Author Topic: DATA PROTECTION  (Read 2171 times)

Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
DATA PROTECTION
« on: March 04, 2010, 12:31:01 AM »
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
Gossip to be a Criminal Offence in Jersey
Amendments to the Jersey Data Protection law are rumbling towards enactment by our elected "representatives”.

The new powers sought by Emma Martins (our Data Protection Commissioner) and her obvious supporters among the Crown Officers – will turn gossips into criminals.
If you hear a juicy bit of tittle-tattle and if it bears some resemblance to information held in somebody’s office or home filing system (whether electronic or not) – then beware! Wait for the knock on the door and the dozen thought police with a warrant to seize your “materials” or “equipment” and march you off to face unlimited fines and up to 5 years in jail IN ADDITION.

Make no mistake, the Jersey public might have been sleeping through Data Law requirements for the past few years but things are about to change and all largely because the raid on Senator Stuart Syvret’s home might have been a balls up!
Stuart might actually have a valid defence under the existing laws and so the Draconian approach to law enforcement is being wheeled out and computers, documents and virtually anything else will be seized soon just upon a suspicion that you might know something that you shouldn’t!

This is just the start of it of course. There is a whole package of measures now being enacted or contemplated under other harmless sounding laws and proposals YET at the same time there is a clamping down – especially within the Scrutiny system – so less and less information is being made public and more and more discussion and information is being concealed under “part B” restrictions on Scrutiny Panel agenda.

Take fishing for example. What could be more harmless than that (except for fish of course)?
Economic Development under the witless Minister Maclean produced a scheme to control the amount of fish that hobby fishermen and others could take and it was labelled as the BAG limits law and was well on its way to approval.
Then a Scrutiny Panel (Deputies Higgins, Labey, Macon, Shona Pitman and Wimberley) spent 3 months scrutinizing it. Yet, never was the subject allowed to be discussed at a Panel meeting open to the public. Except when the Panel was hearing witnesses – the BAG fishing limits matter was always kept well away from public gaze or hearing. More extraordinarily, although the whole BAG issue is dead in the water because Minister Maclean has now withdrawn the proposition – our fearless Scrutiny Panel still insists on discussing the corpse ONLY IN PRIVATE as a Part B matter. What can they possibly be afr
aid of?

More importantly, if it cannot even discuss dead fish in public what else might OUR absurd and gutless Scrutiny System be up to IN PRIVATE on other matters?

We know that the Chairman’s Chairmens Committee under Senator Shenton has already initiated censorship against bloggers and “citizens media” under cover of a string of silly “protocols”. Now this completely surplus body proposes to further restrict the matters that can be discussed in public during all Scrutiny Panel meetings and has already drawn the veil over much of its own activities.
Proposals to “stream” scrutiny meetings through an official video network (in order to eliminate the bloggers totally) will ensure that all contentious or interesting matters are hidden away, out of public access, under Part B censorship.

Already, Scrutiny Panels are queuing up to put their own accounts of their proceedings and video clips of their own production on “Facebook” so that the control of information might appear to be kept in safe official hands.
Yet, they are also happy to rely upon the private owners of “Facebook” to regulate the system for them – whereas, at the same time they claim that such regulation is not acceptable over mere bloggers sites and citizens media participants!


Our government has realised that Citizens Media via the Internet poses a huge challenge to official control of the media and access to information and knowledge.
The ongoing examination of the “meaning of Media” in Jersey under PPC’s authority should be enough warning in itself. We should all be very afraid.

Yet there are other warning signs too. Just today, Constable Silva Yates – hardly the greatest campaigner for human rights – was heard to protest in the strongest emotional terms at a Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel.
After enduring SS Minister Gorst’s pointless ramblings Silva Yates finally blew his top and protested how the Data Protection Law was already preventing him from helping parish residents in need. “I am so depressed and frustrated” he pleaded “I have the money but don’t know where to give it.”

Even Deputy Southern was heard at one point to lament the passing of the Constables discretionary powers to grant help under the old “Parish welfare system!” What ever next?

But the whole question of data storage and who has access to it was not likely to be addressed here or anywhere else in Jersey because the monster is out of control on a world-wide basis. Even the Scrutiny Panels themselves did not seem to have considered their own roles as collectors and distributors of information and who might ultimately determine what data and discussion should be in the public domain and what should not.
If ever there was need for yet another Scrutiny panel it must be to look at scrutiny itself, not only in the context of the Data Laws but also with regard to Freedom of Information and the exchanging of confidential information from one department to another. Senator Syvret could well be followed by more of our elected representatives into criminal court if the scrutiny audit proves incomplete!

However, such issues still only touch the surface of the problem because there are hidden agenda at every corner.

Thus the ever so witless Minister Maclean is keen to promote more gambling in Jersey and recently obtained States Approval for an amazingly inflated and expensive panel of Commissioners to supervise it. The first hidden agenda is that Maclean wants Jersey to follow Guernsey/Alderney and Gibraltar with on-line gambling businesses based here (in spite of EU concerns about yet more off-shore gambling centres being established) because he can smell the profit.
The second hidden agenda is that both Jersey’s Finance sector and the government are too mean to provide the enhanced broad-band internet connections that are necessary in the ever advancing technological world. So allowing the on-line gamblers to establish in Jersey will create the extra capacity at little cost – yippee!

