Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
And the government isn’t snooping at all.
The government of Democratia passes the Data Protection Act which allows people to see what info the government has on them provided it’s not an official secret and the police don’t mind. And like any good government, it decides to collate lots and lots of information about the people in a database; and not just some girlie database – a super database. And it’s all so the government can help people. Really. (Yeah, I feel the belief coursing through my veins.)
But then people start demanding access to all sorts of information, including information about politicians in local government and ministerial holidays. But should people be checking up on all this? Should the inspector be inspected?
Well, yes. HMG likes to bleat about accountability, but they think that only applies to them when there’s an election. In this sort of scenario, all the activities of and information about the government would probably be labelled state secrets, sorry, a matter of national security so that people couldn’t find out what the politicians have been up to. As I think I’ve noted before, political mischief seldom remains a secret for very long, and attempts by the government to cover up their mischief tend to make the problem worse. As the book says, the watchers don’t like being watched.
I also note that HMG’s attempts at computer databases always seem doomed to failure and cost the tax payer £40million.
Of course, most people probably don’t worry about what information the government has on them unless some situation arises. For most of us, such a thing never happens, but that’s not to say that the information should be unavailable.
But then people start demanding access to all sorts of information, including information about politicians in local government and ministerial holidays. But should people be checking up on all this? Should the inspector be inspected?
Well, yes. HMG likes to bleat about accountability, but they think that only applies to them when there’s an election. In this sort of scenario, all the activities of and information about the government would probably be labelled state secrets, sorry, a matter of national security so that people couldn’t find out what the politicians have been up to. As I think I’ve noted before, political mischief seldom remains a secret for very long, and attempts by the government to cover up their mischief tend to make the problem worse. As the book says, the watchers don’t like being watched.
I also note that HMG’s attempts at computer databases always seem doomed to failure and cost the tax payer £40million.
Of course, most people probably don’t worry about what information the government has on them unless some situation arises. For most of us, such a thing never happens, but that’s not to say that the information should be unavailable.
Tomorrow, the 62nd dilemma, which is all about breeding the hell out of them.
Comments