Bye bye Public Services Card

Portsalon

malinheader wrote: »

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.

That would be complete insanity!

Even Bugs Bunny has conceded that the PSC could still legally be used for Social Welfare purposes.

Plumbthedepths

I have a little thing called a passport. 190 + countries worldwide accept this as proof as to my identity. The one exception was up until recently the Irish state who issued said document to me. I would like the government to be honest and have a debate in the Dail and if the intention is to have the PSC as an ID card put the legislation forward and vote on same. Not the underhanded BS they are currently engaged in.

boege

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I have a little thing called a passport. 190 + countries worldwide accept this as proof as to my identity. The one exception was up until recently the Irish state who issued said document to me. I would like the government to be honest and have a debate in the Dail and if the intention is to have the PSC as an ID card put the legislation forward and vote on same. Not the underhanded BS they are currently engaged in.

Not everyone has a passport and this is one reason why PSC came in. At the core of it's original purpose was to cut down fraud. Somewhere along the line it drifted.

Plumbthedepths

boege wrote: »

Not everyone has a passport and this is one reason why PSC came in. At the core of it's original purpose was to cut down fraud. Somewhere along the line it drifted.

You missed my point, up to the DPC ruling a valid passport issued by the state was not an acceptable form of ID for the purpose of verification of the identity of the holder. Mandatory but not compulsory, what a weasel way to twist words.

AndrewJRenko

boege wrote: »

At the core of it's original purpose was to cut down fraud.

A €60m project to save €2m in fraud?

lola85

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

A €60m project to save €2m in fraud?

How much money leaves the country every week to Nigeria Poland etc for child benefit?

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You missed my point, up to the DPC ruling a valid passport issued by the state was not an acceptable form of ID for the purpose of verification of the identity of the holder. Mandatory but not compulsory, what a weasel way to twist words.

A passport doesn’t contain your PPS number. That’s a unique identifier.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A passport doesn’t contain your PPS number. That’s a unique identifier.

Still choosing to miss the point, consistent as always.

malinheader

malinheader wrote: »

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.

scrapping the card and giving in to the paranoiac/luddite/anti-everything voices on this costs a huge amount in efficiencies delivered to the taxpayer and the movement of services between departments into the modern era


if you dont or wont understand this its pointless to discuss it further really.

malinheader

Deleted User wrote: »

scrapping the card and giving in to the paranoiac/luddite/anti-everything voices on this costs a huge amount in efficiencies delivered to the taxpayer and the movement of services between departments into the modern era


if you dont or wont understand this its pointless to discuss it further really.

I couldn't care less what they do with the card. The point I made at the start was the way one of our ministers didn't give a shtie how much it will cost in a court case. Nothing new for this country. So just so you understand I couldn't care less what they do with the card.

malinheader

malinheader wrote: »

I couldn't care less what they do with the card. The point I made at the start was the way one of our ministers didn't give a shtie how much it will cost in a court case. Nothing new for this country. So just so you understand I couldn't care less what they do with the card.

the point you made has been countered comprehensively by pointing out that the minister will take the costs of the case into account but balanced against the other factors.

three times its been said. so i understand what you think of the card but i also understand that you seem determined to not understand the actual decision.

malinheader

Deleted User wrote: »

the point you made has been countered comprehensively by pointing out that the minister will take the costs of the case into account but balanced against the other factors.

three times its been said. so i understand what you think of the card but i also understand that you seem determined to not understand the actual decision.

Yep,three times. And still only guessing what the cost will be.

hatrickpatrick

The fact that the government intends not only to fight this in court but to actively break data protection law in the meantime is an absolute disgrace, and symptomatic of the utter arrogance and disregard for democracy this government has shown since its inception. It reminds me of the Department of Education choosing to actively fight against a student getting her leaving cert recheck results in time to get in to her first CAO course preference instead of just accepting that they were in the wrong and changing the system accordingly.

I'm very surprised that so many here are accepting and applauding the government's decision to push back against an oversight body. It's extremely disturbing to say the least.

The costs are completely irrelevant. Government policy should always prioritise ethics and respect for the law over finance. Always.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Still choosing to miss the point, consistent as always.

The point YOU are missing is contained in the ministers statement.

