Britain: Police State?

[techybloke666]

In Criminal Law the concept of criminal intent has been called mens rea, which refers to a criminal or wrongful purpose. If a person innocently causes harm, then she or he lacks mens rea and, under this concept, should not be criminally prosecuted.

so are the real criminals acting with Criminal Intent ( Mens Rea )

and are people 4 miles an hour over the speed limit picked up on a huge speeding camera system acting with criminal intent ?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/intent

 

[lupinwick]

I'm just genuinely curious as to what specifically people fear about information being held in this way. Whether it should be held like this or not is another matter but as someone who has no particular brief for either perspective I'd like to know - it seems to produce strong emotions whilst apparently a rationalisation of the causes of those emotions is not required. The answer that no explanation is necessary is equally depressingly familiar to those who make this enquiry out of an attempt to understand the fears expressed irrespective of whether they want this sort of data collection or not

I think its largely to do with choice. I can choose (if I so wish) to publish vast amounts of information about myself via facebook, twitter or any of the other social networking sites, and would have to deal with any problems should my boss, or spouse or whoever looks at the information and makes judgements based on it.

However I cannot choose how other items of information which can be tied to me are used etc. if they are collected and collated automatically.

The fears are:

1) Data could be incorrect and inaccurate and this would be a bugger to prove. Most government departments have no procedures to allow for the correction of personal data.
2) Who has access? Think DVLA etc.
etc. etc.

In the case of devices which can track various aspects of your life - movements, purchases and idiosycracies which will rarely if ever be scrutinised by anyone you know and who will almost certainly have no interest in knowing anything more about you, producing any kind of judgement on you or having any kind of influence over your life - these considerations should be absent.

Why? Directed advertising as per phorm uses this technique? These considerations are part of the equation. I may not wish to receive unwanted directed advertising, same way as I do not wish to receive junk mail or cold callers.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

hey Dr B are the police more interested with raising capital from people who are breaking the little laws or arresting proper criminals ?

What is a "proper criminal"? Just someone who does something you personally regard as bad? Would you regard the speed limit as a "little law" if your child was knocked down and killed by someone who was breaking it?

 

[Dr_Baltar]

In Criminal Law the concept of criminal intent has been called mens rea, which refers to a criminal or wrongful purpose. If a person innocently causes harm, then she or he lacks mens rea and, under this concept, should not be criminally prosecuted.

so are the real criminals acting with Criminal Intent ( Mens Rea )

and are people 4 miles an hour over the speed limit picked up on a huge speeding camera system acting with criminal intent ?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/intent

The law on speed limits exists and every driver is aware of the consequences of breaking that law. Speeding, like statutory rape, is covered by strict liability. Mens rea does not apply.

 

[techybloke666]

Dr B

why not use this technology with the assistance of the car manufacturers to limit the cars speed to be compliant ? disable them when they are stolen, only track stolen cars ? cause all the others can go no faster than the speed limit anyway.

it would also take away the need for superfast gas guzzling motors, more green is good !!

why only use it to tax/fine people ?

the same technology could be used to disable stolen cars ! already

anpr/rfid/gps all used to track and fine

instead of monitor/restrict/disable

Capitalism perhaps ?

 

[Twin_Star]

Love them or hate them, that's why the Conservatives "Freedom Charter" will offer clear blue (excuse the pun) water between the political parties in the run up to the next election. Of course, thats assuming that our current, sedated populace actually gives enough of a shit, whilst watching d-list celebrities skating about, to actually appreciate this nanny-state, interventionist government is actually not a considered reaction to the geosociopolitico climate we currently find ourselves in, but rather a totalitarian-neo-marxism that masquerades as "nu Labour"...

 

[lupinwick]

Surely neo-conservative? After all, voting tory will be a swing to the left.

 

[Twin_Star]

Surely neo-conservative? After all, voting tory will be a swing to the left.

LOL, apologies, but you get the gist!

 

[Analogue Boy]

I can certainly accept that some people guard their privacy on an instinctive psychological level (although quite how anyone can be private in public is another rather confusing matter) and I would certainly do so myself in cases which I believe to be pivate ie involving me and no-one else, out of the sight of everyone else. However, it might be the case that this particular concept of privacy and its desirability is becoming old-fashioned because when asked why it should be so the questioner is informed that it's incumbent upon themself to demonstrate why it is not desirable. For those who don't understand this view it'unlikely to be changed without at least a little evangelism.