On the other hand, the third agenda is that regulation for such an enhanced internet capacity will also have to be established within the Island rather than relying upon providers and their whims in some far away place.

And that is where we came in because our Jersey government will be enabled to attempt to control the whole thing locally. Any nasty and unpleasant creatures like citizen’s media and free speech will be subject to regulation by an even more powerful and oppressive body composed of our elected "representatives” and their ever present minders. Don’t say you have not been warned.

It’s a good time to learn Chinese…………..


Team Voice
one ban away from oblivion rsx

rogueelement

  • Guest
Re: DATA PROTECTION
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2010, 01:03:36 AM »
Shower of quints springs to mind.

rogueelement

  • Guest
Re: DATA PROTECTION
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2010, 01:59:30 AM »
In order to clarify the previous post I was talking about team voice, not the wonderful States of Jersey who may be introducing gambling permissions to offset their entirely stupid 0-10 and 20 means 20 , duff tax system.
If the system in place is not acceptable , we should revert immediately to the previously unacceptable system , which had the merit of not costing us £100 million /annum in lost revenue. Until such time as an acceptable system is in place why not have an equally unacceptable system?
Maybe it,s just me.

Offline Dylan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1672
  • HELP!
Re: DATA PROTECTION
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2010, 02:38:36 AM »
Crikey! The penny's dropped! ::)
!dereggub si draobyek ym kniht I

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3468
Re: DATA PROTECTION
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2013, 03:45:23 PM »

As far I am aware planetjersey servers are also based in the USA. This will make it interesting should the States  of Jersey, copy the North Koreans and Chinese and  try and close down local blogs  also in contravention of the right to free speech, agreed and respected by the EU and western democracies. Rico's post above is interesting.

Is Google disrespecting its users though ? The real story here.

Quote:

Privacy campaigners have attacked Google after the search giant claimed it was immune to British law.

The US company is accused of illegally snooping on its British customers by bypassing privacy settings on Apple devices, such as iPads, to track their browsing history.

It claims it is not subject to British privacy law because it is based in California – prompting outrage from campaigners.

The firm has already come under fire for failing to pay tax in the UK, and critics said the latest row was further evidence of Google making up the rules to suit itself.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396809/Google-says-UK-law-power-Outrage-search-giants-arrogance-snooping-case.html
bb
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 04:07:11 PM by boatyboy »

Online Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
Re: DATA PROTECTION
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2013, 07:53:42 PM »
I share these concerns and offer an alternative link to a Guardian report from last Thursday which must have disturbed Gmail users:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/14/google-gmail-users-privacy-email-lawsuit

We seem to be entering a sinister new age of monitoring, not just on the internet but in our day-to-day dealings with government too. At this point I remind everyone of how the views of the Data Protection Commissioner regarding Jersey's intrusive new Housing and Employment laws (now in legal force) changed between 2004 and 2011, when they were finally adopted. In 2004, she issued a formal response to the proposals, which contained criticisms, particularly relating to the proposal to include a Social Security number on the face of the ID card that everyone now has to present when accessing employment or housing- extracts below:

Quote
6.3 ... Displaying the number on the face of the registration card runs the risk that it will become more widely known and perhaps used by others for the provision of their services. The potential collateral impact of the use of the Social Security number should not be underestimated. The UK Information Commissioner has already seen attempts to use other publicly issued numbers, such as the national insurance number, for unconnected purposes. The ready availability of the unique personal number by printing it on the face of a card could significantly reduce its value as part of a strong identity validation system and facilitate impersonation.
Quote
6.4 ... In the Registrar’s view, the use of the Social Security number as a general personal identification number would be inappropriate. The number was introduced for a specific purpose and its use should remain context specific. If the States wish to proceed with proposals for a personal identification number, serious consideration should be given to the creation of an entirely new number system.

Read the whole document here:

http://www.dataprotection.gov.je/NR/rdonlyres/60BFD4B4-1012-4239-898E-C90C5E0046FD/0/ResponsetoConsultationMigrationPolicyOct042.pdf

Yet by 2011, she replied to me that she was "less exercised" about the issue of providing new unique identifiers because there was "a significantly reduced requirement in respect of the nature of personal data collected for the register."

Just as well, because here is a photo of the new Registration ID Card format:

http://www.thisisjersey.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Colour-01918025_2_Cropped.jpg

No, your eyes don't deceive you- that is the person's Social Security number printed openly on the front of the card!  ::)

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3468
Re: DATA PROTECTION
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2013, 04:46:27 PM »



How to keep your internet data / information records safer !

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/16/10-ways-keep-personal-data-safe

BB

Offline Calimachon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
  • Gender: Female
  • http://www.amnesty.org.uk/
Re: DATA PROTECTION
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2013, 08:36:16 PM »
I have never trusted emails or internet messaging systems.  One doesn't need a genius brain to realise that if the adverts coming your way have a direct bearing on what you have said recently in an email or an instant message that 'someone' is snooping on you somewhere along the line.

