Bye bye Public Services Card

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Opposition to the PSC has nothing to do with the technology or methods involved, it's the collection, retention, and sharing of personal data between government departments and what it will, and in the future might, be used for. They could be doing it using typewriters and carrier pigeons and it would still garner the same opposition.

People are already sharing their personal data with numerous organisations. From doctors, dentists, opticians, schools, banks, credit unions, so on, so forth, etc... Some people like to complain just for the sake of complaining and blame the government for whatever is peeving them.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People are already sharing their personal data with numerous organisations. From doctors, dentists, opticians, schools, banks, credit unions, so on, so forth, etc... Some people like to complain just for the sake of complaining and blame the government for whatever is peeving them.

True people are sharing their information by choice,the government wishes to circumvent choice.
Again why not be open and transparent about the true intentions of the card.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

True people are sharing their information by choice,the government wishes to circumvent choice.
Again why not be open and transparent about the true intentions of the card.

They have been. It’s to be used to streamline government services. Like welfare, children’s allowance, driving licenses etc.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They have been. It’s to be used to streamline government services. Like welfare, children’s allowance, driving licenses etc.

They have not and your attempt to defend this is hilarious.

Stovepipe

....but...they didnt ask, they imposed. mandatory but not compulsory was the phrase used....an old lady not getting her pension until she gets one of these cards. Who gave them legal permission to withhold a pension?

regards

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

They have been. It’s to be used to streamline government services. Like welfare, children’s allowance, driving licenses etc.

I don't believe that. Many, many people don't believe that. Your mistake is starting with the assumption that most of us attribute 'good faith' to the inherently and pathologically deceitful Irish establishment. A very, very sizeable number of people do not believe that (a) the state has the interests of its citizens at heart, and that (b) the state is honest with its citizens in its dealings and communications with us. You do - and that's entirely fine - but all of your arguments come from the standpoint that your opinion of the state's good nature and trustworthiness are undisputed facts, whereas in reality they are hotly and bitterly contested by many different groups in Irish society.

FWIW, and maybe nobody else who opposes the PSC will agree with my reasons for doing so, I do not ascribe good faith to the Irish state. I believe that those currently in charge of the Irish establishment have goals and visions for Ireland and how Ireland should be run which are fundamentally at odds with the interests and wishes of Irish citizens. I very much doubt I am alone in that view, but it's in that context that many people are opposed to the state having collecting information about us which they did not have before, and sharing it across different departments in a manner in which they did not before. If your viewpoint is that the Irish state generally behaves in a way which reflects the best interests of and wishes of Irish people in general, then obviously you're not going to react to such power or information grabs in the same way as those of us who believe vast swathes of the Irish state and vast number of the state's arms and departments to hold the Irish citizenry in, at best, utter contempt.

Let me give you a simple analogy: Most people wouldn't be opposed to, to take one example, increasing the powers of law enforcement to spy on private communications if most people believed that law enforcement would never, or only extremely rarely in specific cases of individual corruption, use such powers for purposes other than honest law enforcement (blackmail, social engineering, political manipulation, etc). But thanks to numerous scandals over the years in Ireland and elsewhere, most people are fully aware that law enforcement acts in a corrupt and hostile manner with extreme frequency, and thus most people are in general agreement that they should not have these powers.

Another example: Most people up until the early to mid-2010s willingly and knowingly signed up for en masse data collection and sharing by social media companies for commercial purposes, because most people at that time believes that such data sharing would not be used against people. Thanks to various revelations over the years by Snowden, Manning, the Cambridge Analytica scandal and many others, people very much do not believe this anymore, hence the reason data retention, use of tracking cookies, etc has become controversial in a way it never was during the earlier internet. This happened as a direct cause of formerly trusted actors being exposed to have acted in bad faith using the blank cheque of trust they were previously afforded - this blank cheque was therefore withdrawn by many people who had previously felt no animosity towards it.

That's the issue with your standpoint, from what I've read in this discussion - you and several others are looking at this with the pre-existing notion that everyone agrees with your world view in which the state acts in good faith and with the best interests of its citizens at heart. Many, many people - with good reason as far as I'm concerned - believe the opposite, and will continue to believe it as long as (a) the currently dominant political parties remain in power, and (b) there isn't a wholescale, bottom up dismantling and rebuilding of vast areas of the state's bureacuracy itself.

