Staff asked to 'snoop' for police

[homesick_american 1]

:ranting: :ranting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6675335.stm

Council staff, charity workers and doctors could be required by law to tip off police about anyone they believe could commit a violent crime.

The Home Office proposals, leaked to the Times newspaper, insist public bodies have "valuable information" that could identify potential offenders.

Possible warning signs could include heavy drinking, mental health problems or a violent family background.

The Tories say the plans would require staff to "snoop on their customers".

Civil liberties campaigners are concerned that people could be put under police surveillance despite having committed no crime.

The proposals for "multi-agency information sharing" were circulated in Whitehall by Simon King, head of the Home Office violent crime unit.

They are being viewed as an attempt to close a loophole which allowed Soham murderer Ian Huntley to get a job in a school, despite previous accusations of violence.

'Worrying profile'

The leaked document states: "Public bodies will have access to valuable information about people at risk of becoming either perpetrators or victims of serious violence."

It says when staff become "sufficiently concerned" about an individual, that person should be should "risk assessed" and, if necessary, referred for further attention.

Mr King suggests two new agencies be created - one to collate reports on potential offenders, the other on potential victims.

New laws would also be needed to place staff under a statutory obligation to report any concerns, he adds.

Supporters say the plans build on existing local arrangements used to try to prevent domestic violence by identifying those at risk.

But Jago Russell, policy officer at campaign group Liberty, said the proposals left many "unanswered questions" about what should be done about someone with a "worrying profile".

"How far are we willing to go in pursuit of the unrealistic promise of a risk-free society?"

The Conservatives claim the policy would simply increase bureaucracy.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said police already had a considerable "administrative burden" without having to "wade through file after file of speculation and guess work".

A spokesman for the Home Office said the proposals were at an early stage and no decision had been made.

"However, the Home Office has its duty of public protection as its top priority," he added.

[Lansbury 19]

and to think there was all that fuss after the Soham murders because information on Ian Huntley hadn't been shared and the press thought that the murders could have been prevented.

Never let it be said that a journalist is either intelligent, truthful or consistent with their opinions.

[arwensun1965 0]

The above would never happen because of the Data Protection Act.

[mawilson 2,133]

Remember, remember the 5th of November.

Is V running about yet?

[homesick_american 1]

The above would never happen because of the Data Protection Act.

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ya think so? I worked at one of the UK's largest insurance companies on contract for a year and a half, and pretty much nobody followed data protection. I couldn't give details without getting people fired, but let's put it this way...your data isn't safe anywhere that people have access to it.

[arwensun1965 0]

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ya think so? I worked at one of the UK's largest insurance companies on contract for a year and a half, and pretty much nobody followed data protection. I couldn't give details without getting people fired, but let's put it this way...your data isn't safe anywhere that people have access to it.

The law is the law no matter how it is put, go to court and then tell me it will or will not work. If you do not mind breaking the law then that is ok.

Edited May 22, 2007 by arwensun1965

[homesick_american 1]

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ya think so? I worked at one of the UK's largest insurance companies on contract for a year and a half, and pretty much nobody followed data protection. I couldn't give details without getting people fired, but let's put it this way...your data isn't safe anywhere that people have access to it.

The law is the law no matter how it is put, go to court and then tell me it will or will not work. If you do not mind breaking the law then that is ok.

Don't be naive when it comes to your data. DPA doesn't mean sh!t, it's toothless and impossible to enforce. I don't see why you're putting so much faith into something that doesn't work anyway.