Another story of clumsy government disclosure of extremely sensitive data. This time discs were lost of RAF vetting records with details of affairs, debt, drug use, extra marital affairs (complete with names of third parties) and use of prostitutes.
This sort of vetting is very intrusive. We wouldn't accept it as common practice and we consider those who gather the data to owe it to the recruits to not let this sort of thing happen. Indeed, we only would tolerate such questions being asked in part because the individuals vetted freely consent to the process. Interestingly the same BBC programme that uncovered this case also reports one former director of GCHQ's claim that all internet and phone traffic 'must' be recorded to help the fight against terrorism.
It strikes me that much of the sensitive information gathered by this vetting process could also be uncovered by a thorough examination of the record of someone's internet activity. If governments decide to hold records of such sensitive information, do they owe it to the surveilled individuals to keep the information secure?
Monday, June 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment