Bye bye Public Services Card

mrslancaster

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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 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.

Reading the following bit of the SW 2005 act it looks like they can issue a PSC with all the details listed and any of the prescribed bodies can ask for it for any transaction.

Also, they can also change or add to the list of prescribed bodies at the whim of the minister for social protection which imo is the sneaky bit - they could put whoever they like on that list ...:eek:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/26/enacted/en/print#sec263


All the prescribed bodies can share information so maybe that's not allowed now because of GDPR. Does the GDPR legislation override anything that went beforehand?

BorneTobyWilde

It's already a suppressed news story. RTE is under control of Government, seems it's all being pushed under the carpet, and they will continue to use PSC and share information illegally with anyone they wish to, but what would you expect from one of the most corrupt countries in the western world

wiggle16

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

It's already a suppressed news story. RTE is under control of Government, seems it's all being pushed under the carpet, and they will continue to use PSC and share information illegally with anyone they wish to, but what would you expect from one of the most corrupt countries in the western world

If you had any idea how poor goverment departments are at sharing information with one another you'd throw your tinfoil hat away.

BorneTobyWilde

wiggle16 wrote: »

If you had any idea how poor goverment departments are at sharing information with one another you'd throw your tinfoil hat away.

I received no letter? They said all the people with a PSC would be contacted, never happened. They ignored the court and the law and carried on regardless.

ohnonotgmail

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I received no letter? They said all the people with a PSC would be contacted, never happened. They ignored the court and the law and carried on regardless.

the government is challenging the decision. No action will be taken until that has been exhausted.

blanch152

mrslancaster wrote: »

Reading the following bit of the SW 2005 act it looks like they can issue a PSC with all the details listed and any of the prescribed bodies can ask for it for any transaction.

Also, they can also change or add to the list of prescribed bodies at the whim of the minister for social protection which imo is the sneaky bit - they could put whoever they like on that list ...:eek:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/26/enacted/en/print#sec263


All the prescribed bodies can share information so maybe that's not allowed now because of GDPR. Does the GDPR legislation override anything that went beforehand?

The last sentence of your post is one question. Also GDPR regulations do allow for exceptions for national identity cards. Whether our national identity card that isn't a national identity card qualifies for the exception is another question.

The DPC is qualified to judge it up to an extent, but the Courts have overturned DPC decisions before, and may do so again.

BorneTobyWilde

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the government is challenging the decision. No action will be taken until that has been exhausted.

So they'll bribe a judge to get what they want.

blanch152

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

So they'll bribe a judge to get what they want.

http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-87-processing-of-the-national-identification-number-GDPR.htm

"Member States may further determine the specific conditions for the processing of a national identification number or any other identifier of general application. In that case the national identification number or any other identifier of general application shall be used only under appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of the data subject pursuant to this Regulation. "


The issue isn't really whether the Government can use a national identification number, the issue is whether they did so correctly. If the national Courts, or ultimately the European courts rule that the Social Welfare Acts are not worded correctly, all they will have to do is correct the wording to continue using it, as Article 87 is pretty clear.

Sciprio

wiggle16 wrote: »

If you had any idea how poor goverment departments are at sharing information with one another you'd throw your tinfoil hat away.

He's not wrong! RTÉ is propaganda. And they want people to pay for it? The cheek of them!:D

wiggle16

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

So they'll bribe a judge to get what they want.

Who are "they"? The government? The civil service? Why would the government need to bribe a judge when surely the judge is one of "them".

I am also one of "them". Lovely to meet you x

Portsalon

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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

Excellent news for the taxpayer. Even more pleasing is the fact that it has greatly upset the tinfoil hat looper brigade!

I wonder will Bugs Bunny resign when she is found to have exceeded her powers.

Soulsun

Is there likely to be class action cases on this? And cost the tax payer more money?

banie01

Soulsun wrote: »

Is there likely to be class action cases on this? And cost the tax payer more money?

There is no scope in law for a class action suit in Irish law that I am aware of.

The DPC issued a finding and the Government, indeed any party subject to such a finding are fully entitled to seek a review of that decision and it's appropriateness.

I would however be quite surprised if the DPC's rationale is anything but watertight on this.
GDPR has been a sea change for DP officers and departments and it has yet to be significantly challenged in Irish courts as yet.

The DPC will have run their report past external counsel and have sought more than 1 opinion that corroborates their position.

Government and by extension the department's will be scrambling to justify the positions and uses they have allowed the PSC to be extended to beyond the DEASP.
They will find some solicitor and barrister who will agree with their interpretations of the rules.

It will be up to a High Court Judge to review and decide, and that's something I have no problem with.
It's one of the massive benefits of living in a common law jurisdiction that we can challenge the interpretation and application of the law in instances such as this one.

radia

banie01 wrote: »

There is no scope in law for a class action suit in Irish law that I am aware of.

Article 80 in the GDPR has introduced the potential for collective action/claims consolidation. It's not exactly a class action, but it's closer than anything we've had before. It's been the subject of legal discussion - see these links from well known firms:
William Fry - Has the GDPR Opened the Door to Class Actions in Ireland?
DAC Beachcroft - Are GDPR Class Actions on the Horizon? An Irish Perspective

banie01

radia wrote: »

Article 80 in the GDPR has introduced the potential for collective action/claims consolidation. It's not exactly a class action, but it's closer than anything we've had before. It's been the subject of legal discussion - see these links from well known firms:
William Fry - Has the GDPR Opened the Door to Class Actions in Ireland?
DAC Beachcroft - Are GDPR Class Actions on the Horizon? An Irish Perspective

Thanks for that
Worked until quite recently in DP and GDPR area and that particular caveat is news to me.

Always, always RTFM.. I mean the legislation! Fully :P

Calhoun

Regina just on morning Ireland saying she will challenge the findings but thinks she has behaved legally. Could be the hill she dies on so close to an election.

Plumbthedepths

Portsalon wrote: »

Excellent news for the taxpayer. Even more pleasing is the fact that it has greatly upset the tinfoil hat looper brigade!

I wonder will Bugs Bunny resign when she is found to have exceeded her powers.

So you know the outcome of the case before it is presented to a judge? Have you tonight's Lotto numbers?

Portsalon

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So you know the outcome of the case before it is presented to a judge? Have you tonight's Lotto numbers?

Oh dear! Presumably your brain was unable to process the fact that irrespective of the outcome of the High Court appeal, a "bugs bunny" will be found to have exceeded her powers!

Subtle I grant you, and, in all fairness, few enough lotto players would be all that competent at spotting ambiguity.

So, to restate my sentence in lotto parlance: the house always wins.

blanch152

Calhoun wrote: »

Regina just on morning Ireland saying she will challenge the findings but thinks she has behaved legally. Could be the hill she dies on so close to an election.

Thought she was very reasonable.

Some of the questions from RTE were quite strange. Asking about costs of a court case in the Circuit Court, when the costs of reverting to paper forms in triplicate to confirm identity are far greater.

malinheader

blanch152 wrote: »

Thought she was very reasonable.

Some of the questions from RTE were quite strange. Asking about costs of a court case in the Circuit Court, when the costs of reverting to paper forms in triplicate to confirm identity are far greater.

True. But loved the way when asked about spending tax payers money she said it wouldn't cost that much being in the circuit court. Would love to know what she thinks isn't very much.

blanch152

malinheader wrote: »

True. But loved the way when asked about spending tax payers money she said it wouldn't cost that much being in the circuit court. Would love to know what she thinks isn't very much.

If a court case is going to cost 50k, but it will cost 50 million to implement the DPC's finding, even if the government only have a 10% chance of winning, on an cost/benefit analysis, the best expenditure of taxpayer's money is to take the case.

Plumbthedepths

Portsalon wrote: »

Oh dear! Presumably your brain was unable to process the fact that irrespective of the outcome of the High Court appeal, a "bugs bunny" will be found to have exceeded her powers!

Subtle I grant you, and, in all fairness, few enough lotto players would be all that competent at spotting ambiguity.

So, to restate my sentence in lotto parlance: the house always wins.

As I said you are preempting a judge's decision. The rest of your comment demonstrates laughable ignorance, but I will say you are consistent in your commentary.

malinheader

blanch152 wrote: »

If a court case is going to cost 50k, but it will cost 50 million to implement the DPC's finding, even if the government only have a 10% chance of winning, on an cost/benefit analysis, the best expenditure of taxpayer's money is to take the case.

Where did you get the cost of 50k. The minister wasn't even able to give a cost when asked.

Plumbthedepths

malinheader wrote: »

Where did you get the cost of 50k. The minister wasn't even able to give a cost when asked.

Don't you know the experts in favour of the card know everything, except the costs or which court the challenge is being taken in .

blanch152

malinheader wrote: »

Where did you get the cost of 50k. The minister wasn't even able to give a cost when asked.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Don't you know the experts in favour of the card know everything, except the costs or which court the challenge is being taken in .

blanch152 wrote: »

If a court case is going to cost 50k, but it will cost 50 million to implement the DPC's finding, even if the government only have a 10% chance of winning, on an cost/benefit analysis, the best expenditure of taxpayer's money is to take the case.

Which bit of "If" do you not understand?

The figures were speculative but illustrative in that the changes proposed by the DPC to the public service will cost a multiple of millions (but exact costs are unknown) and would add up to hundreds of millions over a decade while any court case would be a small fraction of that.

Plumbthedepths

blanch152 wrote: »

Which bit of "If" do you not understand?

The figures were speculative but illustrative in that the changes proposed by the DPC to the public service will cost a multiple of millions (but exact costs are unknown) and would add up to hundreds of millions over a decade while any court case would be a small fraction of that.

Your if and related figure is nothing but an attempt to put a positive spin on the behaviour of this government ,the rest of my comment was directed to a condescending individual who couldn't even be bothered getting their facts straight about which court will hear the action instead of the usual pathetic insult.

malinheader

blanch152 wrote: »

Which bit of "If" do you not understand?

The figures were speculative but illustrative in that the changes proposed by the DPC to the public service will cost a multiple of millions (but exact costs are unknown) and would add up to hundreds of millions over a decade while any court case would be a small fraction of that.

Sorry your getting so hot and bothered about this. And I understand you are only guessing how much the court case would cost.
Now do you understand the point I was making about how our overpaid ministers just shrug off the use of tax payers money when it comes to it.€50,000 wouldn't even come close in my opinion.

blanch152

malinheader wrote: »

Sorry your getting so hot and bothered about this. And I understand you are only guessing how much the court case would cost.
Now do you understand the point I was making about how our overpaid ministers just shrug off the use of tax payers money when it comes to it.€50,000 wouldn't even come close in my opinion.

I think the opposite. Taking a court case for a sum of money that will stop many millions being sent if it is successful is very much worth it.

Even if the Attorney General had said this is very much 50-50, it is well worth challenging it in order to save the costs of compliance if the case is won.

Edit: Imagine if someone told you that you had to pay for a trip to the moon and it would cost €10m, but if you bought a €1 lottery card with a 1 in 3 chance, you wouldn't have to go to the moon and wouldn't have to pay €10m if you won. You would be mad not to buy the €1 lottery card especially if you didn't want to go to the moon.

malinheader

blanch152 wrote: »

I think the opposite. Taking a court case for a sum of money that will stop many millions being sent if it is successful is very much worth it.

Even if the Attorney General had said this is very much 50-50, it is well worth challenging it in order to save the costs of compliance if the case is won.

Edit: Imagine if someone told you that you had to pay for a trip to the moon and it would cost €10m, but if you bought a €1 lottery card with a 1 in 3 chance, you wouldn't have to go to the moon and wouldn't have to pay €10m if you won. You would be mad not to buy the €1 lottery card especially if you didn't want to go to the moon.

Still think it's a joke, very costly joke wasting taxpayers money to allow the government to challenge one of their own state bodies, who they fund in court. Simple solution is just scrap the card. Too many stupid, costly court cases and tribunals in this country.

What’s all the fuss about? After all, numerous organisations have your PPS number. Along with your date of birth, address and photo. Should we start refusing to give them this information?