Ther current law gives all those powers to the Information Commissioner, an unelected official who uses his judgment to decide what’s correct. It’s not a question of whether information exists or is used in some way, it’s whether we have are a country led by evil people. We’re not. Big Brother was not about information gathering; it was about an evil regime that wanted to control people’sminds. If government introdices an act to ban democracy, or if people get arrested for writting to their MP as the blogger suggests, then we have a problem.

There are plenty of safeguards you haven’t mentioned – the sharing has to be in pursuit of a stated policy objective, it has to be proportionate, strike a fair balance between public and private interests, the information commissioner has a statutory role and it has to be approved by a vote of Parliament. Ministers can’t just do what they want by any means.

“Ther current law gives all those powers to the Information Commissioner, an unelected official who uses his judgment to decide what’s correct.”

The information commissioner has no power to stop sections 152-154. Reason 1) because this law doesn’t give the ICO to stop anything and 2) because information sharing orders can overwrite any law and thus stop the ICO from being able to intervene.

“It’s not a question of whether information exists or is used in some way, it’s whether we have are a country led by evil people. We’re not.”

At the moment. Should we make a law that says police can enter our houses without a warrant because, right now, we’re governed by “nice people”? Please see my reference to this above, saying that this law is ok because we’re not ruled by bad people is not a safeguard, it is a complacency.

“Big Brother was not about information gathering; it was about an evil regime that wanted to control people’sminds. ”

This is nothing to do with Big Brother, and I’m not arguing it as such. It’s about surveillance and fascism.

“If government introdices an act to ban democracy, or if people get arrested for writting to their MP as the blogger suggests, then we have a problem.”

This law can redefine personal information as whatever it wishes, personal information could therefore be any personal opinion. It can also stop any person from transferring that personal opinion to another person, say an MP, with a prison sentence of up to 2 years.

This law does, because of it’s ambiguity, allow just what you say…since you’ve resorted to wild fantastical hypotheticals first.

Martin, thanks for giving me another opportunity to show why these are not safeguards.

“There are plenty of safeguards you haven’t mentioned – the sharing has to be in pursuit of a stated policy objective”

Policies can be adopted by departments with little to no interaction by our parliament.

“it has to be proportionate, strike a fair balance between public and private interests,”

As was noted in the debate at second reading, this is a political definition and as long as a politician could make a case that it is “proportionate” and “fair” a judge is unlikely to rule against them. Unless it also contravenes human rights, of course, but then that is ultimately why this law will end up failing…it’d just be nice if we could stop it before we have to spend money on getting Europe to tell our politicians it can’t be done legally.

Simply put, these are weasel words to make a safeguard appear, that isn’t really a safeguard.

“the information commissioner has a statutory role”

The ICO may, or may not, write up about each order. Votes can be taken regardless of the ICO’s advice, and even without any advice. The ICO is powerless in this legislation.

“and it has to be approved by a vote of Parliament. Ministers can’t just do what they want by any means.”

It has to be voted on by statutory instrument, of which NONE have been voted against since the 60′s. The reason for this is that they rarely take place in the commons themselves, but in a committee back-room where some whips and their loyal subjects vote for the statutory instrument while almost no-one opposes it through lack of information or knowledge of the instrument taking place.

Our democracy isn’t strong enough to stop even illiberal bills from getting through the house, let alone illiberal statutory instruments.

Big Brother wasn’t an ‘evil regime which came from nowhere’, it was a totalitarian regime which believed it could determine what was best for its subjects, whatever their own personal opinions on the matter – and information gathering was an integral part of the process.

Orwell’s Airstrip One isn’t a random collection of dystopic elements, its a complex society in which force, information gathering and the abuse of language are mutually supporting.

Good rebuttals Lee, and thanks for raising these points again…

by the way, what did you say in your letter? Can you post a model letter here, just so people can use it?

I’ll dig it up, hopefully with reply from my MP.

There are plenty of safeguards you haven’t mentioned – the sharing has to be in pursuit of a stated policy objective

Oh that’s OK then!

it has to be proportionate,

Everything has to be proportionate to be lawful. But to get something into law the Government merely has to claim the measure it is proportionate. Years later, after a victim takes them to court, the ECtHR will find that the measure is disproportionate, and then the Government will procrastinate about how to make it proportionate.

Keep up the pressure Lee. I have a LibDem MP so although I have emailed him I am sure he would be resisting the Bill anyway.
I really believe that the circle at the top of the New Labour project are genuinely certifiably mentally ill. They have an obsession with controlling our lives that borders on insane whilst having an utterly fatalistic, submissive position on global finance.