Tl;dr, you and many on your side of this argument not only believe the Irish state to be trustworthy and generally a 'good' actor, but believe that everybody shares this view. Myself and many on my side of this argument believe the Irish state to be corrupt and rotten to its very core in many, many different ways and different areas, and in need of wholescale redesign, not just reform, to fix this. That's why there's such a gulf between the two sides of this argument - if you're starting with the assumption that the good nature of the establishment is a fact, you're never going to find yourself reaching any kind of understanding with those of us who believe that not only are those in power generally bad actors, but that the very structure which gives them their power is itself designed with bad intentions in mind.

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Opposition to the PSC has nothing to do with the technology or methods involved, it's the collection, retention, and sharing of personal data between government departments and what it will, and in the future might, be used for. They could be doing it using typewriters and carrier pigeons and it would still garner the same opposition.

It could we worse, you could be giving your personal information to a private sector company purely for the privilege of sharing your views on an internet board..............oh.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Tl;dr, you and many on your side of this argument not only believe the Irish state to be trustworthy and generally a 'good' actor, but believe that everybody shares this view. Myself and many on my side of this argument believe the Irish state to be corrupt and rotten to its very core in many, many different ways and different areas, and in need of wholescale redesign, not just reform, to fix this. That's why there's such a gulf between the two sides of this argument - if you're starting with the assumption that the good nature of the establishment is a fact, you're never going to find yourself reaching any kind of understanding with those of us who believe that not only are those in power generally bad actors, but that the very structure which gives them their power is itself designed with bad intentions in mind.

I’m glad that there are so many on my “side” I’m also glad that I’m of an optimistic nature and tend to look at the good in people. I’m especially glad that I live in a country that allows healthy debate and we can air our different opinions.
One could suggest that if people so despise and distrust their elected representatives, then they can always up sticks and move, as so many of our countrymen have done before. They should, however, be prepared for a much lower standard of living and less freedom of speech.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

I’m glad that there are so many on my “side” I’m also glad that I’m of an optimistic nature and tend to look at the good in people. I’m especially glad that I live in a country that allows healthy debate and we can air our different opinions.
One could suggest that if people so despise and distrust their elected representatives, then they can always up sticks and move, as so many of our countrymen have done before. They should, however, be prepared for a much lower standard of living and less freedom of speech.

Thankfully, we live in a democracy in which these things can be debated, as they are here. Why leave the country when we can campaign for change instead? That's exactly what's happening with the loud and growing opposition to the PSC. The "if you don't like how your country it being run, leave it" argument is complete bullsh!t tbh. I was merely pointing out that you are repeatedly failing to acknowledge the widespread distrust for the Irish government and state institutions which is the direct cause of many peoples' oppositions to allowing indiscriminate data collection, retention, and distribution among various arms of the state.

I also see the good in people, by the way - trying to paint me as someone who is overly paranoid or bitter is laughable. What I acknowledge is that power corrupts, and that therefore, we should only give the state the absolute bare minimum of power necessary. They have not demonstrated the necessity for this data collection power, while it's easy to demonstrate how it could be abused. Therefore, for the time being, I am opposed. My thought process on it is that simple. I am not a pessimist, but I absolutely am a cynic - numerous scandals over the years, the vast majority of which have gone entirely unpunished, have led me to that state of mind.

We're not just talking about elected representatives by the way. The state is also run by an army of utterly faceless and totally unaccountable individuals. In a state which almost never punishes anyone in any position of authority for doing anything wrong, giving them unnecessary power over and information about individual citizens is laughably moronic.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

the funny thing is that a luddite has a phobia of new technology or methods but need not be ignorant of them.

The fact that most of those objecting to the PSC make their living from new technology and methods shows this to be a fallacy.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

It could we worse, you could be giving your personal information to a private sector company purely for the privilege of sharing your views on an internet board..............oh.

