Monday, November 03, 2003
http://www.fipr.org/ is the web address of
The Foundation for Information Policy Research, an independent body founded in
1998 to study the interaction between IT and society, to commission and
undertake research into public policy alternatives, and promote public
understanding and dialogue between technologists and policy-makers in
the UK and Europe.
Their current press release:30 October 2003 - on UK proposals for
"Electronic life records".
"FIPR has called on the government to ensure that a new electronic
database of life events -- births, marriages, deaths etc. -- supports
rather than reduces privacy and liberty.
"In a response to the Office of National Statistics' consultation on
their plans for such a database, FIPR said that:
* This proposal amounts to establishing the foundations for a compulsory
dossier on every citizen. Once begun, it would develop its own momentum
as agencies discovered new advantages. Fraud and crime prevention could
be argued to justify the inclusion of information relating to social
security benefits, tax, passports, drivers' licences, criminal records
and much else. Public health considerations might be argued to justify
extension of the snapshot of information about the cause of death to an
accumulation of information about health events during life. The
protection of children might be argued to justify linkage with
information accumulated by social services departments. The needs of the
war on terrorism seem capable of being used to justify almost anything.
* The proposed database is already intended to store information that
goes beyond its stated purpose. It is difficult to see the justification
for including occupations, ranks and professions of brides, grooms and
their parents, or causes of death, within the registration system.
* Simpler measures could be cheaper, less invasive and more effective.
For example, a basic registry of deaths would allow the Passport Agency
to check applications for fraud.
* Paper records provide historical evidence that is hard to
retrospectively alter. Any computer database proposed to replace these
records must be very carefully designed to ensure that it prevents
information being altered after the fact.
Nicholas Bohm, author of the response, commented: "The government must
avoid the risks of turning the register of births into a set of
comprehensive dossiers on every citizen." He added: "We should not be
moving towards a system where our very identity is dependent on
registration by the Government in a central database."
The Foundation for Information Policy Research, an independent body founded in
1998 to study the interaction between IT and society, to commission and
undertake research into public policy alternatives, and promote public
understanding and dialogue between technologists and policy-makers in
the UK and Europe.
Their current press release:30 October 2003 - on UK proposals for
"Electronic life records".
"FIPR has called on the government to ensure that a new electronic
database of life events -- births, marriages, deaths etc. -- supports
rather than reduces privacy and liberty.
"In a response to the Office of National Statistics' consultation on
their plans for such a database, FIPR said that:
* This proposal amounts to establishing the foundations for a compulsory
dossier on every citizen. Once begun, it would develop its own momentum
as agencies discovered new advantages. Fraud and crime prevention could
be argued to justify the inclusion of information relating to social
security benefits, tax, passports, drivers' licences, criminal records
and much else. Public health considerations might be argued to justify
extension of the snapshot of information about the cause of death to an
accumulation of information about health events during life. The
protection of children might be argued to justify linkage with
information accumulated by social services departments. The needs of the
war on terrorism seem capable of being used to justify almost anything.
* The proposed database is already intended to store information that
goes beyond its stated purpose. It is difficult to see the justification
for including occupations, ranks and professions of brides, grooms and
their parents, or causes of death, within the registration system.
* Simpler measures could be cheaper, less invasive and more effective.
For example, a basic registry of deaths would allow the Passport Agency
to check applications for fraud.
* Paper records provide historical evidence that is hard to
retrospectively alter. Any computer database proposed to replace these
records must be very carefully designed to ensure that it prevents
information being altered after the fact.
Nicholas Bohm, author of the response, commented: "The government must
avoid the risks of turning the register of births into a set of
comprehensive dossiers on every citizen." He added: "We should not be
moving towards a system where our very identity is dependent on
registration by the Government in a central database."
Comments:
Post a Comment