“MISSION CREEP

"Contrary to some reporting on this subject the PSC has not seen any mission creep.

"When it was first provided for by Minister Ahern in 1998 it was clear then, as it is now, that it was to become and be used as a key identifier for use across a wide range of public services.

"It is our sincere and genuinely held belief that social welfare legislation provides a strong legal basis for the Department to issue PSCs for use by a number of bodies across the public sector.

"Without the PSC process people would not be able to use a single identity verification process but instead would be required to verify their identity on multiple occasions with multiple agencies – a situation which would make access to services more cumbersome for members of the public.”

Minister Donohoe said: “The PSC was always intended not just, or even mainly, to reduce identity and welfare fraud but to facilitate people in accessing public services in a streamlined manner without the need to submit the same documentation and information over and over again.

"The Attorney General’s Office advises that there is a clear legal basis for the continued use of the PSC."

The ministers have also said that they plan to publish the report immediately "following further engagement with the Data Protection Commission”

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The point YOU are missing is contained in the ministers statement.

“MISSION CREEP

"Contrary to some reporting on this subject the PSC has not seen any mission creep.

"When it was first provided for by Minister Ahern in 1998 it was clear then, as it is now, that it was to become and be used as a key identifier for use across a wide range of public services.

"It is our sincere and genuinely held belief that social welfare legislation provides a strong legal basis for the Department to issue PSCs for use by a number of bodies across the public sector.

"Without the PSC process people would not be able to use a single identity verification process but instead would be required to verify their identity on multiple occasions with multiple agencies – a situation which would make access to services more cumbersome for members of the public.”

Minister Donohoe said: “The PSC was always intended not just, or even mainly, to reduce identity and welfare fraud but to facilitate people in accessing public services in a streamlined manner without the need to submit the same documentation and information over and over again.

"The Attorney General’s Office advises that there is a clear legal basis for the continued use of the PSC."

The ministers have also said that they plan to publish the report immediately "following further engagement with the Data Protection Commission”

Nope you still missed my point, I made mention of the fact that my passport for ID purposes is recognized by almost every country in the world with up till the point of the DPC findings the exception of the country that issued it for identification purposes. Your long rambling post had nothing got to do with the point I made other than the usual defence of the government.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Nope you still missed my point, I made mention of the fact that my passport for ID purposes is recognized by almost every country in the world with up till the point of the DPC findings the exception of the country that issued it for identification purposes. Your long rambling post had nothing got to do with the point I made other than the usual defence of the government.

Your passport cannot be used to access government services. Yes, you can access them without the PSC, but with huge delays while documentation is sourced.

ohnonotgmail

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Nope you still missed my point, I made mention of the fact that my passport for ID purposes is recognized by almost every country in the world with up till the point of the DPC findings the exception of the country that issued it for identification purposes. Your long rambling post had nothing got to do with the point I made other than the usual defence of the government.

a passport on its own does not identify you sufficiently to access goverment services. it does not contain your ppsn and it also does not have your address. so to identify yourself to the government you would need your passpost plus proof of address plus proof of PPSN. the PSC card rolls all that in to one card so you only need to provides those proofs once.

Dytalus

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Nope you still missed my point, I made mention of the fact that my passport for ID purposes is recognized by almost every country in the world with up till the point of the DPC findings the exception of the country that issued it for identification purposes. Your long rambling post had nothing got to do with the point I made other than the usual defence of the government.

Your passport does not have your PPSN. It is fine for ID when presented, but all government services operate through your PPSN, not your passport number. Welfare, taxes, employment records...all linked to PPSN.

For easy, efficient access to government services, the passport is not sufficient. This is the same in most countries in the EU. All except four (of which we are one) have national IDs alongside Passports.

blanch152

malinheader wrote: »

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.

Then you don't understand the point.

Scrapping the card will cost millions in terms of extra bureaucracy. You are suggesting something that costs a huge amount more than a court case.

Even the guy from Digital Rights Ireland admitted on radio yesterday that the government might win their case.

Plumbthedepths

Dytalus wrote: »

Your passport does not have your PPSN. It is fine for ID when presented, but all government services operate through your PPSN, not your passport number. Welfare, taxes, employment records...all linked to PPSN.

For easy, efficient access to government services, the passport is not sufficient. This is the same in most countries in the EU. All except four (of which we are one) have national IDs alongside Passports.

