Tougher data laws needed, say MPs

[Barman]

Reckless or repeated breaches of data security should become a criminal offence, a committee of MPs has said.
 
Currently, government departments cannot be held criminally responsible for data protection breaches.

Source

This has been on the radio a lot today…

What is the betting that the first to be prosecuted under and such law isn’t a government minister responsible for a department that has lost millions of records…

More likely to be the MD of a small business who throws the copy a customer’s invoice away without shredding it.

Who are they trying to kid? We all know that any police investigation into the government will find a ‘lack of evidence’ or no case to answer… 

[Uncle Mort]

Currently, government departments cannot be held criminally responsible for data protection breaches.

Why not?

Nowhere does it say that this will change so, no matter how tough the Data Protection laws get, it will not make any difference.

[Grumpmeister]

Simple reason for that Mort. The breaches that we hear about in the news are the major ones, we know bugger all about the thousands of individual breaches made by government departments. If an investigation was started it would bring the entire establishment to a halt, plus government immunity means that they can make a profit on the side selling what they know about you to data processing companies.

[Uncle Mort]

Bastards ! ~ but we know that already.

[Snoopy]

We might do better to question the insatiable desire to collect as much information as possible about every aspect of every individual's life. Much of the data collected and stored (only to be subsequently lost) seems to me to have more to do with control freakery than actual need to know.

Why do Curry's need to know my name, address, postcode and telephone number when I wish to purchase a set of earphones for my daughter? What are they planning to do with this information? The answer to these two questions, when I asked them last month, were (i) "It's the rules" and (ii) "Dunno ~ it's the rules". My next question "Whose rules?" was met with a shrug. I made the purchase at another store.

[Grumpmeister]

Its marketting information Snoops because you can guarrantee that there is a preference service you havent signed up for which means your personal information can be passed on to their subsidiary companies within the dixons group or other companys they have an affinity partnership with.

[Snoopy]

I know that but if we don't give them the info they cannot lose it is my point.

[Nick]

When signing up for some services I use a false middle initial. When I start getting junk mail with the incorrect name I can trace the sale and purchase of my details, like putting dye in water.

[Uncle Mort]

When you buy online you get the option to opt out of having your information being used for marketing and promotional offers. It strikes me that chance to do this in store isn't given.  

[Snoopy]

I hear on the news that Currys parent company has issued a profits warning due to "poor Christmas trading figures". Apparently they expect their profits to be £50m less than hoped for.

I like to think that my gesture in spending my £12.99 elsewhere has played a part in this.