The private sector does not have the type of supreme power and authority over people’s everyday lives that the state does. I absolutely agree that the handing over of data to private companies (as I actually cited as something which people have recently become aware of and opposed to in my previous post) but it is absolutely not comparing like with like. Private companies cannot have someone jailed, to take an obvious example. One can choose not to interact with private companies or the rules they enforce, but one cannot choose not to interact with the state without choosing not to live in it.

It is my belief that the government should have as little power as possible over individuals and that every power they want to create should be denied by default unless they can demonstrate that (a) they really need it, and (b) they will not abuse it. When the government wants to make a new rule of any kind, the default answer from society to that request should be “no”, unless they can satisfy the aforementioned criteria. I do not believe they have done either in this particular case.

Again, it comes down to the lense through which one views the state. I do not currently regard the state as a benign actor. And even if I did, the nature of democracy is that a benign state can very rapidly become a malicious one overnight. To take one laughable example, when the NSA warrantless surveillance apparatus was being created in the United States, many Democrats supported it and Obama lies to the public about dismantling it while secretly expanding it instead. When Edward Snowden exposed this, the reaction from Dems was essentially that the people should trust the government to do the right thing at all times.

Amazing how many people who defended it at that time changed their tunes spectacularly once Donald Trump took the White House and the Republicans took Congress.

EDIT: @Maryanne and others who are arguing this from the “our state is benign and wouldn’t intentionally harm its citizens” angle, would you still feel the same way if Sinn Fein were elected and formed a majority government?

lola85

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The private sector does not have the type of supreme power and authority over people’s everyday lives that the state does. I absolutely agree that the handing over of data to private companies (as I actually cited as something which people have recently become aware of and opposed to in my previous post) but it is absolutely not comparing like with like. Private companies cannot have someone jailed, to take an obvious example. One can choose not to interact with private companies or the rules they enforce, but one cannot choose not to interact with the state without choosing not to live in it.

It is my belief that the government should have as little power as possible over individuals and that every power they want to create should be denied by default unless they can demonstrate that (a) they really need it, and (b) they will not abuse it. When the government wants to make a new rule of any kind, the default answer from society to that request should be “no”, unless they can satisfy the aforementioned criteria. I do not believe they have done either in this particular case.

Again, it comes down to the lense through which one views the state. I do not currently regard the state as a benign actor. And even if I did, the nature of democracy is that a benign state can very rapidly become a malicious one overnight. To take one laughable example, when the NSA warrantless surveillance apparatus was being created in the United States, many Democrats supported it and Obama lies to the public about dismantling it while secretly expanding it instead. When Edward Snowden exposed this, the reaction from Dems was essentially that the people should trust the government to do the right thing at all times.

Amazing how many people who defended it at that time changed their tunes spectacularly once Donald Trump took the White House and the Republicans took Congress.

EDIT: @Maryanne and others who are arguing this from the “our state is benign and wouldn’t intentionally harm its citizens” angle, would you still feel the same way if Sinn Fein were elected and formed a majority government?

You really need to step outside and enjoy life.

Paranoia is not a good thing.

Unless you are trying to hide something that is.

hatrickpatrick

lola85 wrote: »

You really need to step outside and enjoy life.

Paranoia is not a good thing.

Unless you are trying to hide something that is.

1: Cynicism and paranoia are not the same thing. And to suggest that the Irish State has regularly f*cked over its own citizens for some nefarious purpose is not paranoia, it’s a fact. The entire reign of Brian Cowen’s government and the numerous scandals and examples of intentional wrongdoing which brought the country to its knees at that time comes to mind. The campaign to utterly destroy Sgt Maurice McCabe, in which Fine Gael played a massive role, also comes to mind.

2: The “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” argument comes straight from the totalitarian buzzwords glossary. Everyone in the world has something to hide. Nobody wants those in authority to know more than they absolutely have to about their private life.

lola85

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

1: Cynicism and paranoia are not the same thing. And to suggest that the Irish State has regularly f*cked over its own citizens for some nefarious purpose is not paranoia, it’s a fact. The entire reign of Brian Cowen’s government and the numerous scandals and examples of intentional wrongdoing which brought the country to its knees at that time comes to mind. The campaign to utterly destroy Sgt Maurice McCabe, in which Fine Gael played a massive role, also comes to mind.

2: The “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” argument comes straight from the totalitarian buzzwords glossary. Everyone in the world has something to hide. Nobody wants those in authority to know more than they absolutely have to about their private life.

Didn’t Leo Varadkar many moons ago support Mccabe when everyone wants trying to bury it?

Something McCabe mentioned on numerous occasions.

hatrickpatrick

lola85 wrote: »

Didn’t Leo Varadkar many moons ago support Mccabe when everyone wants trying to bury it?

Something McCabe mentioned on numerous occasions.

He may have, but the Minister for Justice at the time did everything he could to help the state f*ck him. Proving my point, really - just because one government is benign, doesn’t mean another government will be. The same obviously applies to departments - just because one department is benign, doesn’t mean they all are.

Do you agree or disagree with my basic assertion that the state should not be given any power at all, by default, unless they demonstrate (a) a legitimate need for it, and (b) an iron clad system to prevent abuse of it? That’s how I approach all questions of granting authority to the government. It has to be both necessary and safe, to reasonable standards, from the potential for abuse.

The Late Late Show

Do not see what the big deal is here about the PSC. This is more infantile drivel at a time when more serious issues (Brexit anyone!) are going. The merits of this card is that it does give ID to people who have no passports or driving licences (only in Ireland, are these considered ID: they are not ID, they are passports and driving licences). But if Ireland was to go with an official ID card, they would cry dictatorship and that the all encompassing state is watching. And the irony is these people unlike me would be watching and reading a lot less Handmaid's Tale!!!

PatrickSmithUS

Where is the the investigation at currently and what are the likely outcomes to this story?


I've seen different reports saying that a public body can get a GDPR fine of €10m and others that public bodies are exempt from financial penalties.

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The private sector does not have the type of supreme power and authority over people’s everyday lives that the state does. I absolutely agree that the handing over of data to private companies (as I actually cited as something which people have recently become aware of and opposed to in my previous post) but it is absolutely not comparing like with like. Private companies cannot have someone jailed, to take an obvious example. One can choose not to interact with private companies or the rules they enforce, but one cannot choose not to interact with the state without choosing not to live in it.

It is my belief that the government should have as little power as possible over individuals and that every power they want to create should be denied by default unless they can demonstrate that (a) they really need it, and (b) they will not abuse it. When the government wants to make a new rule of any kind, the default answer from society to that request should be “no”, unless they can satisfy the aforementioned criteria. I do not believe they have done either in this particular case.

Again, it comes down to the lense through which one views the state. I do not currently regard the state as a benign actor. And even if I did, the nature of democracy is that a benign state can very rapidly become a malicious one overnight. To take one laughable example, when the NSA warrantless surveillance apparatus was being created in the United States, many Democrats supported it and Obama lies to the public about dismantling it while secretly expanding it instead. When Edward Snowden exposed this, the reaction from Dems was essentially that the people should trust the government to do the right thing at all times.

Amazing how many people who defended it at that time changed their tunes spectacularly once Donald Trump took the White House and the Republicans took Congress.

EDIT: @Maryanne and others who are arguing this from the “our state is benign and wouldn’t intentionally harm its citizens” angle, would you still feel the same way if Sinn Fein were elected and formed a majority government?

That is to the right of most Republicans in the US.

Yes, you can refuse to give a private company your personal information, but that means you wouldn't be able to post on their site (boards), interact with your friends (Facebook), listen to your music (Apple), but many of those private companies (present company excluded, mods) have been found to have abused those powers with Apple listening in to private conversations etc.

We could have the same thing with the State, refuse an ID card, but get no education, health or welfare services. Off you go, then.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

That is to the right of most Republicans in the US.

Yes, you can refuse to give a private company your personal information, but that means you wouldn't be able to post on their site (boards), interact with your friends (Facebook), listen to your music (Apple), but many of those private companies (present company excluded, mods) have been found to have abused those powers with Apple listening in to private conversations etc.

We could have the same thing with the State, refuse an ID card, but get no education, health or welfare services. Off you go, then.

