| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Stallman attacks Oyster's 'unethical' use of Linux (ZDNet)Stallman attacks Oyster's 'unethical' use of Linux (ZDNet)Posted Jun 10, 2008 22:19 UTC (Tue) by copsewood (subscriber, #199)Parent article: Stallman attacks Oyster's 'unethical' use of Linux (ZDNet)
It might help if RMS and others commenting on UK business data and privacy from a US perspective read the UK Data Protection Act before making assumptions. There has to be a pretty compelling reason for data collected for one purpose to be usable for another purpose in the UK - the only exception I can think of in connection with a payment system likely not to be prosecutable, would have to be warranted by a judge in connection with a criminal investigation. Not just anyone can go to a bank and obtain payment details for someone else's account.
(Log in to post comments)
Stallman attacks Oyster's 'unethical' use of Linux (ZDNet) Posted Jun 11, 2008 0:41 UTC (Wed) by dannyobrien (subscriber, #25583) [Link] I'm familiar with both the US and UK privacy regimes, and I'd say Stallman's concerns (which were specifically about "Big Brother"-style data collection, rather than individual data abuse) are valid. EU data protection leaves a great deal of governmental access to data unregulated (or poorly regulated), and the DPA's excemptions (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/Acts1998/ukpga_19980029_en_5#pt4) provides any number of loopholes for the misuse of personal data. That's always assuming that future misuse would be under (or even care about) current statutes.
Stallman attacks Oyster's 'unethical' use of Linux (ZDNet) Posted Jun 11, 2008 10:50 UTC (Wed) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] The usual fear is that the government itself will use this information (or, in this age of contractors, get someone else to use it on their behalf) and that since the government is capable of being incompetent and malicious (more the former than the latter but don't rule out either) this is not desirable. Personally I think it may well be undesirable but it's inevitable and instead of trying to protest it we should try to create safeguards that make it harder for government to abuse this information, easier for both elected and unelected officials to be held responsible when it is abused, and easier for us as citizens to know what's actually going on. Open Government and Freedom of Information are better for us here than the Data Protection Act. It's unrealistic to expect an organisation which specifically hires /spies/ to stop spying on us. But we can ensure that they can't abuse these powers with impunity. When we have a Home Secretary arrested for authorising illegal snooping then we're equal again.
|
|
||||||||||||