Posts Tagged ‘Conservatives’
Internet tax plan shelved until election
Posted by: Gadget Boy in Technology on August 17th, 2009
• No enthusiasm for £6 levy to pay for fast broadband
• Business leaders warn of cost of ignoring rural areas
The government looks ready to ditch controversial plans to tax phone lines to pay for next-generation broadband internet.
Labour MPs are concerned about levying the £6-a-year tax on consumers so close to a general election, while parliamentary convention means the government would require support for the measures before putting them in the pre-election budget. The Conservatives, however, have little appetite for a so-called broadband tax.
Dumping the plan would be one of Stephen Timms's first moves as the new minister in charge of the Digital Britain ideas announced in June. "When you face a general election you tend to have a short finance bill before the election and a longer one afterwards. It [the levy] is unlikely to make it through the short finance bill without Opposition support and that does not look likely … In that case, it would have to wait until after the election," he said.
Asked if that meant the levy was unlikely to happen, he said: "Possibly, yes."
The idea of levying 50p a month on every UK phone line to pay for new super-fast broadband surprised many in the industry when it was proposed in Lord Carter's final Digital Britain report in June.
When Timms replaced Carter, executives hoped that as he was retaining his place in the Treasury, while also taking up a role within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, meant he would push hard for the levy. But the fact that the government now seems to have abandoned its plan means that Britain is likely to lag far behind many of its competitors. Other countries such as Australia have proposed using government cash to help build super-fast networks.
Adam Marshall, of the British Chambers of Commerce, said: "Both political parties need to find a consensus about how the next generation of broadband will be delivered, regardless of who is in Downing Street. Businesses need sustained, efficient infrastructure investment in place to deliver growth and jobs."
Clive Davenport, of the Federation of Small Businesses, said: "The government must secure funding to ensure the next generation of broadband speeds is put in place … This is vital if we want the country to be internationally competitive."
Virgin Media and BT have been introducing super-fast networks that allow consumers to download music tracks in seconds and DVD-quality movies in minutes. But there is little economic case to push this expensive infrastructure into rural areas – the broadband tax would have provided several billion pounds for this.
Under the Digital Britain plan, these networks would have been open to any company that wanted to use them. The fact that the levy appears dead in the water means that most rural areas are likely to have to wait many years before they see anything other than a basic service.
The Country Land & Business Association said: "If the promised 50p-a-month levy is not implemented quickly, the digital divide between urban areas and the countryside will become even greater."
The Tories, however, have no desire to support a new tax before an election. They believe BT should open the ducts that house local phone lines so rivals can install their fibre-optic cables. Industry experts do not believe this will be sufficient to push super-fast networks much beyond the half of the country that is already served by Virgin Media and will be served by BT in the next few years.
Cameron says sorry for ‘twat’ comment
Posted by: Gadget Boy in Technology on July 30th, 2009
Tory leader apologises for any offence caused by remark about Twitter
The Conservative leader, David Cameron, today apologised for any offence caused after he used the word "twat" during a breakfast radio show interview.
When Absolute Radio host Christian O'Connell asked him about his views on Twitter, the Tory leader said: "The trouble with Twitter, the instantness of it – too many twits might make a twat."
He compounded the slip-up when he said people were "pissed off – sorry, I can't say that in the morning – angry with politicians".
While Cameron's aides pointed out that twat is not a swear word under radio guidelines and said he had apologised immediately for his latter comment, he later expressed contrition for his use of bad language.
"You always have to be careful what you say. If I've caused any offence I obviously regret that," he told Sky News.
Attempting to play down the incident, he added: "I was doing a radio interview and I'm sure that people will understand that."
There was further embarrassment for Cameron when a podcast featuring highlights from the Absolute Radio breakfast show was released.
It includes a preamble to the interview by O'Connell in which he said Cameron's press secretary, Gabby Bertin, "leapt out of her skin" after the questionable language.
He also revealed details of what he said was an exchange between Cameron and Bertin after the interview, saying: "He said: 'That seemed to go OK.' She said: 'Yeah, apart from the language.'
"He said: 'Oh, yeah, pissed, sorry about that, I'm really sorry.' But he said people are pissed off with politicians, which they are. I think that is choice language well used personally, from my point of view.