Then maybe you could also understand the practical need for privacy for some. Maybe there are some broken families out there living in fear of a violent spouse getting hold of their address.

Why would politicians and celebrities and their children be allowed to escape entry on a database? Are they unlikely to commit crime or is it a question of their personal safety? And if that is the case, why is it OK for the rest of us to be registered?

Also the PRACTICE of Privacy is a Human Right surely. If one aspect of our rights can be whittled away, why not the other ones like trial by jury of one's peers for example. Redefining what privacy is, as you suggest, demands a wider debate. This probably won't happen until it's too late. Already the Government are hiding new laws and amendments in inocuous-looking bills that even those voting in Parliament on the issue are unaware of until they've gone through.

On a practical level, my privacy is relatively free of charge. In future, I will have to buy a card and plan my finances to ensure it is kept up to date.

Also. My other less practical fear is in the setting up of a Surveillance State. Now this can no longer be denied as the EU, Civil Liberties groups and even the Lords are commenting on how pervasive it is becoming. This is all very well if we have a benign government but what if things change for the worse? Why allow ourselves to be monitored by tools more suited to a dictatorship in the first place?

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Dr B

why not use this technology with the assistance of the car manufacturers to limit the cars speed to be compliant ? disable them when they are stolen, only track stolen cars ? cause all the others can go no faster than the speed limit anyway.

it would also take away the need for superfast gas guzzling motors, more green is good !!

why only use it to tax/fine people ?

the same technology could be used to disable stolen cars ! already

anpr/rfid/gps all used to track and fine

instead of monitor/restrict/disable

Capitalism perhaps ?

Perhaps. There are many things humans could do for the betterment of all, lots of technology that isn't utilised to its best advantage. There are also lots of techonolgical innovations that just aren't quite there yet.

But since we're asking questions, why not just obey the speed limits, keep your car taxed and insured and don't break the law without being accepting of the consequences? Then they can track all they like but will never be able to fine you. Individual selfishness and greed perhaps?

 

[Analogue Boy]

As reported in the Guardian today, Monday is the enforcement date for section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, and as a photojournalist who documents political dissent on the streets – and sometimes fields – of Britain, I'm worried about how this legislation is going to affect my job.

Terror legislation has been increasingly used by this government, and sometimes brutally enforced by the police, to criminalise not only those who protest but also those who dare to give the oxygen of publicity to such dissent.

From Monday it will be an offence to elicit or attempt to elicit information about an individual who is or has been a member of the armed forces, intelligence services, or a police officer in Great Britain – it's been an offence in Northern Ireland since 2000. It will also be an offence to publish such information.

In a nutshell, you could be arrested for taking and publishing a picture of a police officer if the police think it is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". Your defence if charged by the crown prosecution service would be to prove that you had a "reasonable excuse" to take the picture in the first place.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ty-central

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I think its largely to do with choice. I can choose (if I so wish) to publish vast amounts of information about myself via facebook, twitter or any of the other social networking sites, and would have to deal with any problems should my boss, or spouse or whoever looks at the information and makes judgements based on it.

However I cannot choose how other items of information which can be tied to me are used etc. if they are collected and collated automatically.

I appreciate this point. However, the fear still seems to be based on an unknowable event. Choice, or the right to choose, is good but when the lack of it doesn't fundamentally alter outcomes what value does it have?Generally I'd agree with applying the precautionary principle but the lack of specific examples and the potential solutions to those which are presented suggest that the fear exists independently of any threat, real or otherwise.

The fears are:

1) Data could be incorrect and inaccurate and this would be a bugger to prove. Most government departments have no procedures to allow for the correction of personal data.
2) Who has access? Think DVLA etc.
etc. etc.

Surely the answer then to the incompetence of goverment departments is to seek the neccessary improvements? I'd also be somewhat surprised if government departments didn't have procedures in place to correct information. I'm quite sure that where a mistake is beneficial to those other than the authorities avenues are available to remedy this. The problem is the responsive of these departments, surely? In any case they're clearly making these mistakes as it stands now so the same problems will ultimatley persist without easier access being made available to the public. Why not regularly issue each citizen with a copy of the information stored about them so they can challenge any errors, for example?