Thank you for answering a question I never asked. ;-)
I stated far earlier in this thread that I have no issue with an ID card once it was done in an open and transparent manner and debated in the Dail, curiously the government seems determined to avoid doing this. Ant thoughts as to the reason why?

Dytalus

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Thank you for answering a question I never asked. ;-)
I stated far earlier in this thread that I have no issue with an ID card once it was done in an open and transparent manner and debated in the Dail, curiously the government seems determined to avoid doing this. Ant thoughts as to the reason why?

I wasn't answering any question, I was correcting your statement of "my passport for ID purposes is recognized by almost every country in the world". Most of our closest regional companions do not use passports as government ID of their own citizens - they are travel documents first and foremost. Passports work fine when you are abroad because you are not accessing government services as a citizen while on holiday in Australia. Within the EU, where you have a right to medical help in other EU states, the Passport is not sufficient to access health service - you need the European Health Insurance Card.

As to why they did this in the roundabout way? A combination of naivety, incompetence, and misunderstanding in all likelihood.

GDPR is still brand new as laws go. Within Ireland there's been no major cases to use as precedent, and there's been none like this brought to European Courts either. The Government may have gotten legal advice (as they have received following the DPC's statement which is why they're challenging the decision in court) that they did, in fact, have enough legal basis to expand the PSC outside of Social Protection. This would not be the first time that legal advice for an organisation hasn't directly lined up with what a Data Protection Officer (never mind the Commission itself) has wanted. It's happened more than once in the unit I work in that advice from our DPO has had to supersede advice from legal advisors.

With GDPR, the DPO of an organisation is the highest authority. They cannot be given commands or orders on how to do their job, or the decisions they make, by anybody in the company or government department. No matter how high up the ladder. Sometimes this means their suggestions and decisions go against legal advice. In this situation, the Government believes it has a strong enough argument to win their case.

The Government probably thought (through legal advice, most likely) that they could do it this way. They also thought this would be the easier way to do it, a slow rollout across Departments rather than delaying the whole project to write (what they were likely told was) additional, potentially unnecessary legislation - potential costing a considerable amount of money and effort best spent elsewhere.

The DPC disagreed. The Attorney General has disagreed with the DPC. Now the Irish courts (and, if it goes high enough, the European Courts) must decide who is in the right. I don't believe (as some in this thread seem to) that the Government was acting maliciously. I think it was, at worst, incompetence. If the Government was of a mindset to callously disregard privacy and data protection laws, they would not be in the midst of spending considerable time drafting legislation to allow Departments to share information with one another to streamline matters. As things currently stand, the Department of Health must gather your information (address, date of birth, etc) separately to the Department of Social Protection. If you have any dealings with Revenue or Justice they must gather it a third and fourth time themselves. It's an enormous waste of effort, and something the Government is working hard to solve using new legislation and governance rules for inter-departmental data sharing. The mere fact that they're doing so indicates that, in general, they have a wish to abide by GDPR and protect people's data.

They just got it wrong this time.

Plumbthedepths

Dytalus your post is amusing and naive. Nothing further to add.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Dytalus your post is amusing and naive. Nothing further to add.

Dytalus’ post is based on fact. Not wishful thinking.

Robbo

Dytalus wrote: »

GDPR is still brand new as laws go. Within Ireland there's been no major cases to use as precedent, and there's been none like this brought to European Courts either. The Government may have gotten legal advice (as they have received following the DPC's statement which is why they're challenging the decision in court) that they did, in fact, have enough legal basis to expand the PSC outside of Social Protection. This would not be the first time that legal advice for an organisation hasn't directly lined up with what a Data Protection Officer (never mind the Commission itself) has wanted. It's happened more than once in the unit I work in that advice from our DPO has had to supersede advice from legal advisors.

Two small things:

1. The GDPR did not mark some kind of "year zero" where 20 plus years of Irish and EU jurpisprudence became redundant. You can't mess around with something that's been consistently found to be a fundamental right under the Charter at the stroke of a pen. That's not to mention the huge amount of common ground between the previous Directive and the current Regulation.
2. The DPC's investigation into the PSC was commenced before the GDPR was enacted so the relevant law is the 1998/2003 Acts.
3. So even if we're to accept your incorrect point that the GDPR made all previous case law redundant, the Bara judgment is authority for the finding that expanding the use of the data to other purposes (in the absence of new impact assessments, procedural safeguards and a general respect for fundamental rights) was unlawful.

