NO2ID

I suspect this whole storm-in-a-teacup about data sharing this week has been too abstract for many people. It's hard for the man on the Clapman Omnibus to get excited about it without some concrete examples of the problems it could cause them personally.

So I've been casting around for examples. Here are a couple that NO2ID campaigners might use if this subject comes up:

1. Electoral Registers. For years, every council in the country took electoral registration data (which voters are obliged by law to provide) and sold it to private companies who used it for junk mailings. The exception was Westminster council - I believe they alone refused to sell machine-readable data.

This particular data-sharing abuse only stopped in 2002 after one Brian Robertson took a stand in Wakefield:

http://society.guardian.co.uk/e-public/ ... 21,00.html

As a result, individuals can now opt-out of having their countcil sell their personal details off the electoral register. Mr Robertson deserves a medal!

2. The DVLA takes car registration data (which again you are obliged to provide) and sells it to anyone who can pay for it:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/liv ... urce=&ct=5

This still goes on, although DVLA has been rattled enough by the bad publicity to hold a "review".

So the politicians are eager to talk about data sharing being "for your benefit", but it's likely that government will also stand to make money by "sharing" data which you are obliged to provide for a specific purpose for other purposes that you might not approve of.

Libby Purves wrote a particularly good piece about this in late 2005:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 65,00.html

Spy blog has more useful details:

http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org ... ld_to.html

Because it stands to make money, government is likely to be reluctant to stop "sharing" data in this and other ways.

Has anyone got any other examples? Particularly where the data is being sold?

Edit: Fixed spelling mistakes :-).

http://www.e-health-insider.com/news/item.cfm?ID=2425

something I suppose...

Example if you claim any benefit, unemployment benefit your data will be shared with the Inland Revue and the local council you are residing in. Even if you are not claiming housing benefit. You could ask why they need to have your data when you are not claiming a housing benefit?

The DWP will also make a record of you, if you apply for a job using their 08456060234 number. I asked could I get details of a job advertised on their website without having to give my name and address? I was informed by a line manager of the Telford call centre that this wouldn't be possible. This of course is a lie, my sister is an SEO with the DWP and she said I would still be allowed to access this service without having to give my personal details. As usual government organisations only give out information they would want you to have!!!

What they do is get your name and address, post code (they love the autofill saves on typing) date of birth and phone number and any disability your have and enquire if you are a lone parent and then send you out a leafltet thanking you for providing your details. I had to laugh at the lady on the other end of the phone, with the reply most people are happy to be included on this database, sounds like if you nothing to hide mantra. If everyone else jumped of Blackpool pier, it doesn't necessarily follow I would be inclined to follow!

I work in a benefit section.

We have data matching exercises which amongst other things match interest paid in tax years against the person or partner on the claim.
Where it looks like there has been interest on capital of more than £3000 in any year paid then it triggers a report and we have to check the claim to see if the account(s) have been declared.

The information provided is extremely detailed giving name of financial institution, account number and gross interest paid in each financial year. It usually refers to tax years about two and more years earlier.

Now this I suppose is justified where there is undeclared capital and benefit is being claimed fraudulently, and yes we do pick up several cases and raise overpayments on them. It is not pointed out to people when they claim a means tested benefit that this facility is in place so it comes as a shock to many of them. It also causes other problems as it often refers to earlier periods when they were not claiming benefit and they are then called upon to explain how they have disposed of the money.

The point I wish to illustrate is that under data sharing this info from the Inland Revenue about gross interest paid on bank/savings accounts would no doubt be included in the accessible info on the database.

Would you like the police (amongst other bodies) to know your financial standing when pulling up your records for a routine check. On the spot fine sir, you can afford to pay!