Why? Directed advertising as per phorm uses this technique? These considerations are part of the equation. I may not wish to receive unwanted directed advertising, same way as I do not wish to receive junk mail or cold callers.

That's quite different though surely from the fear of surveillance or a police state? Even then it's still not really specific to you other than as a collection of data which is ultimately meaningless unless we really are to believe that you are what you buy. It's not even particularly different from the adverts you watch during certain programmes aimed at a 'demographic'.

 

[Quake42]

Surely the answer then to the incompetence of goverment departments is to seek the neccessary improvements? I'd also be somewhat surprised if government departments didn't have procedures in place to correct information.

You're not really addressing the key issue though. Why does the government need all of this information in the first place?

One of the key principles of data protection is that the data collected should not be excessive. It's hard to argue that CCTV cameras everywhere, information on every email sent, every journey taken etc is not excessive.

 

[techybloke666]

But since we're asking questions, why not just obey the speed limits, keep your car taxed and insured and don't break the law without being accepting of the consequences? Then they can track all they like but will never be able to fine you. Individual selfishness and greed perhaps?

as a rule DR I do all those things, I have however been 3 miles an hour over the speed limit on two occasions only to get fined for not constantly staring at my speedo, I was guilty of watching the road !!!

if my car couldnt go over the speed limit in the first place I would be the first to applaud.

 

[techybloke666]

A record 37 million items of personal data went missing last year, new research reveals.

Most of the data was lost by government officials but councils, NHS trusts, banks, insurance companies and chain stores also mislaid or published personal information about staff or members of the public.

Many losses were caused through CDs going missing in the post, laptop thefts, and inadequate security systems that failed to stop hackers reading information stored on computers.

The details lost included those of names, addresses, passports, bank and mortgage accounts, credit cards, hospital records, dates of birth, national insurance numbers, driving licences and telephone numbers.

The "shocking" total of 36,989,300 items prompted calls for the Government to kill its plans for national identity cards.

Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who produced the figures, said: "The ID card project is now in freefall, because faith in the Government's ability to handle personal data has hit crisis point - 2007 was the worst ever year for personal privacy. We need a total rethink on data protection enforcement and an immediate end to the identity cards plan."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -loss.html

and we trust them with even more data on every aspect of our privacy ?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Then maybe you could also understand the practical need for privacy for some. Maybe there are some broken families out there living in fear of a violent spouse getting hold of their address.

Why would politicians and celebrities and their children be allowed to escape entry on a database? Are they unlikely to commit crime or is it a question of their personal safety? And if that is the case, why is it OK for the rest of us to be registered?

Because they are obviously far more valuable targets of anonymous criminals as has already been pointed out.

With regards to the violent spouse scenario - the converse is equally true. You could argue that more crime would be detected than caused if more information was shared more widely. Furthermore, for somebody to legally prevent a violent spouse accessing them or their family they'd have to clear this with a court. It would be very easy to add them to any database which requires greater scrutiny or the aformentioned one for people who appear to be more at risk.

Also the PRACTICE of Privacy is a Human Right surely. If one aspect of our rights can be whittled away, why not the other ones like trial by jury of one's peers for example. Redefining what privacy is, as you suggest, demands a wider debate. This probably won't happen until it's too late. Already the Government are hiding new laws and amendments in inocuous-looking bills that even those voting in Parliament on the issue are unaware of until they've gone through.

I'm sorry but I don't see that denying one aspect of privacy (again how can one be private in public?) neccessarily sets a precedent for other denials of privacy. Just because the government can withdraw money from my bank account in the form of taxes doesn't give it carte blanche to do what it likes to my money or the money of others in general, not without a popular consent at least.

On a practical level, my privacy is relatively free of charge. In future, I will have to buy a card and plan my finances to ensure it is kept up to date.

True but only if you accept that your privacy is actually being breached. The information is already out there and you're already paying or it via the NHS, the DVLA, local councils etc That aside you could argue that an effective system could bring additional benefits thus resulting in a real term gain.

Also. My other less practical fear is in the setting up of a Surveillance State. Now this can no longer be denied as the EU, Civil Liberties groups and even the Lords are commenting on how pervasive it is becoming. This is all very well if we have a benign government but what if things change for the worse? Why allow ourselves to be monitored by tools more suited to a dictatorship in the first place?

