Bye bye Public Services Card

Floppybits

Calhoun wrote: »

She might not have an option if the pressure keeps up, we saw the impact Bailey had on the local elections they won't risk another case like that.

The thing is that FG have backed themselves into a corner now and they can't or won't get rid. If they got rid of Doherty then it would be open season on a few other FG ministers such as Harris and Murphy. I would also expect Doherty would not go quietly.

Calhoun

Floppybits wrote: »

The thing is that FG have backed themselves into a corner now and they can't or won't get rid. If they got rid of Doherty then it would be open season on a few other FG ministers such as Harris and Murphy. I would also expect Doherty would not go quietly.

Indeed it's hard on them as she is already very unpopular, there best bet now is that Miss Piggy will do something even worse and they can just drop her useless arse.

Portsalon

Eric Cartman wrote: »

How absolutely dare one of the most generous welfare systems in the world have any method for checking for fraud and establishing somebodys ability to work an immigration status, how very dare they.

In fairness to Bugs Dixon, she has stated pretty clearly that those types of application of the PSC are legal and can continue.

Portsalon

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Now the state is looking at potential claims for breaches of GDPR from holders of these cards.

Looking more deeply at that prospect and given that The State is taxpayer-funded we're looking at the possibility of taxpayers suing themselves for compo!

We're back into Banana Republic country and the only winners will be the lads and lassies in the flea-bitten wigs!

Plumbthedepths

Portsalon wrote: »

Looking more deeply at that prospect and given that The State is taxpayer-funded we're looking at the possibility of taxpayers suing themselves for compo!

We're back into Banana Republic country and the only winners will be the lads and lassies in the flea-bitten wigs!

Direct your irritation at the Muppets that allowed this situation happen ie...FG.

Dytalus

Portsalon wrote: »

Looking more deeply at that prospect and given that The State is taxpayer-funded we're looking at the possibility of taxpayers suing themselves for compo!

We're back into Banana Republic country and the only winners will be the lads and lassies in the flea-bitten wigs!

GDPR fines are not the same as compensation. A breach having occurred is not an immediate sign that compensation is due to the Data Subjects - nor for that matter is it a sign that a fine will be issued. As I mentioned before, the Commission's first goal is to ensure people follow GDPR rather than gather loads of money. If they believe the Government will work properly to address the issue now that it's been discovered, they may not choose to award any fines in this instance and save them for potential future breaches.

This practice is used by the DPC for private bodies too. So long as a body is seen to be making a proper effort to correct a problem, it doesn't award fines. It saves the stick until a body flaunts GDPR with no good conscience effort to follow it. And to protect taxpayers in the event of fines being given out to a public body, the maximum fine a public body can receive in Ireland is €1 million. Not ignorable, but not something disastrous that the taxpayers will have to pay for. URL="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/7/enacted/en/print#sec141"]Data Protection Act 2018, Section 141(4)[/URL The bigger hit for a public body is the publicity which sours the governments future election prospects - which arguably matters more to some ministers than how much the fine is.

People can sue for compensation, naturally, but without any material damage done (for example, if someone can use leaked information to access your bank account - not applicable in this case, but as a general GDPR thing) it's unlikely that much in the way of compensation would be awarded. It's hard to say, there's not a lot of case law to use as an example. They'd need to make a case that they suffered harm as a result of this.

It's doubly complicated by the fact that the majority of this problem is one of 'legal basis for processing' rather than a data breach as such. Nobody's personal data has gotten unleashed or leaked to the world at large, rather the government had no legal basis to be processing data related to the PSC outside of social welfare. Still a data breach (DEASP shared the data) in the GDPR sense, but it's arguable that data subjects suffered any 'material or non-material damage' URL="https://gdpr-info.eu/art-82-gdpr/"]GDPR Article 82 (1)[/URL. 'Non-material' is fairly open, naturally. So it's not impossible it could happen, I just personally think it unlikely.

Portsalon

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Direct your irritation at the Muppets that allowed this situation happen ie...FG.

As stated earlier in this thread, I have absolutely no problem with the government's objective of developing a single identity document for interaction with state services. It's a complete no-brainer.

My objection is to the self-important dimwits who appear genuinely to believe that their so-called "sensitive personal data" is of interest to anyone other than themselves.

But then, as the great PT Barnum once remarked, there's a sucker born every minute.

Portsalon

Dytalus wrote: »

GDPR fines are not the same as compensation. A breach having occurred is not an immediate sign that compensation is due to the Data Subjects - nor for that matter is it a sign that a fine will be issued. As I mentioned before, the Commission's first goal is to ensure people follow GDPR rather than gather loads of money. If they believe the Government will work properly to address the issue now that it's been discovered, they may not choose to award any fines in this instance and save them for potential future breaches.