Big difference is that the functions you describe related to online cookie collectors are very much discretionary. The functions provided by the state - health, education, and welfare to take your examples - are not. That's why I have a much bigger problem with state abuse of power than private abuse of power.

Also, being cynical of a government's ambitions to gain more and more control over peoples' civil liberties is right wing now? The "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" deference to law enforcement etc is a right wing trait, FFS. Civil and social libertarianism are core left wing values - that human rights and civil liberties are the most important concern when it comes to making new laws, and all other considerations are secondary. That it's better, by default, to run the risk of crime (in this case, social welfare fraud) if the alternative is giving law enforcement more power and making people a little less free - unless it can be categorically justified.

AndrewJRenko

PatrickSmithUS wrote: »

Where is the the investigation at currently and what are the likely outcomes to this story?


I've seen different reports saying that a public body can get a GDPR fine of €10m and others that public bodies are exempt from financial penalties.

Oh, public bodies can get fined all right - big fines:
https://iapp.org/news/a/bulgarian-dpa-issued-bgn-5-1m-fine-to-national-revenue-agency-for-gdpr-violations/

The Late Late Show wrote: »

Do not see what the big deal is here about the PSC. This is more infantile drivel at a time when more serious issues (Brexit anyone!) are going. The merits of this card is that it does give ID to people who have no passports or driving licences (only in Ireland, are these considered ID: they are not ID, they are passports and driving licences). But if Ireland was to go with an official ID card, they would cry dictatorship and that the all encompassing state is watching. And the irony is these people unlike me would be watching and reading a lot less Handmaid's Tale!!!

The issue is that the card wasn't being offered to people as a nice facility for them to use. It was being forced on people, and it exploited people at vulnerable stages in their lives to force them to get the card.

blanch152 wrote: »

That is to the right of most Republicans in the US.

Yes, you can refuse to give a private company your personal information, but that means you wouldn't be able to post on their site (boards), interact with your friends (Facebook), listen to your music (Apple), but many of those private companies (present company excluded, mods) have been found to have abused those powers with Apple listening in to private conversations etc.

We could have the same thing with the State, refuse an ID card, but get no education, health or welfare services. Off you go, then.

We could do that, but as a minimum, we'd need a public debate on the merits of such a policy - and that debate has not happened.

Vetch

PatrickSmithUS wrote: »

Where is the the investigation at currently and what are the likely outcomes to this story?


I've seen different reports saying that a public body can get a GDPR fine of €10m and others that public bodies are exempt from financial penalties.

Fines are limited to €1m in Ireland for public bodies, unless they're public bodies under the Competition Act, by the Data Protection Act.

Graces7

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Oh, public bodies can get fined all right - big fines:
https://iapp.org/news/a/bulgarian-dpa-issued-bgn-5-1m-fine-to-national-revenue-agency-for-gdpr-violations/



The issue is that the card wasn't being offered to people as a nice facility for them to use. It was being forced on people, and it exploited people at vulnerable stages in their lives to force them to get the card.

We could do that, but as a minimum, we'd need a public debate on the merits of such a policy - and that debate has not happened.

well said. I fell foul of that; a bully lady! I am still unsure what the situation is for a foreign national resident here in Ireland?

I won that battle by the way and was not forced to get a card but lost out financially.

AllGunsBlazing

Bit of an interesting week.

First off, the government pretty much told the data commissioner to get back indoors as they have no intention of complying with her demands. And then the department of foreign affairs issue a statement declaring that the PSC is no longer mandatory for first-time passport applications.


So basically the PSC's remit is being gradually reigned back in. Other than Welfare what other public services make it an absolute requirement?

_Kaiser_

The Late Late Show wrote: »

Do not see what the big deal is here about the PSC. This is more infantile drivel at a time when more serious issues (Brexit anyone!) are going. The merits of this card is that it does give ID to people who have no passports or driving licences (only in Ireland, are these considered ID: they are not ID, they are passports and driving licences). But if Ireland was to go with an official ID card, they would cry dictatorship and that the all encompassing state is watching. And the irony is these people unlike me would be watching and reading a lot less Handmaid's Tale!!!

