ICO insists on scrutiny for laws invading privacy
Er, isn't that the ICO's job?
ICO boss Christopher Graham has rejected the accusation that he sent "Keystone Kops" to investigate Google and has called for more scrutiny of laws which infringe on privacy.
Despite having his investigators labelled "Keystone Kops" by a Tory MP for clearing Google's Street View data snoop, then changing their minds, Graham said most of the job was not technical but legal.
He told the Telegraph: “Most of the job that we do isn’t about technology – it’s applying [data protection and] freedom of information act legislation, and so you need to be an expert in that rather than a geek.”
Graham said: “We’ve done a lot - we’ve achieved a lot. Getting Google to accept that the ICO has a right to audit their compliance with the UK data protection act is a huge achievement that the ICO ought to get some credit for.”
Graham added that many people wanted a privacy czar, but that was not the job of the information commissioner.
Graham is calling for any new laws which have privacy implications to be closely looked at after they've been passed.
In a report handed to the Home Affairs Select Committee yesterday Graham recommends private companies also consider the privacy implications of new products and services before rather than after launch.
Graham said: “Many of the new laws that come into force every year in the UK have implications for privacy at their heart. My concern is that after they are enacted there is no one looking back to see whether they are being used as intended, or whether the new powers were indeed justified in practice.
"One example of this is the use of covert CCTV surveillance by local councils to monitor parents in school catchment area disputes under powers designed to assist in crime prevention and detection." ®
proposed laws which restrict privacy in any way need much more scrutiny, publicity and consultation BEFORE they are passed not after.
Every time the ICO opens its collective mouth, they put their foot in it!
Here goes ... [deep breath] ...
@”ICO boss Christopher Graham: Most of the job that we do isn’t about technology – it’s applying [data protection and] freedom of information act legislation, and so you need to be an expert in that rather than a geek.”
WTF, where do I start. So he wants expert sheep who follow legislation to the letter with a relentless narrow minded myopic focus on the details of the legislation, not technical people, who can think for themselves and see what a mess the country is getting itself into!?!. So the ICO boss is effectively saying they have no interest in technology, they only care about following existing legislation. Now we see why the country is in such a mess!. We need people who can see and understand how technology is changing and being increasingly abused and misused to create literally a Police State!
As for wanting respect for getting access to Google. WTF! The UK is behind how many countries now going after Google on this issue and yet this useless waste of space ICO boss wants some respect for finally getting off their asses and just starting to do something?! WTF!
@"Graham added that many people wanted a privacy czar, but that was not the job of the information commissioner."
Again with the narrow minded myopic focus. WTF is this attitude of effectively not my problem! WTF point is an information commissioner, if they don't police how information is used!
@"Graham is calling for any new laws which have privacy implications to be closely looked at after they've been passed." ... NO! SHIT FOR BRAINS!!! ... look at the privacy implications closely *BEFORE* .. (get that!) i.e. *** B E F O R E!!! *** they've been passed!!!!! WTF is this guy on! ... Please, oh please fire this useless shit for brains dick head!
@"Graham recommends private companies also consider the privacy implications of new products and services before rather than after launch." .... LOL!! OMG! I do not believe it!, he actually expects them to care about the privacy implications with bastards like Phorm blatantly trying to sell everyone's privacy for their profit! ... They don't care, they don't have empathy! Therefore they won't care about the privacy implications because they don't have empathy!. Wow, how the fuck did someone as stupid as this ICO boss ever get this kind of job! Did no one else want the job!?!
Why do we have the ICO?! it would be funny if it wasn't so serious. :(
...you'd be better using "the ICO needs a **** putting under its arse".