From top Then Fine Gael Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Paschal Donohoe launching the Public Service Card in 2016; Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty,
This morning.
The Data Protection Commissioner’s report [ which stated there is no legal basis for people having to present a PSC in respect of any transaction between a person and a public body outside the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection] led to calls for the resignation of Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty, whose department has overseen the project.
But now in a Government memo, jointly presented with the Department of Public Expenditure, Ms Doherty will tell Ministers that the Government is to fight the decision.
The Government will challenge the decision in court and defend the continued use of the card. They will also decline to publish the full report of the commissioner’s office.
Government to challenge order that public services card had no basis in law (Irish Times)
Really disappointing! The Public Services Card has already been an enormous drain on financial resources – not to mention the costs to our privacy. This court challenge will only further burden the people in Ireland. #psc https://t.co/sdDWHaMGEu
— Elizabeth Farries (@e_farries) September 3, 2019
Previously: Regina Responds
Not a surprise. Regina loves costing the taxpayer a few bob
Just because she had a rake of businesses that went bust owing tens of thousands to the tax payer, doesn’t entitle you to say unpleasant things about her, and if you don’t shut yer gob, you might find yourself being detained at Dublin Airport until you sign something to promise not to be beastly about her again.
She isn’t too shy either about supporting the breaking of the law (farmers and the pylons)
Yes, but it’s not the politicians money. They will spend thousands of other people’s money to prove they are right and everyone else is wrong. Everytime I hear the word politician I think of school kids shouting at each other. ‘Na na na na na, I’m right your wrong’.
Paschal looks fierce gammonie in that top pic. Is Regina looking at me?
Well, there we have it, just like Graham Dwyer, this government has been found to have acted illegally by the public official with responsibility [for data protection/privacy], and, just like Graham Dwyer, this government isn’t accepting the ruling and is seeking an appeal , with the guts of what will be €1 million of tax payers money of course. However, unless and until any appeal by the government succeeds, it stands guilty of the illegal mass surveillance of citizens. And of course, it is brazen not to have heeded the draft conclusions 13 months ago, and not to publish the report itself as demanded by the data commissioner. And the relentless march to sneakily introduce a national ID card through the back door without consultation continues, they had 3.2m when the data commissioner started her investigation, it’s up to 4 million now.
FG, ladies and gentlemen.
I think Helen Dixon, the DPC, finds herself in a most interesting position. She badly needs a win and I’d say that there might be wider interest in the outcome.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/24/ireland-data-privacy-1270123
Yep. but it’s actually FFGLAB. They’re all in this together.
More Fake News from eoin.
More whinging in support of a scandal riddled minister and government from Cian.
FG! FG! FG! FG! FG!
what is it they call themselves again? the law and order party? .. not only breaking the law, but fighting against the law.
+ €13bn (plus interest, minus whatever Goldman Sachs et al have lost on the management of the escrow account).
Who protects the Public Interest and as part of the appeal will not Madam Doherty have
to make public the full text of the Data Commissioners report under court disclosure rules
they can hardly claim exemption under the Official Secrets Act, is it not ironic that
that they can deny access to the full report but want to know everything about a PSC
holder, at the end of day access to the public services of the State should not
require any electronic database to be shared with anyone other than the Dept
that set it up to access Social Welfare Services, the use of the PPN Number by Revenue
is also questionable, the real reason was to use it at a later stage to deny other
Public Services to those that did not say pay water charges, even the proposed
boadcasting levy on households, its an administrative attempt to force the citizens to comply
with every new tax gathering scam that can be used to pay off the Bailout Debt.
The idea behind the PSC is sensible. Identify yourself to the State once, get verified, and then you can interact with any department or agency with minimum hassle and fuss. Brilliant.
They messed up not explicitly placing this on a sound legislative footing.
Well, I don’t know about that, Cian. Could it be that they weren’t open about their intentions because they knew full well that the general public would then see it for what it is – a national identity card in everything but name – and say “Thanks, FG, but no thanks”?
Just how stupid do you think we are?
What is the problem with a national ID card? Why would the general public say no?
Oh, how well I remember those days when we engaged in the lively public debate around the introduction of the national identity card (to be known as the Public Services Card). Every citizen had an opportunity to engage and to lobby their elected representatives and appraise them of their views and wishes.
Or, not.
they’re harvesting data without peoples consent, Cian. that’s the problem with it. It’s not innocent either, they’re harvesting it to sell to companies. as if FG would persevere with this because they so desperetly want to help the public. they’ve shown disdain for the populace over n over again.
Neither of you answered my question.
I have already said that they messed up and should have got the legislation explicit and correct.
What is the problem with a national ID card? Why would the general public say no?
in 2016 almost 75% of the adult (17 and up) population had a (legal) driving licence. Most of the pensioners have a (legal) PSC.
These are de facto national ID cards. Why not push that to 100%?
To repeat your question: “Why would the general public say no?”
I wouldn’t presume to speak for my fellow citizens (or “general public” as you choose to describe them), not being possessed of the ignorance and arrogance of an FG lickarse.
Batty Brennan @ September 3, 2019 at 3:02 pm
knew full well that the general public would then see it for what it is – a national identity card in everything but name – and say “Thanks, FG, but no thanks”?
Batty Brennan @September 3, 2019 at 4:01 pm
I wouldn’t presume to speak for my fellow citizens (or “general public” as you choose to describe them)
Did you actually forget what you wrote less that 1 hour before?
THEY. WILL. SELL. OUR. PRIVATE. DATA.
That a died-in-the-wool blueshirt can’t differentiate between a proposition in the form of “could it be?”, and a sweeping presumption to speak for millions of others surprises me not at all.
I’d desperately love to give Regina a good slap, preferably some good sense, but it seems unlikely.
Sort of like winning the lotto
Her husband recently sold his Ferrari in the UK.
Fact.
I’m not sure why, but I sort of instinctively distrust comments which end with the word
‘Fact’.
But Regina is an awful dodgy yoke so it wouldn’t surprise me is all I’ll say.
The same Data Commissioner (or a spokesperson from the DPC) can’t give a straight answer to if GDPR applies to a visitors book or not?.
“GDPR only applies to the processing of personal data which form part of a filing system. It is not clear that a visitor book necessarily constitutes a ‘filing system’ as per Article 4 (6) of the GDPR.”
https://www.thejournal.ie/visitor-books-banned-from-heritage-sites-4736188-Jul2019/
Fail
+1
Cian I will tell you why it’s a bad idea. As well as the already pointed out issues around data being hacked, leaked or sold, convenience is not an excuse for the government to violate your right to privacy. Government should facilitate you accessing essential services, not force you to hand over biometric data in order to access them.