Skip to main content
Scrambling for Safety

I’m reading a quote from Ernest Hemingway. “I love to write. But is has never gotten any easier to do and you can’t expect it to if you keep trying for something better than you can do”.

I wonder what Hemingway would have thought of Weblogs? Possibly not a great deal, as most of them are written by teenage girls and are dropped, like boyfriends, once the interest fades.

Yesterday's ‘Scrambling for Safety’ meeting at The London School of Economics went well. My thanks to Simon Davies of the LSE and Privacy International, for inviting me to perform in a cage of hungry lions. I was going to wear a Che Guevara t-shirt but finally settled on a shirt and tie.

Mr Simon Watkin (Home Office) & The Earl of Northesk

It became an epic and rather technical debate between the Home Office on the one side, who believe that interception of data is in the public interest and the privacy lobby, who believe, with some justification that it breaches the European Convention on Human Rights and possibly our own laws as well.

The debate could have lasted longer as both sides believe strongly that their argument is the correct one and it left me, as chair, to sum up to an audience which included peers and MPs.

Personally, while I believe we need appropriate legislation, there is a stark difference between a ‘Blanket’ data retention policy and a ‘Blunkett’ data retention policy. The question I asked was “Is bad legislation justified in pursuit of a sensible purpose”. I believe not. The governments attempts to push through the legislation are not justified in respect of effectiveness, necessity, proportionality or consequence and the Lords would do well to throw it out once it comes in front of them. We need something better and not legislation that risks being overtaken by technology before it appears on the statute books.

See account in PC Pro Magazine and STAND detailed report of the debate.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Civilisational Data Mining

It’s a new expression I haven’t heard before. ‘Civilisational data mining.’

Let me start by putting it in some context. Every character, you or I have typed into the Google search engine or Facebook over the last decade, means something, to someone or perhaps ‘something,’ if it’s an algorithm.


In May 2014, journalists revealed that the United States National Security Agency, the NSA, was recording and archiving every single cell-phone conversation that took place in the Bahamas. In the process they managed to transform a significant proportion of a society’s day to day interactions into unstructured data; valuable information which can of course be analysed, correlated and transformed for whatever purpose the intelligence agency deems fit.

And today, I read that a GOP-hired data company in the United States has ‘leaked’ personal information, preferences and voting intentions on… wait for it… 198 million US citizens.

Within another decade or so, the cost of sequencing the human genome …

The Nature of Nurture?

Recently, I found myself in a fascinating four-way Twitter exchange, with Professor Adam Rutherford and two other science-minded friends The subject, frequently regarded as a delicate one, genetics and whether there could exist an unknown but contributory genetic factor(s) or influences in determining what we broadly understand or misunderstand as human intelligence.

I won’t discuss this subject in any great detail here, being completely unqualified to do so, but I’ll point you at the document we were discussing, and Rutherford’s excellent new book, ‘A Brief History of Everyone.”

What had sparked my own interest was the story of my own grandfather, Edmond Greville; unless you are an expert on the history of French cinema, you are unlikely to have ever hear of him but he still enjoys an almost cult-like following for his work, half a century after his death.

I've been enjoying the series "Genius" on National Geographic about the life of Albert Einstein. The four of us ha…
The Mandate of Heaven

eGov Monitor Version

“Parliament”, said my distinguished friend “has always leaked like a sieve”.

I’m researching the thorny issue of ‘Confidence in Public Sector Computing’ and we were discussing the dangers presented by the Internet. In his opinion, information security is an oxymoron, which has no place being discussed in a Parliament built upon the uninterrupted flow of information of every kind, from the politically sensitive to the most salacious and mundane.

With the threat of war hanging over us, I asked if MPs should be more aware of the risks that surround this new communications medium? More importantly, shouldn’t the same policies and precautions that any business might use to protect itself and its staff, be available to MPs?

What concerns me is that my well-respected friend mostly considers security in terms of guns, gates and guards. He now uses the Internet almost as much as he uses the telephone and the Fax machine and yet the growing collective t…