This practice is used by the DPC for private bodies too. So long as a body is seen to be making a proper effort to correct a problem, it doesn't award fines. It saves the stick until a body flaunts GDPR with no good conscience effort to follow it. And to protect taxpayers in the event of fines being given out to a public body, the maximum fine a public body can receive in Ireland is €1 million. Not ignorable, but not something disastrous that the taxpayers will have to pay for. URL="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/7/enacted/en/print#sec141"]Data Protection Act 2018, Section 141(4)[/URL The bigger hit for a public body is the publicity which sours the governments future election prospects - which arguably matters more to some ministers than how much the fine is.

People can sue for compensation, naturally, but without any material damage done (for example, if someone can use leaked information to access your bank account - not applicable in this case, but as a general GDPR thing) it's unlikely that much in the way of compensation would be awarded. It's hard to say, there's not a lot of case law to use as an example. They'd need to make a case that they suffered harm as a result of this.

It's doubly complicated by the fact that the majority of this problem is one of 'legal basis for processing' rather than a data breach as such. Nobody's personal data has gotten unleashed or leaked to the world at large, rather the government had no legal basis to be processing data related to the PSC outside of social welfare. Still a data breach (DEASP shared the data) in the GDPR sense, but it's arguable that data subjects suffered any 'material or non-material damage' URL="https://gdpr-info.eu/art-82-gdpr/"]GDPR Article 82 (1)[/URL. 'Non-material' is fairly open, naturally. So it's not impossible it could happen, I just personally think it unlikely.

Thanks, and I agree with your post.

However, it should have been clear that my post wasn't referring to the DPC fining the Irish Taxpayer for the perceived abuse of the PSC, and so-called "illegal" retention of "personal data" (i.e. utility bills), but rather to the references by academics and others of the possibility of taking a class action against the Irish Taxpayer.

Plumbthedepths

Portsalon wrote: »

As stated earlier in this thread, I have absolutely no problem with the government's objective of developing a single identity document for interaction with state services. It's a complete no-brainer.

My objection is to the self-important dimwits who appear genuinely to believe that their so-called "sensitive personal data" is of interest to anyone other than themselves.

But then, as the great PT Barnum once remarked, there's a sucker born every minute.

Such is life you have no problem with what the government tried others including the DPC clearly have. Your objection seems to be based entirely on your own opinion and bias. The only dimwits I'm aware of are the Muppets who couldn't introduce this properly.
I'm sure P.T. would recognise you immediately.

Portsalon

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Such is life you have no problem with what the government tried others including the DPC clearly have. Your objection seems to be based entirely on your own opinion and bias. The only dimwits I'm aware of are the Muppets who couldn't introduce this properly.
I'm sure P.T. would recognise you immediately.

Whereas your objection are based on the works of George Orwell and Franz Kafka! Read presumably in comic form, with lots of brightly coloured pictures.

Plumbthedepths

Portsalon wrote: »

Whereas your objection are based on the works of George Orwell and Franz Kafka! Read presumably in comic form, with lots of brightly coloured pictures.

See that's the problem you clearly have no ability to read. I said earlier in the thread I had no issue with the card once proper legislation was introduced and debated in the Dail.
Have a read back lad and don't be embarrassing yourself.

BarryD2

Portsalon wrote: »

Looking more deeply at that prospect and given that The State is taxpayer-funded we're looking at the possibility of taxpayers suing themselves for compo!

Chances are that the sort of citizens who will look for compo for this, are not taxpayers in the first place.

Plumbthedepths

BarryD2 wrote: »

Chances are that the sort of citizens who will look for compo for this, are not taxpayers in the first place.

How doesn't pay tax? There is more forms of tax than just PAYE. My parents are retired but pay lots of taxes just not PAYE.

Draco

Since it's been brought up a few times, the savings from detecting welfare fraud/overpayments with the PSC card up to 2017 were about €2.5 million after a €60 million spend:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/average-fraud-saving-of-1-16-for-each-public-services-card-issued-1.3173443

Official (anti-fraud) savings up to October as a result of registering customers through face-to-face process for the card were €2.58 million, according to departmental records released under the Freedom of Information Act. Some 2.23 million cards had been issued at that time.

This means the amount saved due to capturing alleged fraud when registering for the card at that time was just under €1.16 per card issued.

The department has an annual budget of almost €20 billion. It has said separately it has saved more than €500 million due to other control measures to detect fraud and overpayments.

That's 0.00125% of the total budget for the department.

Welfare fraud is a much smaller problem than people assume.

