing data which could lead to patients being identified. What chance do we have of privacy when even those that are meant to protect our privacy, such as the Scottish Information Commissoner are willing to risk our privacy so MPs and the public can get hold of confidential data?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/7327914.stm