The problem is in the way we are only given certain bits of information, whichever bit best suits the purposes of the political party making the claim. Whether it be percentages, absolute numbers, comparable numbers, we don’t get all the relevant information so that we can actually draw a proper conclusion.

Before official statistics will be trusted, they need to be largely de-politicised, and used less as a politicial football – whether that be to attack the government or the Opposition parties. Whilst parties still manipulate stats to show just the bit that they want us to see, to put across their message (whatever it may be), and then use it as a blunt weapon with which to beat another party – who will then produce their own statistics based on slightly different information or with a different emphasis or analysis and reply in kind – trust in official figures will remain low.

The Office for National Statistics has a mountain to climb to get the public to trust official figures. But what it can do is publish all the raw data and all relevant figures of measures whenever the government publishes statistics. Then the public (or at least the press) can check the data themselves and see how it has been manipulated.

A few embarassing climb-downs over figures by political parties would soon encourage much less abuse of statistics for party political purposes. But it will be along time before “truth, the whole truth, and statistics” replaces “lies, damn lies, and statistics” in the public consciousness no matter what.

Plans to allow people’s details to be shared across government departments and agencies have been criticised as “draconian” in the Commons.

…

But he was accused of using the controversial inquest proposals, dropped last year from counter-terrorism legislation, as a “red rag” to attract attention while data-sharing proposals were “smuggled” in.

The Information Sharing Orders would remove data protection restrictions that mean information can only be used for the purpose it was taken.

Which were subsequently dropped after the idea was placed under the spotlight:

The government has revealed that it will ‘rethink’ a proposed law that would allow departments to demand information on citizens from businesses or other agencies, and use it in ways for which it was not originally intended.

The clause in the Coroners and Justice Bill, currently under evaluation by Parliament, would allow government departments to impose ‘information-sharing orders’ on public and private sector organisations, at the request of a minister.

The only requirement would be that the information-sharing order was in the interest of any stated policy directive.

Many groups, from NO2ID to the BCS, have criticised the clause, arguing that it would effectively grant the government unfettered access to citizens’ private information.

Well, Plan B to circumvent the Data Protection Act may have surfaced: rather than sharing data we will all have an “Integrated Citizen Record”. Via Ian Cuddy:

The project, being led by the Department for Communities and Local Government, is called EPDM, short for ‘Effective Partnership Data Management’.

Though sounding fairly innocuous, EPDM has been described by those involved in the project as the ‘silver bullet‘ for the public sector’s data sharing problems.

The remark came from consultants Xantura, who were commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government last year to develop what they called

‘a strategy and programme of work to challenge assumptions and constraints to the sharing of data between public sector agencies’.

The plan, it now transpires, is to give every individual an ”Integrated Citizen Record’ which will track their every interaction with government and trigger automatic alerts to other databases on any change.

At the centre of this is the ‘data-sharing platform’ which will enable police, councils, NHS bodies and other government agencies to exchange personal information they hold on citizens.

FFS. The price of Data Protection is constant vigilance.

Campaigning trousers – on.

Sigh.

The Police are asking people to provide a DNA sample in order to rule them out of an investigation into a rape and murder case.

I would be surprised if many people would be willing to give their DNA to the police, despite the seriousness of the crime. Simply because of the DNA database and the lack of any requirement for DNA of innocent people to be removed.

If I was asked to give my DNA to the police on a voluntary basis, I would refuse. They do not have the right to keep my DNA on file, and I will not give it to them voluntarily. If they want it, they’ll have to arrest me first!

Why do the police expect people to be willing to give them a DNA sample just because a crime has been committed? Under the current rules, they can then stick it on their files and keep it forever! Why should any law-abiding citizen have their DNA stored because they voluntary provided it in order to rule themselves out of an investigation?

Until this is solved, the police should consider themselves lucky if anyone volunteers their DNA in any situation.

But these people are innocent! They have either been cleared by a jury or not even charged with a crime. So why should their DNA be kept on a database for criminals?

There is an “official estimate” that

4,500 fewer offences [will be] detected on average each year – rising to 26,000 if the proposals are extended to the policies on retaining fingerprints, as planned.

Frankly, if the police aren’t capable of catching these people in the traditional way, they’re really not very good at their job, are they? This isn’t a justification for keeping innocent people’s DNA – just the first step down the (yellow paved?) road to a police state.

Watching Question Time last night, this question came up. Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray’s reponse effectively amounted to “all your DNA are belong to us” (as I tweeted at the time). Maybe that will form the core of their next manifesto, as he was suggesting that the Scottish limits should be set to match the current UK ones – or, as some moronic audience members suggested taken from us all (QT was in Brown’s constituency, natch).

