Coroners & Justice Bill - Govt. wants right to share your records

[Stoat Boy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...outcry-over-plan-to-sell-patient-records.html


I love this quote...

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "Sharing data is essential for the delivery of efficient and effective joined-up public services to tackle crime, protect the public and to help everyone get access to new opportunities, developments and support."



Is there anything these Labour pricks wont do to try and control peoples lives ?

 

[Fruitloop]

I seem to remember being assured that this kind of thing would never happen.

 

[bluestreak]

Good grief, what arseholes.

 

[Callie]

Information passed to insurance companies?

 

[_angel_]

In addition, some professionals might not seek help for drink or drug addictions for fear of losing their jobs

Why just 'professionals'???

 

[quimcunx]

Ministry of Justice? Is that new? Sounds very Orwellian.

 

[Fruitloop]

Yeah, another of the governments shit imports.

 

[treelover]

This is really too much, i wonder if the usually often pliant disability support groups will challenge this, how can they get away with it.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Ministry of Justice? Is that new? Sounds very Orwellian.

Used to be DCA

Well actually it didn't. MoJ was created in 2007 (I think) and they took over DCA affairs

 

[jimadore]

Its been happening for years to insurance companys , Every policy has a doctors report.

 

[danny la rouge]

Why just 'professionals'???

They're the only ones who matter. The Proles are probably all drink-addled syphilitics anyway.

 

[moon23]

The Coroners and Justice Bill is during it's committee stage now, if you haven't allready write to your MP asking for them to oppose the Data-sharing measures. Let them know that you DO NOT consent to having your details shared.


This Bill was brought up at the Convetion of Modern Liberties last weekend, and both the Open Rights Group and NO2ID are campaigning to get it stopped.

 

[Callie]

Its been happening for years to insurance companys , Every policy has a doctors report.

That not quite the same thing is it? I thought insurance companies can request a medical from a doctor for the policy holder. This would be done with the policy holders consent, cos if they didn't do it they wouldn't get the policy.

This situation suggests that insurance companies will be able to access medical records for the that persons entire medical history without consent. This may not be exactly what is being suggested though.

 

[jimadore]

Hi Callie, so can your employer or any intressed party ts called a full service, I had one done on my wife as a wedding present off a mate.

 

[xes]

I seem to remember being assured that this kind of thing would never happen.

I seem to remember people believeing the goverment

Thems were the days.

one of these days, people will wake up and realise that these cunts are not looking out for your best interest.

 

[Callie]

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "Sharing data is essential for the delivery of efficient and effective joined-up public services to tackle crime, protect the public and to help everyone get access to new opportunities, developments and support."

but but but...

new opportunities! i might get to swim with pink dolphins!

 

[Darios]

Motion to condemn Coroners and Justice Bill fails

Details here

Not a single Tory voted. Not one. The Lib Dems at least presented a united front and have, in recent memory, been sticking to their guns where Civil Liberties are concerned.

So much for David "Stand for freedom" Davis' fine words at the Convention on Modern Liberty on Saturday.

 

[bluestreak]

Well, why would you expect them too? The Tories' biggest problem as opposition has been the fact that they don't actually oppose Labour, they just want the power to be doing exactly the same thing.

Of course, this is useful for exposing them as the liars and hypocrites they and their followers are. Labour and Tories - two sides of the same coin.

 

[danny la rouge]

Clause 152 of the Coroners and Justice Bill: your information being shared

From my inbox. Thought you'd be interested.

+ STOP CLAUSE 152 +

Clause 152 of the Coroners and Justice Bill [1] - currently being
debated by Parliament - would allow any Minister by order to take any
information gathered for one purpose from anywhere, and use it for any
other purpose.

An 'Information Sharing Order', as defined in Clause 152, would permit
your information to be trafficked and abused, not only all across
government and the public sector - it would also reach into the private
sector. And it would even allow transfer of information across
international borders.

Your information, your family's information, arbitrarily used without
your consent or even knowledge. The very reverse of 'Data Protection'.

If you care about fundamental rights and freedoms, privacy and
confidentiality, the time to act is NOW.

Please write to your MP - you can do this at http://www.WriteToThem.com
- and tell him or her that you REFUSE CONSENT to having your information
shared under any 'Information Sharing Order', and ask him or her to vote
to have Clause 152 removed entirely from the Coroners and Justice Bill.

(Refusing your consent is the absolutely critical bit - we know that
some MPs have already had over 100 constituents telling them this, which
is the way we can all apply pressure.)

