Today’s campaign theme has been the Digital Rights Bill that the party wants to introduce to protect people’s rights against misuse of their data and protect them from unwarranted intrusion by the state. The Bill would introduce:
Prison sentences for companies conducting large-scale data theft and illegally selling on personal data;
Beefed up powers for the Information Commissioner to fine and enforce disciplinary action on government bodies if they breach data protection laws;
Legal rights to compensation for consumers when companies make people sign up online to deliberately misleading and illegible terms & conditions;
Code of Practice for online services who would by law have to correct information about members of the public where it is inaccurate or defamatory;
Enshrining in law the responsibility of government to defend the free press, including the rights of journalists and citizen journalists to express their views freely online;
Prevent government from watering down cyber-security and encryption measures used by British business.
Nick Clegg talked about why it is important
Today I’m calling for a new Digital Rights Bill to be introduced within the first six months of the next Parliament.We have launched a public consultation on the planned Bill, which we would introduce if Liberal Democrats were to form a new coalition government after the election.The Bill comes following a series of disturbing news reports ranging from thousands of NHS patients having their data sold off, and found to have breached data protection law by selling people’s pension pot details.It would also include prison sentences for public and private companies conducting large-scale data theft.As technology has advanced, more and more people interact online. Whilst this has brought the UK enormous socio-economic benefits, it has also left people open to exploitation and misuse of their personal information by criminals, commercial interests, and public Key measures in the Digital Rights Bill include:Prison sentences for companies conducting large-scale data theft and illegally selling on personal dataBeefed up powers for the Information Commissioner to fine and enforce disciplinary action on government bodies if they breach data protection lawsLegal rights to compensation for consumers when companies make people sign up online to deliberately misleading and illegible terms & conditionsCode of Practice for online services who would by law have to correct information about members of the public where it is inaccurate or defamatoryEnshrining in law the responsibility of government to defend the free press, including the rights of journalists and citizen journalists to express their views freely onlinePrevent government from watering down cyber-security and encryption measures used by British business
The Bill would make it impossible for the Scottish Government to introduce the new super ID database that is even more powerful and intrusive than that proposed by Labour pre 2010. Willie Rennie talked about that in today’s Scotsman:
These proposals would protect our civil liberties. They could blockade the SNP’s plans to create a super ID database.
They plan to build a super ID database covering large sections of the public sector and every citizen without their full consent. They have been warned by experts, campaigners and every party, except the SNP, in parliament. It is now time to protect our digital rights in law.
We defeated Labour’s plans for ID cards. This new digital rights bill would stop the SNP bringing in ID cards by the back door. It shows why you need Scottish Liberal Democrats if you want a fairer society.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Dropping the 1p tax rise has political costs too
Matthew Sweet on conspiracy theorists and the media
A blob-chart way of dissecting Britain's prosperity failure
A matter of trust
New housing planned for Fishmore Road - Environment Agency wants more information
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
James Baillie
Tom
Bob Hale
Cassie
Joe Bourke
11 Comments
“Surveillance – There should be no blanket collection of UK residents’ personal communications by the police or the intelligence agencies.”
what is a “resident”?
what i care about are British citizens, although it might also include foreign nationals officially granted residency.
it should not include everyone currently in the UK!
A ‘resident’ is someone living in the UK (in ordinary English). Perhaps ‘legal resident’ is what is meant however (meaning, someone who lives in the UK and is not forbidden to be in the UK).
“what I care about are British Citizens”. What about human beings? Do you care about them?
Naturally, if the EU committee on data protection are right, this law will be largely meaningless if the current draft of TTIP is signed…
We’d better get into power and redraft TTIP then! (Or not sign it. I still can’t make up my mind).
^In practice it makes no difference whether any of us make up our minds, it’s going through regardless. Which is part of the reason why it shouldn’t.
“what I care about are British Citizens”. What about human beings? Do you care about them?”
of course not.
the first duty of the nation-state is to the welfare and wellbeing of its citizens.
that duty of care might also extend to those with legal residency, tho.
jedibeeftrix 11th Apr ’15 – 9:51pm
“the first duty of the nation-state is to the welfare and wellbeing of its citizens.”
Yes – I agree. The way things are going – it will be necessary to set up reservations, like there are for the native US citizens, for many indigenous Brits who cannot cope with the pressures of life in modern Britain – within the next decade or two! Or has this already been done – they are called ‘the streets’!
@jedibeeftrix Thankyou for the open admission that you don’t care about human beings. Many even within the Tory party think that I’m being hysterical when I say the reason the Tories want to abolish the Human rights act is because they don’t think humans have rights….
Philip Thomas 12th Apr ’15 – 9:45am
“@jedibeeftrix Thankyou for the open admission that you don’t care about human beings. Many even within the Tory party think that I’m being hysterical when I say the reason the Tories want to abolish the Human rights act is because they don’t think humans have rights….”
Surely the key point is ‘first duty’ – once this has been satisfied – concern can then be for ‘non citizens’. However, since ‘the deficit’ has become the primary consideration for the coalition – Osborne & the Tories generally have shown that there is no spare cash for even UK citizens.
If jedibeeftrix had said
“Of course I care about human beings, but the first duty…”
that would be quite different…
Spare cash is lavished on those entitled to the state pension, who are overwhelmingly citizens. Many non-citizens have no entitlement to benefits whatsoever, despite being fully liable to pay tax. To be fair, spare cash has also been delivered via tax cuts which are more citizenship-neutral.
@ PT – ask a silly question, get a silly answer
As JR was quick to spot, the logical consequence of their being a first duty is that there will be a second also.
This was the important bit you missed:
“the first duty of the nation-state is to the welfare and wellbeing of its citizens. that duty of care might also extend to those with legal residency, tho.”