"She said: 'No, it was the twat.' He said: 'That's not a swear word.' I think he must be posh, where a lot of them don't think twat is a swear word. His press secretary went: 'It is.'"
O'Connell praised the twat comment as "fantastic".
One of the presenter's colleagues on the breakfast team, Brian Murphy, blogged: "As for his comments about Twitter – it's a one-liner Jimmy Carr would have been proud of.
"So far, I haven't had any complaints about his language, other than from a gbrown1099@hotmail.com."
Gary McKinnon case: Trying him in UK is the compelling resolution
Posted by: Gadget Boy in Technology on July 16th, 2009
Britain should resist US attempts to extradite the computer hacker
Were 59 Labour MPs right to vote yesterday to "abandon" the computer hacker Gary McKinnon?
Or were they spineless hypocrites to vote the way they did, as today's Mail thunders across page one?
Strictly speaking, neither. The Conservative motion, defeated by 290 votes to 236 after a two-hour debate, had called on the government to review the 2003 Extradition Act "in the light of a series of high profile cases" with a view to amending it.
Nothing to do with McKinnon, then, but everything to do with him, too.
Some 84 Labour MPs had signed Commons motions urging a review or that he be kept in Britain. Yesterday, 15 abstained, 59 backed the government, and only 10 – mostly regular troublemakers, plus Keith Vaz – backed the opposition.
Hence the Mail's fury, although Speaker Bercow, presumably seeking to improve the topicality of debate (and avoid the paper's wrath?) waived the strict interpretation of the sub judice rules so MPs could make passing reference to the 43-year-old hacker's running legal battle to avoid that transatlantic flight.
As far as I can see, few other papers gave the debate much attention. That's their right.
Few – certainly not the Mail – gave much attention to Nick Davies's dramatic evidence to a Commons select committee this week of the complicity of senior News of the World executives in illegal phone interceptions.
In a free country, free media is free to pick and choose. To my surprise it didn't give as much attention as it should have done (says me) to today's sharp rise in unemployment either. A total of 2.38 million is a 14-year high.
But the Mail's hectoring – part of its current campaign to save McKinnon from a US jail – finally prompted me to take another look.
This morning, I read the debate online, snatches of which I half-heard on the Commons TV feed while working yesterday.
I'm still inclined to say he should be tried here for his (admitted) offences, but it was an illuminating debate.
Needless to say, there are points on both sides. Alan Johnson, our new home secretary, was not as complacent as the Mail suggests today – a "geezerish" disregard for justice – but his speech suggested he wasn't prepared to take on the aggravation of reversing earlier decisions.
I've followed the case in the way most of us do most things: get the drift, but not the vital details.
Back in 2001-2002, McKinnon got into 97 US military and NASA computers on some strange quest of his own, causing what US prosecutors call "the biggest military computer hack of all time".
When traced by Britain's national hi-tech crime unit, he was charged by US authorities.
But extradition proceedings only began after the signing of the 2003 US/UK extradition treaty and consequent legislation, the 2003 Extradition Act, which – this bit's important – went beyond the UK/US dimension and sought to improve sluggish extradition procedures with all sorts of respectable countries.
Most noticeable was the European arrest warrant (EAW), the aspect that excited most Tory MPs at the time.
In fairness, the Lib Dems have consistently been opposed to the lack of precise "reciprocity" between the US requirement (in the 1787 constitution) of evidence to suggest "probable cause" that X committed the alleged crime, and the US's modified request – to all acceptable jurisdictions – for "reasonable suspicion" of the offence.
It's a lower test than the old "prima facie" evidence and lower than the US version, the then home office minister Patricia Scotland (now the attorney general) admitted at the time.
Johnson argued this week ("I ... am no lawyer, just a hack politician, I go by the advice I get") that the two are roughly comparable. As a hack hack, I tend to agree. But the problem doesn't end there.
Government loyalists argue that faster extradition, including the EAW, has been good for Britain, enabling 300 or so serious bad guys to be brought back and convicted as a result – not least Hussain Osman, the failed 21/7 bomber who fled to Italy but left a mobile phone trail.
Tory MPs complain that some EU countries have pretty ropey legal procedures, though some feel a bit that way about ours, too.
The French had to fight for a decade to get hold of Rachid Ramda so they could sentence him to life for his part in the 1995 Paris Metro bombings. He fought extradition from London.
There are three problems with the US, said Chris Grayling, the new shadow home secretary: one, mission creep – a change supposedly intended to help get hold of 9/11 terrorists – is being extended to much lesser crimes, including hijacking, most of which can be tried here (and are).
He's wrong about that bit: the 2003 treaty revisions were under discussion before 9/11. But the US does seem to seek universal jurisdiction over internet cases. It shouldn't.
Two, the question of where best to try a case – the "forum" argument. Did McKinnon's hacking take place here – physically, it did – or where he did the damage: to computers in the US?
For some reason, the CPS decided it didn't have enough evidence to make a case here. Pity – it would have saved £1m or so in legal fees and a lot of heartache for a man described by his friends as a vulnerable loner.
And three, the aforementioned imbalance in evidential requirements, the "reciprocity" issue.
I suspect that may be a red herring, partly the result of gut anti-Americanism and distaste for such policies as capital punishment (if that was a prospect here, Johnson would legally be bound not to extradite McKinnon).
I find that puzzling. We talk a lot about national sovereignty, in courts as elsewhere, and denounce outside interference in our affairs or those of others.
Yet we cheerfully tell them what's wrong with their legal systems. If you kill someone in the US or import drugs in Thailand, local law says you risk being executed. Lesson? Don't do it.
That said, I am about to interfere, too.
John Gummer, the Tory ex-cabinet minister, put it well when he complained that US law officers are too keen to get people they don't like "off the street" and that disturbingly high punishments – by European standards – are routine in many states.
So is plea bargaining, in which an accused facing a huge sentence offers a guilty plea in return for a lighter one.
Plea bargaining has its place in any system. In the US, it has long since passed the healthy stage and is routinely abused.
What's more, a "political" offender there can resist extradition, the definition decided by government officials, not (as here) by the courts.
The IRA lobby is still powerful over there. Yet the only extradition case to get the high-profile attention McKinnon has received – that of the NatWest Three, accused of bank fraud – went quite well.
The trio lost their appeals, ended up in Texas, but were given bail and their case decided quite quickly. They pleaded guilty (that naughty plea bargaining again?) and got 37 months, most of which they are now serving in British jails.
Does that mean we can safely ship out McKinnon? I don't think so, and I don't care if the Mail agrees with me.
McKinnon's geeky offence was relatively minor whatever the unintended consequences, and might have got him a few months in jail from British magistrates, not the up to 70 years stuff that US prosecutors apparently threaten (that plea bargaining racket again?)
McKinnon is clearly a vulnerable person, and the Labour MP Denis MacShane was wrong to hint that his late diagnosis with Asperger's Syndrome (a from of autism) in 2008 should be treated as suspicious. US prisons are very bad places.
Last but not least, the British authorities – courts, DPP and Home Office – should be able to find a way of putting him on trial here.
Johnson says he can't intervene, but I suspect he could try harder. It's a terrifying job he has – minefields every day – but the lawyers will see him right.
Failing that, ministers should seek assurances of a fair and speedy trial with any sentence to be served at home. Apparently the Israelis and Dutch have managed that, so Whitehall can, too. However, that sounds a bit feeble, so the former option – trying McKinnon in this country – is the compelling resolution.
Let us hope the Mail's campaign is not counter-productive, making it harder for something to happen that ought to happen.
Alan Johnson, of all people, must be aware of this possibility. He might have been prime minister by now ...
A ban on antisocial networking
Posted by: Gadget Boy in Technology on July 15th, 2009
The Tories think asbos haven't worked, but is the answer really to confiscate teenagers' mobile phones?
The Conservative party plans to clamp down on teenage troublemakers by taking away their mobile phones.
"There is a minority which causes real problems ... They disrupt our public places. They commit acts of vandalism which disfigure our communities," Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, told the Centre for Policy Studies. He wants them to face a quick punishment "that impacts on their lives and makes them think again".
But will it work? Which items would you remove from young troublemakers to get them to behave? Or is this type of "get tough" language wrongheaded, serving only to demonise our kids? Do the Tories need to get back to hugging hoodies again?
Tories to force vote on McKinnon case
Posted by: Gadget Boy in Technology on July 15th, 2009
Shadow home secretary hopes MPs will tell government that hacker should be tried in UK not US
The Conservatives will today use a Commons vote to signal their opposition to the proposal to extradite Gary McKinnon to the US to face trial for hacking into American military computers.
Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said he hoped MPs would "send a message" to the government that McKinnon, who has Asperger's syndrome, ought to be put on trial in the UK and not in the US, where he faces a sentence of up to 60 years.
McKinnon is still using the courts to try to block his extradition and MPs will not vote directly on his case. But the Tories have tabled a motion expressing "very great concern" about the way the extradition system is working and calling for the Extradition Act 2003 to be reformed "at the earliest opportunity".
The Tories are hoping that the Liberal Democrats and some Labour MPs will support them when the Commons votes on the motion this afternoon.
Ministers claim that the act, which affects extradition between the UK and the US, has benefited both countries and that the government does not have the power to stop McKinnon being sent to face trial in the US.
McKinnon, who is being backed by a high-profile Daily Mail campaign, yesterday asked the high court to overturn the refusal of Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, to put him on trial in the UK on charges of computer misuse. If there were no UK prosecution, McKinnon would inevitably be extradited to stand trial in the US, the judges heard.
The court reserved judgment and said it hoped to give a decision in writing by the end of July.
McKinnon has admitted computer hacking and leaving a message in US military systems saying "I will continue to disrupt", but his lawyers said his intention was only to cause "temporary impairment", not lasting damage to the system.
They argue that his extradition would lead to "disastrous consequences", including possible psychosis and suicide, because of his medical condition, which is on the autistic spectrum.
This morning Grayling told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "People on the autistic spectrum find it very difficult to deal with a big change in surroundings. To extradite somebody in that position to the US to a strange environment is undoubtedly going to cause health issues for Gary McKinnon. In the past, where there have been similar cases, we have seen trials take place in the UK.
"There is no doubt that an offence has been committed; Gary McKinnon has admitted that. But why on earth is this trial not taking place in the UK?
"I hope the House of Commons will send a message to the government that really this is not what the extradition system is supposed to do. These new rules were set up for very serious offences, for terror offences. I don't believe parliament ever intended them to be used to extradite somebody with autism issues to face a charge like this.
"There are some suggestions that the home secretary has more powers to intervene than have so far been used."
But the Home Office dismissed this claim. It said that the home secretary did not have the power to block McKinnon's extradition.
"The case of Gary McKinnon remains before the courts. As such it would not be appropriate for us to comment on it in detail, except to say that this case has been subjected to the closest attention and to the greatest possible procedural fairness. The home secretary [then Jacqui Smith] gave very careful consideration before deciding in July 2006 to order extradition," the statement said.
"It is important to be clear that under the terms of the Extradition Act 2003, the home secretary must order extradition unless certain limited conditions are met. The courts have already said that those conditions are not met in Mr McKinnon's case; and his attempts to defeat the US request have since been dismissed by the high court, the House of Lords and the European court of human rights.
"The information that must be provided by both the United States and the United Kingdom is effectively the same. The United Kingdom must demonstrate 'probable cause' to the United States courts, while the United States must demonstrate 'reasonable suspicion' to ours.
"Extradition is a key crime-fighting measure in our increasingly globalised world and, within what the law permits, we give maximum assistance to all of our extradition partners."
Tories: Punish thugs by taking phones
Posted by: Gadget Boy in Technology on July 14th, 2009
• 'Simple' approach urged to fight antisocial behaviour
• Proposal would increase crime, says Home Office
Young troublemakers should have their phones or bikes confiscated by the police if they indulge in antisocial behaviour, Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said today .
Grayling, deploying a more populist touch than his predecessor, Dominic Grieve, has already proposed that troublemakers should be grounded, describing it as "the 21st-century version of a clip around the ear". The Home Office said it had looked at taking away young people's property, but rejected the plan as liable to increase crime.
Grayling risks his proposal for the confiscation of phones being ridiculed as the kind of populist gimmick that got Tony Blair into trouble when he proposed marching young thugs to cash machines for instant fines.
But he proposed, in a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies, that "the Nokia generation" should have their sim cards removed by the police for as long as a month so they would be unable to make calls or send texts. He also proposed that troublemakers' bikes should be removed. Grayling said: "The name of the game has to be simplicity and speed. Not a response that takes months of complex bureaucracy, like getting an asbo. Not a response that puts a teenage troublemaker before the courts for a minor offence. But a consequence that impacts on their lives and makes them think again."
