Re: Government Noses

[Roland Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
> > >>it's easy enough for them to get the information on the
> > >> relatively few they investigate, on an ad-hoc basis.
> > >
> > >Hence the traffic data retention proposals?
> >
> > No they don't need traffic data, just subscriber details.
>
> Clearly you are no better than I at detecting occasional online sarcasm.
>
> I was pointing out that the traffic data retention is exactly the kind of
> blanket coverage that you were suggesting that they do not require.

The situation as I understand it is this: most DWP investigations are 
about proving that someone has a double life. For example, claiming to 
live on their own, but co-habiting; being a student whilst claiming 
benefits; having a part-time grey economy job while signed on as 
unemployed...

They use subscriber details to help identify who is living where (people 
might co-habit, but will rarely do this under an assumed name), who is 
behind a particular sole-trader business, and so on.

Subscriber details are generally retained by organisations for as long 
as that person is a customer. Otherwise you get in a terrible muddle. 
Some accountants would say you should keep the details 7 years anyway, 
but there are proposals to "retain" subscriber details for telco/ISP 
customers after they've stopped being a customer.
--
Roland Perry