The PSC has its origins in the UK talking about bring in an ID card but that plan was shelved and the PSC lumbered on.

I'd be completely opposed to a national ID card and I've certainly nothing to hide. The problems range from is it an offence not to have it at all times (ie. I go to buy a coffee in the morning and don't bring my wallet and stoped is it a crime?), what data is held (e.g. would religion be part of the information stored?), what data is printed on the card, who has access (not just restrictions on accessing the information on the chip but the government database), who can legal demand to see it, what happens if you're refused service for not having one?

When considering things like this you should always figure out what would happen in a worst case scenario (e.g. you have a lunatic stalker - could they get their hands on the info and weaponise it against you? or more extreme example - a far right hardline catholic government comes in - could they round up non-catholics on the basis of the information on the card?). Technology alone doesn't solve these issues.

Given the first pilot for the PSC was in 2011 (according to The Journal) I'm not sure FG should shoulder the entire blame - it would have been conceived under FF. FG should have listened to the myriad of experts that warned them there was no legal basis for this and shut it all down.

kneemos

Draco wrote: »

Since it's been brought up a few times, the savings from detecting welfare fraud/overpayments with the PSC card up to 2017 were about €2.5 million after a €60 million spend:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/average-fraud-saving-of-1-16-for-each-public-services-card-issued-1.3173443



That's 0.00125% of the total budget for the department.

Welfare fraud is a much smaller problem than people assume.

The PSC has its origins in the UK talking about bring in an ID card but that plan was shelved and the PSC lumbered on.

I'd be completely opposed to a national ID card and I've certainly nothing to hide. The problems range from is it an offence not to have it at all times (ie. I go to buy a coffee in the morning and don't bring my wallet and stoped is it a crime?), what data is held (e.g. would religion be part of the information stored?), what data is printed on the card, who has access (not just restrictions on accessing the information on the chip but the government database), who can legal demand to see it, what happens if you're refused service for not having one?

When considering things like this you should always figure out what would happen in a worst case scenario (e.g. you have a lunatic stalker - could they get their hands on the info and weaponise it against you? or more extreme example - a far right hardline catholic government comes in - could they round up non-catholics on the basis of the information on the card?). Technology alone doesn't solve these issues.

Given the first pilot for the PSC was in 2011 (according to The Journal) I'm not sure FG should shoulder the entire blame - it would have been conceived under FF. FG should have listened to the myriad of experts that warned them there was no legal basis for this and shut it all down.

Would this Catholic government be called the caliban?

ddarcy

Draco wrote: »

Given the first pilot for the PSC was in 2011 (according to The Journal) I'm not sure FG should shoulder the entire blame - it would have been conceived under FF. FG should have listened to the myriad of experts that warned them there was no legal basis for this and shut it all down.

Sorry the issue isn’t that it was being used for Social Welfare fraud/ social welfare. This is still legal. The issue is FG decided, without the necessary legislation, to expand this to other areas. That has been found to be illegal.

So this is 100pct FGs fault. They can’t blame anyone else here.

Draco

ddarcy wrote: »

Sorry the issue isn’t that it was being used for Social Welfare fraud/ social welfare. This is still legal. The issue is FG decided, without the necessary legislation, to expand this to other areas. That has been found to be illegal.

Yes, I was adding information for that part - people had assumed a great deal had been saved so it was a justified project. I don't think the numbers support that though.

ddarcy wrote: »

So this is 100pct FGs fault. They can’t blame anyone else here.

I wouldn't be entirely convinced that the scope creep wasn't entirely planned from the start though. If I was pushed on percentages (and sure why not?) I'd split the blame 10%/90% between FF/FG - 10% for conception and the rest for an entirely terrible implementation.

Portsalon

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

See that's the problem you clearly have no ability to read. I said earlier in the thread I had no issue with the card once proper legislation was introduced and debated in the Dail.
Have a read back lad and don't be embarrassing yourself.

As I "clearly have no ability to read" there doesn't really seem to be much point in advising me to "have a read back" does there?

Unless of course you've previously posted some of those garish Kafka and Orwell comic book pictures that I mentioned earlier. Because I can "read" pictures.

Plumbthedepths

Portsalon wrote: »

As I "clearly have no ability to read" there doesn't really seem to be much point in advising me to "have a read back" does there?

Unless of course you've previously posted some of those garish Kafka and Orwell comic book pictures that I mentioned earlier. Because I can "read" pictures.