He did not spell out what evidence would be required by the police before they could confiscate someone's property.
"There is a minority which causes real problems, stirs up fears of trouble and ends up tarring all young people with the same brush. They disrupt our public places. They commit acts of vandalism which disfigure our communities. And in the worst cases they cause huge nuisance and disruption to entire areas and ruin the lives of the people who live there," he said.
He also proposed that the police be given greater discretion in how they deal with troublemakers.
Alan Johnson, the home secretary, has admitted the government has been coasting on antisocial behaviour.
Grayling suggested a Tory government would not pursue asbos, regarding them as slow to implement.
He tried to balance his attacks on the behaviour of youngsters with David Cameron's concern for the "broken society" by conceding that local crime figures showed the areas most seriously affected by social problems were most likely to experience serious antisocial behaviour and to see significant levels of teenage crime.
"The links between family breakdown, welfare dependency, addiction, educational failure, and minor and more serious disorder are absolute," he said.
He backed plans to increase reparation orders. "If you kick over the neighbour's fence, not only should you or your parents have to pay for it to be repaired, you should also face a simple punishment – like picking up litter for three Saturdays in the local park," he said.
The Conservatives also highlighted figures showing that police recorded 3.9m acts of antisocial behaviour last year, the equivalent of 95,890 people being intimidated every day.
Yobbish neighbours accounted for more than 250,000 complaints, while malicious and nuisance calls accounted for 190,000. There were a further 150,000 hoax calls to the emergency services, and 76,000 complaints about antisocial behaviour relating to animals, such as fouling and barking.
There were 160,000 complaints about abandoned vehicles and 66,000 complaints about drunken and rowdy behaviour in the street.
Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "Community punishments should involve local people and not just be about policemen snatching phones and bikes from children."
Cameron: Patients should store health records with Google or Microsoft
Posted by: Gadget Boy in Technology on July 6th, 2009
Lib Dems complain that plan could give Google undue commercial advantage
Patients would be encouraged to store their medical records with companies like Google and Microsoft under plans being drawn up by the Conservatives.
David Cameron wants people to use services like Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault, which both operate in the US, as an alternative to the £12bn national patient record database ordered by the government.
But the Liberal Democrats have complained that the plan could give Google undue commercial advantage.
Cameron has repeatedly cited Labour's planned electronic patient record database as an example of how centralised government programmes can go wrong. The database is not due to be ready until 2014, four years behind schedule.
At the recent Conservative spring conference in Cheltenham, the Tory leader said that his party would have adopted a different approach to the issue of how to improve access to patient records in the internet era.
"We would have said, 'Today you don't need a massive central computer to do this,'" he said. "People can store their health records securely online; they can show them to whichever doctor they want. They're in control, not the state.
"And when they're in control of their own health records, they're more interested in their health, so they might start living more healthily, saving the NHS money. But, best of all in this age of austerity, a web-based version of the government's bureaucratic scheme services – like Google Health or Microsoft HealthVault – costs virtually nothing to run."
The Tories are still working out how this proposal could be implemented. One problem is that the Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault systems would need to be adapted for them to work in Britain.
Under the plan, it is thought that patients would be given the option of storing their records with private companies but they would not have to do so. Patients would also be given a choice of private provider, meaning that no one company would get a monopoly.
A Conservative party spokesman today refused to discuss the proposal in detail. He said that an independent review of NHS computing services being carried out for the party was due to report within the next few weeks and that the party would say more about its plans then.
The proposal has aroused controversy because of Cameron's close links to Google. Steve Hilton, his most important policy adviser, is married to Rachel Whetstone, a senior Google communications executive.
Norman Lamb, the Lib Dem health spokesman, told the Times: "It leaves a nasty taste in the mouth that there are repeated references to Google, given the closeness of Team Cameron to that organisation, and it leaves concerns about commercial advantage."
MPs’ expenses prove surprise web hit
Posted by: Gadget Boy in Technology on June 21st, 2009
The response has been enormous, the results intriguing and, thanks to the efforts of many thousands of Guardian readers, not one MP who has put in a dodgy expenses claim can think about relaxing just yet.
In a groundbreaking "crowd-sourcing" exercise, the Guardian appealed for help in sifting through the huge amount of data on MPs' expenses that was unleashed at the end of last week. Almost 20,000 people have taken part in gathering facts for the online project and about 160,000 pages have been examined.