Cali .o0o. 

TOMORROW (Noun) = A mystical land where 99% of all human productivity, motivation an achievement is stored

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3468
Re: DATA PROTECTION
« Reply #8 on: October 16, 2013, 03:03:09 AM »


Emma Martins is also the Data protection officer for Guernsey .

What will she have to say about a states email being nicked by the Guernsey press and publishing it ? Will she be inviting a group of politicians to sue the Guernsey press ? What does this say about Jersey politicians that allowed data protection to be used to screw someone, when our sister island breaks Jersey's States ( they passed it, and signed the cheques for the lawyers ) idea of personal data.

Will Emma Martind resign Guernsey, she should if she has any integrity,  ahhhhhh   probably not.

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/news/2013/10/15/inbreds-email-exchange-published/

BB

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3468
Re: DATA PROTECTION
« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2013, 01:37:31 AM »

I have written that certain politicians are useless in some areas, and are also sheep, as shown by their voting record on certain issues.
Is this freedom of speech or cyber bullying ? does it depend if a States member, or maybe civil servants put in a complaint, as with the latest Syvret  super injunction case whereby three of the four were public sector employed and the fourths brother was also a public sector employee.

Sorry my mistake they were invited in by Emma Martins to carry out a taxpayer funded pseudo liability court case funded by you and me and dressed up as a data protection thingy.

Twitter and face book now - where next, the blogs ?

A clear definition of cyber bullying is needed because if it is subjective forget freedom of speech on Jersey.

JEP  [ NO COMMENTS ALLOWED ]

BULLIES who use Facebook and Twitter to prey on vulnerable Islanders could soon face the full force of the law under plans to criminalise cyber bullying.

http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2013/10/28/move-to-outlaw-cyber-bullying/

BB

Offline shortport

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 565
Re: DATA PROTECTION
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2013, 02:40:58 AM »
JEP  [ NO COMMENTS ALLOWED ]
That says it all really.Expect a crackdown on blogs.Anybody thought to be tarnishing Jersey's 'reputation' will be shut up.First hit will no doubt be Stuart Syvrets blog.
I don't understand their logic really,the more they try and stop people discussing things the worse their credibility and the more likely conspiracy theories will fly around.They are their own worse enemy and must certainly have skeletons in the closet.Just a list of stories the JEP doesn't allow comments on is worth debating on its own.

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3468
Re: DATA PROTECTION
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2017, 03:37:47 PM »
A little snippet from Channel on Line in case you missed it. Could the difference in new legislation be the real reason that Guernsey wants it's own Data Commisioner ? If not why split the roll ?

Quote:

Credit: States of Guernsey

The Data Protection Commissioner for Jersey and Guernsey is to stand down.

Emma Martins will leave the job next March after six years in the role.

Following her resignation, Guernsey's government have decided to create a post specific to the island's needs.

It comes ahead of the introduction of new law on Data Protection which comes into force in May 2018. Currently there are some differences between Jersey and Guernsey's draft legislation.

End.

Jersey " Life changing and data protected up to the hilt with a court case held in secret to prove it " but still could not stop the Paradise Papers and the petition against tax havens.

791,017 have signed. Let's get to 1,000,000
 
https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/paradise_papers_loc/?dl

Article Source:

http://www.itv.com/news/channel/2017-11-09/channel-islands-data-protection-commissioner-to-step-down/


BB

« Last Edit: November 12, 2017, 03:46:06 PM by boatyboy »

Offline shortport

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 565
Re: DATA PROTECTION
« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2017, 08:16:55 PM »
Jersey " Life changing and data protected up to the hilt with a court case held in secret to prove it " but still could not stop the Paradise Papers and the petition against tax havens.
What court case is this referring to?

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3468
Re: DATA PROTECTION
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2017, 09:36:22 PM »

Shortport as published in the public domain by Ex Deputy Trevor Pitman

Stuart Syvret and the notorious Data Protection ‘secret court case’ scam


Here, should any readers not be aware, four Establishment proxies (there was actually meant to be five but one refused to go along with the ruse having been written to by Data Protection asking him to come in and join them) including one middle-aged, internet troll and convicted petty criminal we shall call for the sake of humour and upsetting his sense of deluded importance, Boozy D’ Eathreat were provided with the better part of £500,000 of our taxpayers’ money by the Data Protection Commissioner’s Office. These monies being to cover ‘legal advice’ costs to take former Senator Syvret to court and prosecute him regarding material on his internet blog.

The actual cost of the whole scam in fact ran in to millions as I know firsthand from one of those involved in the process. However, what really needs to be focussed on for the purposes of this particular post is that Mr D’ Eathreat was allowed access to this taxpayer’s money despite the fact that what Stuart Syvret had actually written about him being an abusive and cowardly cyber bully was demonstrably true. As at least nine other complainants to the police I am now aware of can confirm. Imagine that, readers – in Jersey such is the break down of law and order that you can now actually be taken to court for telling the truth! All our judiciary need to do to succeed is simply ban you from providing the evidence or calling any witnesses.

Scroll down

http://thebaldtruthjersey.blogspot.co.uk

All credit to Tev. Pitman.

bb