Actually it's the EU that's partially behind it and 'the Lords' does not exist as a single entity which is capable of saying anything. Civil liberties groups, like the government, also have their own agenda and have to justify their own projects. They're also answerable to no-one and are self-appointed experts so why their views are preferenced above others I don't know. However, it's worth pointing out that in the case of the Lords and the EU they are both arms of government and therefore should not be automatically preferenced either.

 

[techybloke666]

The Home Office contractor which lost a computer memory stick containing the details of 84,000 prisoners is at the heart of developing the Government's controversial compulsory identity cards system.


PA Consulting – which on Tuesday told ministers it had misplaced the unencrypted names, dates of birth and expected release dates of the inmates, as well as the addresses of 33,000 prolific criminals – has won £240m of government contracts since 2004, including one as the Home Office's "development partner" to "work on the design, feasibility testing, business case and procurement elements of the identity cards programme".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 06531.html

and we are happy to have all the data in one database ?

 

[Dr_Baltar]

as a rule DR I do all those things, I have however been 3 miles an hour over the speed limit on two occasions only to get fined for not constantly staring at my speedo, I was guilty of watching the road !!!

You would fail your test for exceeding the speed limit. Why should the rules be relaxed once you have your licence? I would suggest that you weren't guilty of watching the road, you were guilty of a lapse in concentration. It happens to everyone, I know, and you were unlucky enough to get caught. It may seem overly harsh but a lapse like that can make you a danger to yourself and others around you, that's why there are speed limits and fines for breaking them.

if my car couldnt go over the speed limit in the first place I would be the first to applaud.

I have no doubts that speed modifiers on cars would be attacked as dangerous and draconian too, the first step on a slippery slope to a fascist junta etc. etc....

 

[Dingo667]

But since we're asking questions, why not just obey the speed limits, keep your car taxed and insured and don't break the law without being accepting of the consequences? Then they can track all they like but will never be able to fine you. Individual selfishness and greed perhaps?

This statement scares me. Whilst it may be a simple solution when it comes to driving, it can also be read as: "Obey all laws without questioning because all laws are always right".

Firstly, no other government has churned out as many, dare I say, useless laws that all have to be adhered to now. Secondly there are laws that are for all intents and purposes either money spinners or propaganda tools. Lets take the laws on drugs. Here I am, law abiding in all areas, working, collecting pay rises due to good work, do no harm to anyone ever but if I want to smoke a joint, I am doing something illegal. I am being criminalised even though I am definitely NOT a criminal.
Imagine other laws coming out that actually infringe for once in YOUR life, stopping you to do something you used to enjoy and making it illegal.

Imagine also that all your habits are kept on some obscure database. If any government needs I higher quota in detecting crime, they will just print out a list of those who have given away their souls and the police can go and nick them for points.

Imagine you like fishing or photography, two hobbies that may well become illegal soon [the way it is going]. Usually law abiding people could end up in jail or get fined.
Also what if you have changed your habits but you are still on an old database as someone who "used to" smoke cannabis, "used to" do XYZ?
Who is going to update millions of people's lives?

Take the data already kept at my GP's. It says I smoke sometimes, however I have stopped now. As I don't need to go to my doctor at the moment I won't tell them the changes until I have a reason to go there.

Has anyone thought about the maintanance human data needs?
Basics such as eyecolour and date of birth don't change of course but other things they want to know about do.

While I'm at it I might also mention that the pure and simple fact that humans feel physically "uncomfortable" having their data stored should be enough.
We are suspicious by nature, it helped us survive and there is something very unsettling having to bare all. There is no doubt, that it is safer for us to be just a face in the crowd than anyone having too much information about us.
So if it is intrinsically safer not to give our most personal info away, why not honour our human rights to keep it that way.
It is all well and good saying that mistakes by the gov. will [probably] be easily rectified, but I happily bet away all my belongings that there will be some kind of injustice at some point in the future if our data is kept by a third party.

There is no need and I will still be defending my right of privacy for ever.

 

[Dingo667]

Just to add, I was just reading the story of the old geezer in Tesco who wasn't served because he couldn't provide ID.
That is exactly my point. What if it was to become law to show ID for age restricted goods. You would have to get an ID card if you ever wanted a bottle of wine or some ciggies.
There are many more scenarios that I can't even conceive yet that might hammer the point home to those that think obeying and not questioning any law is the "right" thing to do.
Always be vigilant, never trust a government.