It is early days – the 457,153 pages of data were only uploaded at the end of last week – but fascinating details have been thrown up that merit further investigation:
• Why did one MP claim thousands of pounds to commission a poll to find out what his constituents thought about a major development involving a supermarket and football club?
• Why was a claim by Caroline Flint fully blanked out except the date, March 2008, and the amounts - four claims each of exactly £352.50, a total of £1,410?
• Why did a male MP claim for a woman's handbag?
Curious glimpses into the lives of politicians from different parts of the Commons have been afforded. The average food claim for a Labour member is £561, the preliminary data suggests. The average for a Tory is a more modest £402; for a Liberal Democrat it is a mere £210. The figures will change as more pages are looked at and it is not yet possible to determine the exact time periods covered by these claims.
But still it is irresistible to have a quick peek at, say, the soft furnishings running scores. The Tories are topping this chart with an average claim of £618, ahead of the Lib Dems (£538) and Labour (£448).
On the other hand, Liberal Democrat MPs seem to be topping the table when it comes to claiming mortgages and rents. Preliminary figures show their average claim is £2,818, compared with £1,938 for the Tories and £1,306 for Labour.
All this will take much more careful analysis but shows the power of "citizen journalists" and provides something of a riposte to one Telegraph commentator who dismissed the idea that a "collective of Kool-Aid slurping Wikipedians" could conduct "rigorous analysis necessary for the recent MPs' expenses investigation".
The Guardian's exercise, made possible by the installation of a new web framework, has attracted interest from around the world. "We NEED something like this in India," is just one eye-catching tweet.
Safeguarding the public’s privacy
Posted by: Gadget Boy in Technology on September 16th, 2009
The Conservatives will check the rise of the surveillance state. We will scrap invasive databases and protect personal privacy
The government is backtracking furiously after casually announcing a vetting system that would force one in four adults to prove they are not paedophiles before they can carry out voluntary work with children. But this latest encroachment of the surveillance state is symptomatic of a far deeper problem.
We have seen ID cards introduced and a DNA database that holds samples on almost a million innocent people, not to mention the widespread use of surveillance powers for inappropriate purposes – like monitoring the permits of paper boys, or following children home from school to check their catchment area. Bit by bit, the government has ushered in a sea-change in the relationship between the citizen and the state. None of this has made us safer; since 1997, police-recorded violent crime has nearly doubled, the terrorist threat has risen to an all-time high and antisocial behaviour remains a scourge in many towns and cities.
Surveillance legislation passed in good faith has been stretched well beyond its original purpose. Meanwhile, the government has robotically relied on databases to provide an inadequate substitute for human judgment and care in delivering public services and protecting the public. The Baby P case shows how dangerous such a false sense of security can be. Equally, the Soham murders might have been prevented if proper reference checks had been completed.
The government's flawed approach has also led to a series of database fiascos – exposing us to more, not less, risk – culminating in the Treasury losing the entire nation's child benefit records in the post. Little wonder that nine out of 10 people do not trust the government with their personal data.
If the rise of a surveillance state has proved both intrusive and clumsy, it is also hugely expensive – at a time we can least afford it. ID cards have been independently estimated to cost £19bn. Time and time again public sector databases have run over their estimated costs. And, on one estimate, the new vetting scheme could cost £200m.
So today, the Conservatives are launching a report setting out 11 commonsense measures to protect personal privacy and check the rise of the surveillance state. Our approach is based on five principles. First, we want less, not more, mammoth databases – so ID cards and ContactPoint will be scrapped. Second, we want to see less of our personal data hoarded by the state – and when it is stored it must be held accurately and on a need-to-know basis. Third, we need greater limits on the sharing of our data across the sprawling arms of Whitehall – let alone quangos and councils. And, finally, we will introduce stronger duties on government to keep our private information safe.
Of course we should harness IT to strengthen public protection and public service delivery. But we also need proper checks on this increasingly arbitrary and authoritarian government. Our personal data belongs to us. Government holds it on trust. The state is there to serve the citizen, not the reverse.
Child protection, Children, Comment, Conservatives, Data protection, Dominic Grieve, guardian.co.uk, Identity cards, Politics, Privacy, Society, Surveillance
No Comments