Who has lost what?
How many government departments have broken their own rules on the handling of personal data about members of the public? It looks like the answer is probably all bar one.
Ever since Revenue and Customs last November, the 91Èȱ¬ has been trying to find out about data security in other departments. We sent them freedom of information requests about any breaches of the rules earlier in 2007.
The Treasury has replied to say there are no recorded instances of violations of its data security policy.
Four departments - Business, Cabinet Office, Environment and International Development - have admitted that there were such infringements, but have refused to disclose further details as they say that 'would assist those intent on undermining data security'.
The other deparments state they hold relevant information but are considering whether it's in the public interest to release it. That suggests they too have things to confess, which would leave the Treasury as the only department which doesn't.
(But one can't be sure about this - some departments do have a history of spending a long time thinking about documents which then strangely turn out to be non-existent.)
UPDATE (22 Feb 08): The Department for Culture, Media and Sport now also says it has no violations to confess.
A 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Martin,
What is the point of this Blog when the 91Èȱ¬ is guilty of withholding information that should rightly be in the public domain: namely the Balen Report.
Until this report is published the 91Èȱ¬ has no credibility. (Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones).
I wonder how you live with the paradox?
Max -
Thanks for your question.
The point of this blog is determined by whether or not people find it interesting, informative and enjoyable to read. If you look at it from time to time then I'm happy to be serving you in this way (and perhaps even adding to your awareness of the Balen Report). I'm glad you read it, I'm glad you comment on it, and I wouldn't want to deprive you of that because of the 91Èȱ¬'s policy decisions.
I know that some people think that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. There are other people who think they have just as much right to throw stones as anyone else.
We all manage to live surrounded by paradox. That's because human heads, like those of robots, have paradox-absorbing crumple zones ( ).
Max,
The reason why the bbc has refused to publish the report is that is has no need to. IT IS EXEMPT
Martin,
I disagree with Max Sceptic that this blog has no credibility whilst the 91Èȱ¬ refuses to release the Balen report, however, the 91Èȱ¬'s behaviour towards it's Middle East reporting does to this morning listener of 91Èȱ¬ World Service does seem to be very Biased in favour of Palastinaian version of events and against the Israeli view.
Living in the Netherlands, the Dutch radio/TV quite often gives a totally different version of events to that reported by the 91Èȱ¬, let me make it clear that I do not agree with either side of the conflict, however, honest reporting should be the aim of the 91Èȱ¬, not a dishonest version.
Keep up your good work Martin in exposing the strange, corrupt, amusing behaviour of our elected or unelected leaders!.
Martin,
Thanks for your reply. I must confess that I am none the wiser - I guess I need to pay more attention... In retrospect, I regret directing my ire at the 91Èȱ¬ at you personally. You are, after all, only doing your job.
Drew, please explain why the 91Èȱ¬ has 'no need' to publish the Balen Report. Isn't the fact that the public (who funds the corporation) demands to see the report published sufficient? What possible reason can there be for repressing it? Confidentiality of personnel details? No. Confidentiality of sources? No. Commercial secrets? No. What then? Why should this report not be put into the public domain? I'd really like to hear a well-reasoned case (it's not enough to state 'it is exempt').
Getting this back on track...
...two question were being asked:
Who?
What?
Those departments that admitted - at the speed of light relative to most Departmental responses - that "there were such infringements, but have refused to disclose further details as they say that 'would assist those intent on undermining data security'", should get a brownie point for their admission.
But no more points until they give at least some indication of how much data was lost, how important that data was, and how incompetently it was lost.
It leaves the other departments very exposed. I, for one, now assume as a fact that the silent Departments have also lost significant data.
I also infer that what they have lost is, as in the case HMR&C, carrying other implications that are so serious that they dare not admit to the fact of a loss at all, for fear that will be the start of a slippery slope into being forced into revealing the extent of their culpability.
Talking of culpability, what actually happened to the head of HMC&R (Paul Day?) who "resigned". Is he spending more time with his family / counting his pension? Or has he merely been moved sideways until the heat is off?