 

[techybloke666]

You would fail your test for exceeding the speed limit. Why should the rules be relaxed once you have your licence? I would suggest that you weren't guilty of watching the road, you were guilty of a lapse in concentration. It happens to everyone, I know, and you were unlucky enough to get caught. It may seem overly harsh but a lapse like that can make you a danger to yourself and others around you, that's why there are speed limits and fines for breaking them.

I totally disagree with that DR B, your making assumptions about my driving that you know nothing about. and its impossible to stay at precisely 30 miles an hour in a modern car without constantly monitoring your speed visually, like you say we all falter slightly, that should not be regarded as a criminal act be it with intent or strict liability.

The variance in speed in a performance car today is extreme with even slight movement of the pedal, it has to be constantly looked after.
the difference betwen 30 and 34 is around a second of time, and depends on incline, if the car is going down hill its even more critical to monitor.

looking at your speedo , which you seem to think is more important than watching the road ahead is imperative in speed check area's

Thats why most people are now going at 25 ish though traps with breaking.
speedo watching.

Do you drive DR B ?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Surely the answer then to the incompetence of goverment departments is to seek the neccessary improvements? I'd also be somewhat surprised if government departments didn't have procedures in place to correct information.

You're not really addressing the key issue though. Why does the government need all of this information in the first place?

One of the key principles of data protection is that the data collected should not be excessive. It's hard to argue that CCTV cameras everywhere, information on every email sent, every journey taken etc is not excessive.

Well those seeking to collect data have given their explanations. I don't neccessarily agree with them although we have to remember we're talking in a vague theoretical way about a number of specific projects and proposals. In that respect I can see how there might be benefits in some instances although I don't neccessarily agree in principle.

However, the point I was responding to was about the fear of incompetence of government record keeping. If this is what the fear of greater hoarding of information is based on then that's a separate issue from that of privacy and the need to hold the information in the first place.

 

[techybloke666]

However, the point I was responding to was about the fear of incompetence of government record keeping. If this is what the fear of greater hoarding of information is based on then that's a separate issue from that of privacy and the need to hold the information in the first place.

seperate issue yes Ted and Just as important !

If they cannot 100% guarantee data safety ( and they have a poor record and thats being kind ) then the whole thing is flawed.

We the people have not voted nationally on the introduction of an ID card, in fact most polls have shown we don't want one.

do they not work for Us ? our government ?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

seperate issue yes Ted and Just as important !

If they cannot 100% guarantee data safety ( and they have a poor record and thats being kind ) then the whole thing is flawed.

What are we specifically talking about here? Again we're being extremely vague. Are we talking about the DVLA, NHS, ID Cards? It's very difficult to know how to respond to the myriad mixed-up issues although they have been dealt with elsewhere when they've been mentioned specifically.

We the people have not voted nationally on the introduction of an ID card, in fact most polls have shown we don't want one.

do they not work for Us ? our government ?

That's a problem with parliamentary democracy in general. You'll get your chance to vote on it in the next 15 months. If you feel that strongly about it then why not vote Tory?

 

[lupinwick]

And an update on the photography thing...

The National Union of Journalists, in association with BJP, has called for photographers to make their voices heard at a rally on 16 February as a new law is introduced that allows for the arrest - and potential imprisonment - of anyone who takes pictures of police officers 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

Set to become law on the same day, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.

The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces)... which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.

The Home Office argues that the Terrorism Act 2000 already makes it an offence to 'collect or make a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism' and that the new law will not change anything. However, photographers fear that the Counter-Terrorism Act will, by explicitly mentioning constables, give more power to police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places.

The NUJ has teamed up with Mark Thomas, a writer, broadcaster, comic and political activisit, along with Chris Atkins, who is behind the documentary Taking Liberties, and BJP for a 'photo opportunity' outside New Scotland Yard on Monday 16 February. 'The plan is simple, turn up with your camera and exercise your democratic right to take a photograph in a public place,' says Marc Vallee, an NUJ member who will be there on the day, and who himself clashed with police over the right to photograph public events.

Source

 

[Dr_Baltar]

This statement scares me. Whilst it may be a simple solution when it comes to driving, it can also be read as: "Obey all laws without questioning because all laws are always right".