Slightly amused at those who are lecturing about waste and duplication who are cheerleading the card which could have been implemented successfully if they'd gone about things properly in the first place. It's not like this hasn't been looming for years and I've yet to see a lawyer publicly come out in support of it. I've seen plenty warn of the obvious pitfalls however.

Robbo

Dytalus wrote: »

With GDPR, the DPO of an organisation is the highest authority. They cannot be given commands or orders on how to do their job, or the decisions they make, by anybody in the company or government department. No matter how high up the ladder. Sometimes this means their suggestions and decisions go against legal advice. In this situation, the Government believes it has a strong enough argument to win their case.

The DEASP is currently under investigation for knobbling a DPO and then firing them. It can be safe to say there's a culture of disregard for data protection in the Department that has been simmering for years. This stretches from the lower level staff who were flogging on personal details to private entities for cash to the upper reaches where people are prepared to drive a coach and four through fundamental rights in the name of their promotion prospects.

Dytalus

Robbo wrote: »

Two small things:

1. So even if we're to accept your incorrect point that the GDPR made all previous case law redundant, the Bara judgment is authority for the finding that expanding the use of the data to other purposes (in the absence of new impact assessments, procedural safeguards and a general respect for fundamental rights) was unlawful.

I don't recall saying it made previous case law redundant. It did, however, make previous law redundant. A legal reason for gathering and processing data in 2010 may no longer qualify as a legal cause under the 2018 Act and GDPR. The Data Protection Act 2018 is the only which applies to crimes committed after that time. You can't break a 2016 law that's been superseded by a 2018 law in 2019.

I'll admit my mistake in not accounting for the PSC and investigation being around longer. I have only heard of it since the DPC made its statement, and wasn't aware of the full history. You are correct, crimes committed under the old laws are to be judged under them as to whether a crime was committed. Similar to my statement above, you can't break a 2018 law in 2015. My bad.

Slightly amused at those who are lecturing about waste and duplication who are cheerleading the card which could have been implemented successfully if they'd gone about things properly in the first place.

But...this is what I think.

I think a national ID like the PSC is a good thing. I think it could be implemented successfully and would save on a lot of waste time/effort/money. I think the Government has gone about bringing it in very poorly. The only part I think I am 'defending' the government on is the assumption that it did so out of some kind of malicious acting or callousness. Whether through incompetence or poor legal advice, the Government has made a shambles of this - ethically even if not legally (the court case is, after all, only beginning).

If the DPC's statement forces the Government to go back, start again, and do it right, it's going to be expensive and a pain in their ass. But that should ideally just teach them to get it right next time.

Robbo wrote: »

The DEASP is currently under investigation for knobbling a DPO and then firing them. It can be safe to say there's a culture of disregard for data protection in the Department that has been simmering for years. This stretches from the lower level staff who were flogging on personal details to private entities for cash to the upper reaches where people are prepared to drive a coach and four through fundamental rights in the name of their promotion prospects.

Not surprised this has happened. I'm sure it happens in private sector all over the place, and in other Departments. That something is against the law doesn't stop it happening. Hopefully they get rightfully crucified for it if they have breached DP legislation (likewise the Government if they are found to have broken the law with the PSC in their court case). I care quite a great deal about data protection, and what's the point in having laws if they aren't enforced in general.

AndrewJRenko

lola85 wrote: »

How much money leaves the country every week to Nigeria Poland etc for child benefit?

I dunno. Why don't you tell me, seeing as you brought it up.

And while you're there, check out how much money leaves the Exchequer every week for claim fraud by farmers and by businesses?

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

scrapping the card and giving in to the paranoiac/luddite/anti-everything voices on this costs a huge amount in efficiencies delivered to the taxpayer and the movement of services between departments into the modern era

The funny thing is that what you describe as luddites are generally those who actually understand the technology involved - the absolute opposite of luddites.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The funny thing is that what you describe as luddites are generally those who actually understand the technology involved - the absolute opposite of luddites.

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

hatrickpatrick

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.

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.