Brexit is largely outside of our control. It's down to what the UK decide and the EU agrees to that'll determine the outcome. All we can do is prepare.
Brexit may be being used as a convenient "catch-all" of late to try and ignore, deflect or downgrade everything else, but while it's certainly serious, it's not something we can influence beyond what has been done already.

The PSC has nothing to do with Brexit, nor is it affected by whatever outcome results of Brexit. The handling, storage, usage, and inevitable breaches that will result involving OUR data are very much a concern in a society where all of this is connected and online.

Personally I don't trust the Civil Service and (any) Government of Ireland to competently manage that responsibility and I've seen nothing in the bully-boy approach taken so far to this card to reassure me.

kippy

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Brexit is largely outside of our control. It's down to what the UK decide and the EU agrees to that'll determine the outcome. All we can do is prepare.
Brexit may be being used as a convenient "catch-all" of late to try and ignore, deflect or downgrade everything else, but while it's certainly serious, it's not something we can influence beyond what has been done already.

The PSC has nothing to do with Brexit, nor is it affected by whatever outcome results of Brexit. The handling, storage, usage, and inevitable breaches that will result involving OUR data are very much a concern in a society where all of this is connected and online.

Personally I don't trust the Civil Service and (any) Government of Ireland to competently manage that responsibility and I've seen nothing in the bully-boy approach taken so far to this card to reassure me.

Do you trust anyone/organisation?

Dytalus

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The PSC has nothing to do with Brexit, nor is it affected by whatever outcome results of Brexit. The handling, storage, usage, and inevitable breaches that will result involving OUR data are very much a concern in a society where all of this is connected and online.

The Government already handles an enormous amount of your data, for healthcare, taxes, child benefits. The PSC could, maybe, consolidate your personal data which is spread out over all the Departments into one location.

The major benefit of this is it no longer becomes necessary to give your data to the Civil Service everytime you interact with them. Just once, updating as necessary. Less times your data is collected and changes hands, the more secure it is. It also, conceivably, makes it easier to protect that data while it is stored because it can be under the purview of a single body with a focus on IT security and knowledge (for example, the OGCIO) rather than spread out among Departments with all different levels of IT security expertise.

The risk, obviously, is that a breach of a single source would put all your data at risk rather than a small segment of it. The location could be (could be) more secure, but the cost of a breach would be worse.

_Kaiser_

kippy wrote: »

Do you trust anyone/organisation?

When it comes to things like utilities or finance, they get what they need to provide whatever service I want, but no more.

Anything that requires an email address I use one of several for.. each address for different purposes.

I don't really do social media or post the details of my day on Facebook, Twitter, whatever. For the most part I see these as a waste of time or an occasionally useful/necessary tool to interact with a company.

Even when it comes to billing, I stay away from Direct Debits unless for a known fixed amount on an agreed day. I don't do PAYG phones or toll tags as I don't like random hits to my accounts for different amounts each time.
Aside from the budgeting hassle, when these companies inevitably screw up (and they will!) it takes an age to sort and usually in the form of credit off their next bill. I prefer to limit the risk.

But when it comes to our bloated, inefficient and often incompetent public/civil service (notwithstanding excellent individuals employed there), who are already poor users of technology, absolutely do I want to limit my risk regarding the data they hold too.

kippy

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

When it comes to things like utilities or finance, they get what they need to provide whatever service I want, but no more.

Anything that requires an email address I use one of several for.. each address for different purposes.

I don't really do social media or post the details of my day on Facebook, Twitter, whatever. For the most part I see these as a waste of time or an occasionally useful/necessary tool to interact with a company.

Even when it comes to billing, I stay away from Direct Debits unless for a known fixed amount on an agreed day. I don't do PAYG phones or toll tags as I don't like random hits to my accounts for different amounts each time.
Aside from the budgeting hassle, when these companies inevitably screw up (and they will!) it takes an age to sort and usually in the form of credit off their next bill. I prefer to limit the risk.

But when it comes to our bloated, inefficient and often incompetent public/civil service (notwithstanding excellent individuals employed there), who are already poor users of technology, absolutely do I want to limit my risk regarding the data they hold too.

So what are the main risks you foresee with organisations and the data they store on you?
Sorry, genuinely interested.