Firstly, no other government has churned out as many, dare I say, useless laws that all have to be adhered to now. Secondly there are laws that are for all intents and purposes either money spinners or propaganda tools. Lets take the laws on drugs. Here I am, law abiding in all areas, working, collecting pay rises due to good work, do no harm to anyone ever but if I want to smoke a joint, I am doing something illegal. I am being criminalised even though I am definitely NOT a criminal.
Imagine other laws coming out that actually infringe for once in YOUR life, stopping you to do something you used to enjoy and making it illegal.

I was talking about driving, so I think the simple solution stands. Through consensus, there is a speed limit. Break it, by 1mph or a 100mph and you will be punished, although to different degrees. I'm just a bit tired of all those who think that somehow this law doesn't really apply to them or that they deserve special leniency. The law is there to protect people, both from themselves and from others. Whinging that they got caught and fined is pointless.

You may well read my statement as "Obey all laws without questioning because all laws are always right" but that's not what I said. The law does (or, should I say, is meant to) stop me doing something I enjoy. I don't regard myself as a criminal, but I undoubtedly am in the eyes of the law. What become regarded as unjust laws are only ever overturned by people standing up against them in the first place, people who are prepared to accept the consequences of their actions.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

I totally disagree with that DR B, your making assumptions about my driving that you know nothing about. and its impossible to stay at precisely 30 miles an hour in a modern car without constantly monitoring your speed visually, like you say we all falter slightly, that should not be regarded as a criminal act be it with intent or strict liability.

The variance in speed in a performance car today is extreme with even slight movement of the pedal, it has to be constantly looked after.
the difference betwen 30 and 34 is around a second of time, and depends on incline, if the car is going down hill its even more critical to monitor.

looking at your speedo , which you seem to think is more important than watching the road ahead is imperative in speed check area's

Thats why most people are now going at 25 ish though traps with breaking.
speedo watching.

You don't have to stay at precisely 30mph, it's an upper limit not a mandatory speed. And I don't need to make assumptions; you admit that you're incapable of watching the road and staying below 30mph which indicates that you would fail the driving test if you took it now.

Do you drive DR B ?

Not anymore, it's too dangerous.

 

[Quake42]

as a rule DR I do all those things, I have however been 3 miles an hour over the speed limit on two occasions only to get fined for not constantly staring at my speedo, I was guilty of watching the road !!!

if my car couldnt go over the speed limit in the first place I would be the first to applaud.

But this isn't relevant as you state later that the issue was not that you were driving over the national speed limit, but that you were driving above 30 mph in a 30 mph zone.

If you were really only going at 33 mph I would say you were very unlucky to get fined as drivers are usually given a 10% leeway due to different speedometer calibrations, etc. Having said that I have little sympathy for drivers who exceed the limit in built-up areas as there is a real risk of killing or maiming a pedestrian and it is dangerous in the way that 85 mph on an empty motorway is not.

I think it's important to separate concerns about surveillance and collection of excessive data from grievances about speed limits. They are different debates.

 

[Mythopoeika]

You're not really addressing the key issue though. Why does the government need all of this information in the first place?

Because Brown and Darling (closet Marxists) never acknowledged that the fall of the USSR indicated a failure with communism.
They think that the only reason why the USSR crumbled was because the state did not know enough about its citizens, and was therefore not able to effectively control those citizens. They also think that part of the reason for this lack of knowledge and control was because the appropriate technology did not exist then. In the UK now, we have all the technology needed to provide control at a level required for the introduction of an effective Marxist state.
As part of this scheme, they want the UK to become part of a European super-state, in much the same way as the USSR had a federation of states. The point of this is probably economies of scale, and the formation of a trading cartel that makes a Marxist economy possible.
Brown and Darling don't think of Orwell's '1984' as a warning - they regard it as a textbook.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I'm no fan of Darling or Brown and I've no doubt that Marxist assumptions, although extremely diluted, play a part in their political philosophy. However, I hardly think you can call a 'closet Marxist' the man who allowed bankers to indulge themselves with our money. I'm quite sure that neither Brown nor Darling believe the only reason the Soviet Union collapsed was due to its lack of control and not the economic deficiencies of hardcore socialism. On the contrary it's around about the time of the Soviet collapse that Brown appears to change his rhetoric to a style more favourable to the Masters of the Universe.