Original story posted on The Register by John Ozimek…

” From next year, all those who wish to work, either paid or unpaid, with children or vulnerable adults will need to be vetted. Those who fail the vetting will be barred from obtaining such work. Individuals who seek to work in these areas, knowing that they have been barred, will be committing a criminal offence. Registration will cost £64 per person, although this will be waived for those only wishing to work in an unpaid voluntary capacity. This initiative will be supported by a central database, holding the details of 11.3 million people, or slightly more than a quarter of the adult population. This is an increase of nearly 3 million over initial Home Office estimates, making it the most extensive database of its kind in the world. The scheme launch has been put back to next year as a result of ‘concerns about data security’ and extra work needed to ensure its database was ‘robust’. ”

Hmm, `Robust`…in this context sounds like one of those wanky words used by politicians who don’t have a fucking clue.

Another database, more red tape and bullshit, all in the name of `security`. I’m sorry, did anyone actually ASK them to inflict this bullshit on us? No? I thought not.

The phrase `he he chooses to trade his freedom for security deserves neither` springs to mind.



Today, a coalition of privacy advocates – including the World Privacy Forum, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and the ACLU of Northern California – fired an open letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt, pointing out that the Google home page does not include a link to the company’s privacy policy. This, the coalition says, is a blatant violation of the California Online Privacy Protection Act.

As the The Times tells it, Google founder Larry Page doesn’t want a privacy link on that “beautiful clean home page.”

I don’t get it – is there some connection here? I didn’t realise Google recognised the concept of an individuals privacy – and in this day and age of (paranoia about, but also the reality of) identity theft and so on it’s quite understandable why they wouldn’t go out of their way to put a blatant link which would draw everyones attention to something which, in essence, they do not have.