RE: Government Noses

["David Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

On 5 Sep 2003 at 18:02, Watkin Simon wrote:

> > Benefit claimants individually are _not_ generally 
> > fraudsters,
> 
> Agreed.

They tend to come into two categories. Firstly, individuals who find 
the system so loaded against them that they slightly exaggerate things. 
I have every sympathy with them, they probably only get money they 
deserve. The way to deal with this group is to have a system that does 
not treat people like a lump of shit.

Secondly organised gangs who employ many claimants. These gangs are the 
fraudsters and also the ones who make a lot of money.

> This takes us back to Brian Beesley's comment about the person mowing lawns
> and claiming benefit.  Government agencies are not, as he put it
> "overhearing all private conversations" and whilst the benefit claimant
> "might be worried about the Government overhearing a conversation about a
> lawnmower extension lead", he/she ought not to be as that isn't going to
> happen.

Really? And what is to stop it?

> some of that is around more openness about what sort
> of private conversations are being lawfully intercepted,

Easy peasy. A two step process:

1) provide some independent oversight of requests to spy, in the form 
of the courts.

2) tell people afterwards that their data has been accessed, so that 
they can decide if this was necessary and proportional. I don't trust 
officials to decide this, especially with a smug regulator who is never 
even going to say boo to miscreant officials let alone sort out 
miscreants.

> and how few
> conversations out of all conversations are lawfully intercepted.

If there really are "few" conversations being intercepted then these 
precautions will not be onerous. The fact that these precautions have 
both been explicitly rejected by the Home Office and the rogues gallery 
implies that a hell of a lot more of this spying is going on than 
government is admitting, as do the few figures that emerge.

Perhaps this will be changed in the future and we will see something 
balanced emerge. I doubt it, because of the vested interests that the 
Home Office represents, but would be delighted to be proved wrong.

"33. The Security Service welcomed the introduction of RIPA, having 
taken an active part in its drafting."

> I'm also reminded about when the list last touched - and then only very
> briefly - on the powers open to very junior staff in the Department of Work
> and Pensions, under the Social Security (Fraud) Act 2001 to obtain
> communications data.  I cannot find it in the archive but no one on the list
> seemed to pick up on it. 

My recollection is that it was used as another example of the grabbing 
of powers government has been undertaking. ISTR people saying quite 
explicitly that it was this sort of thing as well as RIP that is 
worrying people. However, we only have limited time and the government 
is busy destroying freedom on many fronts.

--
  David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will *always* explain why I revoke a key, unless the UK 
 government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.