The question of “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” as always comes up. The simple fact here being that there is no need for there to be a database with our DNA in at all. Name one good one, go on I dare you. Because there isn’t.

DNA of innocent people must be removed from the database immediately, not six or twelve years later. It is for criminals, not the law-abiding public.

Anyone who keeps a horse would have to pay to register their animal on a new Government database and take out compulsory insurance against disease, under Whitehall plans.

Ministers have drawn up a scheme for a new “central register” of all farm animals and horses as part of a new regime for preventing outbreaks of disease like foot and mouth and bluetongue.

Under Government proposals, owners would be obliged to pay an annual levy for every animal they own. (The Telegraph)

Seriously? A database of horses?! What is the point of that? And why should owners be forced to pay to have their details recorded on it?

I just can’t see what possible reasons theres can be to have this databse. Disease can be prevented in many ways – but not through databases. That’s nothing more than a bureaucrats dream.

ContactPoint, the database to include the details of all under-18s, will be accessible by more than 330,000 state workers. But the provision to hide all but the bare minimum information will be available only to people such as “celebrities, politicians and other high profile members of the public” – and not you or I.

Why should there be different rules for us than for them? We’re all equal. What reason is there for only politicians and “celebrities” to be able to hide their children’s details? Why shouldn’t everyone?

I can’t see any need for this expensive database in the first place. Especially with a price tag of £224 million. There’s rather a lot of better uses for that money.

What’s the point of this database? None.

This is a worse breach than any “Top Secret” government paper because it is the personal details of an indiviudal, provided solely for one reason.

Even though they have been returned “within three days”, this is still a serious breach. I can see no problem with ministers working on their red boxes whilst on a train, but they should be damn certain that they don’t leave anything behind if they do so. This was a breach caused by stupidity rather than poor procedure.

Purnell should apologise personally to the constituent involved and pay a fine at least equal to that paid by a civil sevant for a similar breach.

I think the government seriosuly needs to rethink it’s data privacy and data protection protocols, as they’re obviously not working.

Analysis shows that beyond the child benefit fiasco, Government departments were last year losing data at the rate of more than 300,000 people’s details a month in the year to April it emerged last night.

Among the losses were the National Insurance numbers of 17,000 people and the theft of a laptop with encrypted details of 17,000 Sats markers… (The Telegraph)

By department:

• Foreign Office: 190 people
• Department for Transport: 3 million (+)
• Ministry of Defence: 1 million (+)
• Ministry of Justice: 45,000
• Home Office: 3,000

Yes, we can trust the government with our personal data… Not.

Of course, this was all in addition to the massive amounts of data already lost by this government.

And now they have demoinstrated that data privacy really isn’t their strong point, as yet more has been lost.

And it’s not just Top Secret files being left on trains by careless and facelss Civil Servants, but a breach perpertuated by a Cabinet minister herself – Hazel Blears again.

Information on a computer stolen from Communities Secretary Hazel Blears’ office had been sent in breach of data security rules, it has emerged…

The stolen computer is understood to have contained one confidential document relating to the housing market from March this year, as well as other restricted documents…

Restricted government documents should not be held on a personal computer. (BBC)

Restricted government documents definitely shouldn’t be held on a personal computer. Especially if they contain sensitive departmental information on extremism.

Apparently, these were emailed to her in a way that was “not fully consistent with the departmental guidance.” Quite how, I can’t fathom. Emails can be accessed from any computer that connect to the internet, so the fault lies squarely with Hazel Blears and her downloading and storage of the information.

Labour obviously really don’t get the idea of data privacy. Maybe they should all do a course on it?

ID cards ‘could threaten privacy’

What do you mean could threaten privacy? They most certainly do! And beyond that, it is also possible to cliam that they don’t just “threaten” privacy, but they breach it.

ID cards are simply wrong. They are a massive – and completely unnecessary – intrusion in to our lives. Our lives do not belong to the governemnt, and neither does our information.

We are all far more than a magnetic strip or microchip in a plastic card.

I trust the government – not just this government, but any government – with my data about as far as I can throw them. Whilst it is not poissible for me to give the government none of my data, at least at the moment it is all separated amongst different databases and departments, so that it all cannot be stolen in one go.

The compulsory ID card scheme would unify all of my data in one place. And no databse or system is so secure as to be able to prevent all attempts to break in to it. Especially with this governments less-than-exemplary IT record.