100% of the people to respond to this thread so far "fear what gov will do with private data"... well they'll make it "public" won't they?

morons are in - nothing is going to change

The distrust in the ability of the public and private sector to maintain the confidentiality of personal information is based on the high-profile cases that we know about. I'll bet my dangly-bits there are far more cases of data being leaked/lost/stolen/sold than we hear about.

On top of the mass data leaks don't forget to add-up all the instances where some Hello-magazine-reading chatterbox, who couldn't even spell "ethical responsibility" but has access to your private data, shares little gems of gossip from work with their family/friends/drinking buddies/knitting circle and I'd wager the annual total would pretty much double.

If a system allows human beings access to private information it simply cannot be considered secure or private and the sooner this is understood the sooner some sane debate on data protection and privacy can take place and appropriate safeguards - like 5 years minimum in the slammer for blabbing about Reverend White's genital warts to the neighbours - be put in place.

Breach of privacy and abuse of private data should be a serious criminal offense on any scale and whether or not it is through deliberate abuse of trust or simple negligence.

...anyone who has worked in local of central government can tell you that you should trust them about as far as you can lob the London eye.

The fact that six out or of ten people don't trust the government with their info suggests that four out the ten didn't understand the question.

Perhaps they should have asked them if there bank account preferred whiskas(tm)

.... Mine is the leather one with the armour please, I came in in the bike this morning.

or, if it's true, then Redd has explained the obvious reason.

I have yet to meet ANYONE - even my all too trusting Mother in Law - who still trusts the government to look after our personal data. Granted I'm biassed - having predicted it will be 90% (http://stottle.blogspot.com/2007/11/datastrophe.html )

but I would seriously question the integrity of that poll.

They would have come up with 11 out of 10.

The Government (Department of Work and Pensions) have so far this week:-

Posted senstive information to the wrong address (despite the fact they had the correct address)

Faxed a general office fax number with unsolicited sensitive information

sent me to the correct address a direct debit form with the wrong national insurance number!!!

Then they asked for my bank details!!!! Yeah right...

60% sounds about right to me.

If you think about it. The sort of people who allow themselves to be called up by random marketeers are distinct from the one who are registered by TPS. Therefore the non-TPS people don't care (so much) about who has their private (telephone) data and what they do with it.

People who do care have already removed themselves from the poll by signing up with TPS, probably.

If six out of ten don't trust the government with their information then it means that four out of ten do, which means that with a bit more tweaking* over half the population are quite happy with the government's handling of their data, with only the usual minority of dissatisfied complainers who disagree.

*Its really a question of who you ask (if you know what I mean)

With a bit of practice I reckon I could really get the hang of this spin thing.

Now then let's go back to those figures again...

6:10 have no faith in the government's ability to keep their data safe

4:10 was the vote required to get them in in the first place.

You do the math, I'm just going to look down my cleavage.

..the Moon's NOT made of cheese? b*gger...

at least the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' crew are keeping a low profile at the moment. It's a small mercy but welcome.

How many people really concerned with their data being used by anyone would respond to a phone call wanting to ask them question?

so I would say more than 6/10 would be more realistic, I talk to no-one who rings me on my home or personal mobile number unless I am 100% of who they are, banks etc. I ring back on a number I know (on the back of the card etc.) rather than risking it being a scam call.

where at one side, people (rightfully so) are concerned about government having personal data on them. But on the other side, they gleefully give it up to for-profit organizations who advertise their intentions to blatantly exploit and misuse your data, violating your privacy and selling it to where scammers, spammers and ID thieves can get it.

It's like here in the office. We've got databases that contain all sorts of info on our clients (we're county government, social services)-things like income, bank account numbers, addresses (matched by geographic location) names and addresses of family and significant relationships (with full financial and other info on them as well even tho they may not be clients), IRS info to cross reference, previous address history, interview data with travel, vacation, and criminal data...you name it. All easily cross referenced for any report either on an individual, by race, location, income, name, or any other metric that Big Brother can determine.

People wouldn't let this sort of data to be collected even if it saved hundreds of lives in a terrorist act, or thousands if it prevented a war. But they'll look the other way when it's "for the children" or for "welfare"...tho when it monitors non welfare folks just because their ex wife/son/daughter/grandchild got on the dole-that's frightening. All Big Brother has to do is collect whatever they get and maybe someday make up an excuse that they were "researching" a "claim" in which your name "might be involved".

So as long as it supports the socialist agenda, leftist concerns, or gives a punter free ringtones and a social networking account, then data collection and mining and retention and theft are all good. Even when that company holding your data turns you over to Chinese or Israeli government agents, there's little noise outside of techie channels. But if an agency tries to use the data to catch known terrorists, then let the worldwide media screaming commence.

John, we're still here. Just got bored with the argument.

Merry Christmas

:o)

6/10 that is to say fifty-fifty indeed:

90% of the pool has answered without any clue about the purpose ; only 10% of the pool really knew what was put in task, and so these people couldn't respond "Yes, I trust".

"So as long as it supports the socialist agenda, leftist concerns..."

After Bliar was elected, the Labour Party ceased to be either socialist or leftist. The current government is just a bunch of right-wing, laissez-faire capitalist, social control freaks.

Can we really believe Anonymous Coward when he/she/it writes along the lines of ...

"It's like here in the office. We've got databases ..."?

The sheer volume of emails he/she/it types in a day would tend to convince one that he/she/it does not have a job or works in a government department.

Oh ... I think there might be a clue there!

"But if an agency tries to use the data to catch known terrorists, then let the worldwide media screaming commence."

If you know who they are, you don't actually need to mine anyone's data.

Data mining vis a vis terrorist hunting is simply no more than a fishing trip to identify people who *might* be terrorists.

Look at it this way, punters don't mind giving up a certain amount of data about their shopping habits to retailer loyalty schemes because the worse that can happen is they might get some vouchers for products they don't actually want.

Even in the case of a total breach of the happy shopper database, the world might find out they bought some pile cream at Asda, mild embarrassment all round, or their junk mail input might rise. Annoying, but not exactly life threatening.

It's a bit worse when this data finds it's way into the terror data mine, because then the worse that can happen is that the mining algorithm finds you bought piping, nails and weed killer from a DIY store, sugar and soap flakes from the supermarket, and lots of petrol from the station, fingers you as a bomb wielding jihadi, and you are woken up by the sound of armed police officers kicking in your door at 4am in the morning. If you survive this, you face long periods of detention without charge or legal representation and possibly torture and/or incarceration without trial, depending where you live, and what your surname is.

I'd say that's quite a big difference.

As for the whole "socialist agenda, leftist concerns" thing, I have no idea what you're on about. I suspect you're just a batshit crazy yank with a limited political vocabulary, something that is borne out by your concern that your local shop might "[turn] you over to Chinese or Israeli government agents". (An interesting juxtaposition, since Israel is your number one best bosom buddy ally)

I suggest switching to decaf.