Privacy International
05/07/2004
28th July, 2004, London
Award categories for this year are as they have been in past years: Worst Public Servant; Most Invasive Company; Most Appalling Project; Most Heinous Government Organisation and Lifetime Menace (now renamed the “David Blunkett Lifetime Menace Award”).
The following “Dirty Dozen” have been culled from about three hundred nominees. The number of nominations for David Blunkett, the Home Office and the proposed National Identity Card far outweighed all other nominees, but their unpopularity will not be recognised this year because they have received awards in previous years.
“(Favourite)” indicates candidates that are currently tipped to win, though the final decision will not be made until mid July.
(Favourite) The Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP, Minister of State for Children
Margaret Hodge has received numerous nominations because of her patronage of the controversial tracking provisions in the Children Bill and for her determination to develop a wide spectrum of intrusive databases and information systems. Her success in reaching the shortlist reflects the judges concern stemming from their decision in 2002 to give the Department for Education & Skills the “Most Heinous Government Organisation” award for its invasive activities. See http://www.privacyinternational.org/bigbrother/uk2002/
Further information:
Joint nomination. Katherine Courtney, Director, Identity Cards Programme, Home Office, and Stephen Harrison, Head, Identity Card Policy Unit, Home Office
Ms Courtney and Mr Harrison have the honour of being the first-ever joint nomination for a UK award. They are the largely invisible figures behind the National Identity Card scheme and have steered the project since its inception in 2002. They were, of course, just following orders.
See their evidence to the Home Affairs Committee at:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhaff/uc130-i/uc13001.htm and http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhaff/uc130-vii/uc13002.htm
Lloyds TSB
For unnecessary and possibly unlawful threats to freeze the accounts of customers who fail to attend a branch and produce identity documents. The procedure has been described by the bank as an “initiative” backed by the Financial Services Authority.
Background information: http://money.guardian.co.uk/saving/banks/story/0,12410,1173767,00.html
FollowUS
This is one of a growing number of companies specialising in mobile phone tracking. The company proclaims that its services can be used to locate people “for peace of mind, security or fun”. http://www.followus.co.uk/homeusers.html
Further information:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1101683,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-859396,00.html
(Favourite) British Gas
For its unfounded and cowardly claim that the Data Protection Act was the reason why an elderly couple died after British Gas had disconnected their gas supply. The hypothermia and absence of any duty of care apparently were secondary factors.
Further information:
Vodafone
than the BT plan to block access to child pornography, and involves any site regarded as “adult” in nature.
Further information: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3860095.stm
(Favourite) The NHS National Programme for IT
The NHS won a “Most Heinous Government Organisation” award in 2000 because of its plans to computerise all patient records in a way that is both insecure and dangerous to patient privacy. Its nomination again this year reflects the gravity of concerns over these continuing plans.
Further information: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2710-751992,00.html
The Safe Harbor Agreement
http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/ This initiative, drawn up by the EU and the US, provides a basis for the transmission to the US of personal information on EU citizens. At best the scheme can be described as inadequate. At worst it is a means of circumventing European privacy law and fooling people into a belief that their information is being protected within the US border.
Background information
http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/ebusiness/story/0,10801,47152,00.html
The Department for Transport
For its electronic vehicle identification (EVI) programme Known variously as the “Spy in the Dashboard” and “the Informer” an embedded chip will automatically report to authorities a wide range of offences including speeding, road tax evasion and illegal parking.
Further information:
(Favourite) The Office of National Statistics.
For its development of the “Citizen Information Project” that will collate and share unprecedented amounts of data on the entire population. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cip/default.asp
Further information:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhaff/uc130-vi/uc13002.htm
The Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP.
Charles Clarke was shortlisted in 2000 because of his patronage as Home Office Minister of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. Now as Secretary of State for Education & Skills he has responsibility for the Children portfolio occupied by Margaret Hodge (see nomination above). His activities at Cabinet level pose an ongoing threat to privacy.
(Favourite) The US VISIT Programme
Privacy International has taken the unusual step of shortlisting a US initiative for the UK awards because of the almost total silence in the US over this programme. US VISIT will fingerprint all visitors to the US from September of this year. The scheme is offensive and invasive, and has been undertaken with little or no debate or scrutiny. Nor has the requirement taken any account of the “special relationship” between the UK and the US. The UK government has been silent about the programme and has capitulated every step of the way.
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0333.xml
Commenting on the nominations, Simon Davies, Director of Privacy International, said:
“The nominations reflect a broad and intensified assault on the right to privacy in the UK. There is a clear hostility within government to privacy and a general antagonism to it from within business. We have seen few instances where privacy has been genuinely respected by large organisations.”
“The default has clearly shifted from privacy to surveillance. Almost all large government projects attempt to compromise the right to privacy. The proclaimed need for protection of children and the fight against terrorism has often been shamelessly used as the pretext for privacy invasion”.
“We are seeing a race to the bottom where government and private sector alike compete to provide the most intrusive services in the most unstable environment for privacy.”
“It has become clear that the European Commission has adopted a key role in leading the assault on privacy. The UK government often uses the Commission’s decisions and activities as the justification for privacy invasion. The need for an EU-wide Big Brother Award is now overwhelming and we will look to this option in the coming year”.
“The Data Protection Act has come under sustained and unjustified attack in the past year. We have some faith that the New Information Commissioner will more aggressively promote and defend the law”.