I'm at a loss to understand your attitude tbh, I had no hand or part in the f**k up created by FG. I do take exception to someone making claims on my behave that I'm innocent of . Take your nonsense up with the responsible parties. I'm done with your carry on.

tayto lover

I don’t have a lot of time for FG in general. I do like a few of their councillors locally who seem to be doing good work in many areas.
I have no problem with the PSC being used by Government departments if it makes my daily life easier when applying for passport, driving license etc.

How can it be exploited anyway?

BorneTobyWilde

Refusing people their right to travel was not making it easier for anyone to get a passport. Everyone has a right to apply for a passport and travel, to hold their heads over a barrel to prevent them getting a passport was just wrong.

Billgirlylegs

tayto lover wrote: »

I don’t have a lot of time for FG in general. I do like a few of their councillors locally who seem to be doing good work in many areas.
I have no problem with the PSC being used by Government departments if it makes my daily life easier when applying for passport, driving license etc.

How can it be exploited anyway?

Quote your PPSN.

After that produce documents to prove you are who you say you are.

If all you need to do is "produce a PSC" then what happens if you misplace it or someone learns how to copy it,

If it a simple process for you, rest assured its simple for someone else to pretend to be you.

uck51js9zml2yt

Calhoun wrote: »

They don't give off that vibe externally, they look like they are very weak when it comes to private entities.



I would think the outrage should be at the politicians and also the public servants who ****ed up the deployment and rollout but also the retention of data illegally.

You don't vote in politicians and get a full break down of how something will be rolled out. You also would expect the permanent fixture public servants would roll it out correctly and also not break the law.

The civil servants roll out something at the direction of the minister.

Floppybits

tayto lover wrote: »

I don’t have a lot of time for FG in general. I do like a few of their councillors locally who seem to be doing good work in many areas.
I have no problem with the PSC being used by Government departments if it makes my daily life easier when applying for passport, driving license etc.

How can it be exploited anyway?

Alot of people may not have a problem with a national ID card or the PSC, the issue that the people don't trust the government. They will feel that the goverment will do a half arsed job of securing the data, will sell the data to make a few quid or will misuse the data for their own gain. You can't really blame people for thinking this when FG and FF always put themselves, family, supporters, party all before the country.

tayto lover

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

Quote your PPSN.

After that produce documents to prove you are who you say you are.

If all you need to do is "produce a PSC" then what happens if you misplace it or someone learns how to copy it,

If it a simple process for you, rest assured its simple for someone else to pretend to be you.

When applying they ask you questions I.e. the name of your first pet.
Only you will know the answers.
It’s much the same as your password for logging in to things surely.

Graces7

tayto lover wrote: »

When applying they ask you questions I.e. the name of your first pet.
Only you will know the answers.
It’s much the same as your password for logging in to things surely.

My PPSN number is on my medical card..which is always in my purse

Calhoun

Lola Victorious Ratchet wrote: »

The civil servants roll out something at the direction of the minister.

Civil servants are a near constant fixture within governments, i would be under the impression they have a bigger hand in the roll out of policy.

Maybe not but if i was to read what your saying all of this card has been rolled out at the ministers discretion despite the legal challenges meaning Doherty is at fault.

mrslancaster

The Highwayman wrote: »

I didn't think class action were possible in Ireland?

National ID cards? NO! I dont need to identify myself in my own country. It's a huge infringement on civil liberties.

Very surprised to see the wide range of bodies that the DSP had already shared Public Service Card information with..
https://psc.gov.ie/appendix-bodies-whom-received-the-public-service-identity-data-from-the-department-of-employment-affairs-social-protection-in-2016/

And this list of Specified Bodies who can access data
https://psc.gov.ie/specified-bodies/

It looks like a lot of the legal basis is in the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 brought in by FF and inherited by later governments.

https://psc.gov.ie/appendix-guide-to-the-legal-provisions-associated-with-the-public-services-card-psc/

Portsalon

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

Quote your PPSN. After that produce documents to prove you are who you say you are.

If it a simple process for you, rest assured its simple for someone else to pretend to be you.

Although not nearly as simple as it was before the PSC was introduced!

_Kaiser_

So FG are to challenge the Data Commissioner's findings, saying (among other things) that she exceeded her powers

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-to-challenge-order-that-public-services-card-had-no-basis-in-law-1.4005670

The Government will challenge the decision in court and defend the continued use of the card. They will also decline to publish the full report of the commissioner’s office.

The two departments have taken advice from the Attorney General and from an external counsel retained by the attorney’s office, who have advised that the commissioner’s decision was wrong in law and exceeded her powers.

The memo is understood to be critical of the commissioner’s move in publishing a press release announcing the decision.

The arrogance of FG never ceases to amaze me. Sounds more like they're annoyed that she let the plebs (us!) know than anything else.. And once again another report they don't intend to publish.