Please write to your MP now - AND TELL OTHERS. Friends, family,
colleagues, workmates. Spread the word. A 'Stop Clause 152!' facebook
group has also been set up to help publicise the issue:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=54487688497

If you have already written to your MP (thank you!) then why not write a
letter to your local paper, alerting readers to the powers in Clause 152
and how privacy will be abolished if it becomes law. All it takes is 10
minutes and a stamp.

If we act now, we can stop this. If we don't, another fundamental
building block of privacy and trust will be lost.

It's up to us.

--
References

1) Guy Herbert, NO2ID's General Secretary, prepared a briefing for
Parliamentarians that explains in detail why this is such a deceptive
and dangerous piece of legislation:
http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/2009-01-22-coroners-and-justice-bill-briefing.pdf

 

[Mindlessly]

If you read the Bill as it stands right now, it doesn't seem as straight forward as it is played out to be in the email you have received.

For instance, An Information-Sharing Order, can only be made by a Minister in charge of a Government Department. Not just any MP or Civil Servant, but specifically the Minister that heads a Department. That is limited to be, I think, 21 people.

Even if one of this limited group did want to make such an order, they must first do so under only specific consideration s50a and alert those effected by the order before they make it. s50d (2)(a) Must alert the Information Commissioner s50d (3), Must give the ICO 21 days to make a report. s50d (4)
Under s50d (6) the draft order must be made with the report from the ICO attached.

This doesn't seem to confer the power for anyone to take any information at any time and hand it out to anyone they like. It seems to be a quite restrictive system by which the Government can if it feels it is neccessary use the information that it has collected from various means. Which, I hate to say, make sense.

I would like to see some provision to protect our information from leaving this country, and leaving the jurisdiction of our Laws. I would like to see more provision that our information not leave Government hands once order is creaetd and not given to the private sector.

I am not as frightened by this 'new' development as some are. Yes it does create new powers of information sharing, but considering the lengths to which that power is restricted, I do not believe it is neccessarily a bad thing. I would rather we lobbied for tighter control on who has access to the information after the order is created.

At the moment it appears that the Minister can confer the power to anyone at all. Also there is s50b (1)(h) which states that an information order can modify any enactment. I would need some clarification that this doesn't bypass statutary instrument powers and wouldn't allow Government to change acts of Parliament without due process.

 

[Mindlessly]

sorry for grammar and any errors, written in a rush.

 

[pogofish]

There are at least three other threads on this BTW.

 

[editor]

There are at least three other threads on this BTW.

I'll make a start by moving it to the right forum and merge later if I find the others.

 

[cybertect]

As this is (I think) the biggest of the many threads on this topic, Jack Straw's withdrawn the controversial clauses (pending a rethink, keep your powder dry...)

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, is to shelve proposals which critics said would have led to patients' confidential medical records being passed to third parties.

A spokesman for Mr Straw said the "strength of feeling" against the plans had persuaded him to rethink.

The proposals will be dropped entirely from the Coroners and Justice Bill, and a new attempt will be made to reach a consensus on introducing a scaled-back version at an unspecified stage in the future.

 

[cybertect]

Here's two of them

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=281892
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=281994

 

[danny la rouge]

The Telegraph url has it right:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...954058/jack-straw-is-still-a-cunt-though.html

 

[shagnasty]

You can usually tell a doctor anything in the knowledge that it is confidential .The most worrying thing people with mental health problems,drink problems,drugs problems will hold back from the fear of this being used against them in employment .we have already seen the blacklist of building workers this will be used in the same way it's very disturbing.Thankfully pressure as seemed to cause a rethink

 

[fela fan]

Thankfully pressure as seemed to cause a rethink

Only for the moment. They will keep trying until they get what they want. It's the way.

Turn your back for one moment, and it'll be in.

Just about every aspect of british people's lives is now being recorded and watched by 'the state'. They want to know everything about everybody.

 

[laptop]

The Telegraph url has it right:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...954058/jack-straw-is-still-a-cunt-though.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/4954058/ministry-of-peace-will-protect-us-all-really-not-ironic-oh-no.html

 

[cesare]

Interesting. Jack Straw removes the clauses* as a result of groups/individuals objecting.

Not as a result of the Information Commissioner objecting. Not as a result of the Information Commissioner making a huge fuss and dance about Data Protection. Is the Information Commissioner objecting??? Is there any point to having the Information Commissioner's department if they don't make all efforts at Data Protection?





* Till they're reworded. Not gone away.