×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Database of All UK Children Launched

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the can't-help-but-think-of-'em-now dept.

Government 296

An anonymous reader writes "'A controversial database which holds the details of every child in England has now become available for childcare professionals to access. The government says it will enable more co-ordinated services for children and ensure none slips through the net. 390,000 people will have access to the database, but will have gone through stringent security training.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

296 comments

390,000? Yeah, right (4, Insightful)

CantGetAUserName (565692) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992703)

Knowing our government, child professionals, council binmen, accounts clerks, councillors, dog catchers and that nasty lady on the front desk who's job is purely to be unhelpful.

Re:390,000? Yeah, right (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992785)

and that nasty lady on the front desk who's job is purely to be unhelpful

Computer says noooooo...

Re:390,000? Yeah, right (5, Insightful)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992793)

Come on you know our government is great with security. They have never ever lost a latop containing personal details of people, and look at how quiet they kept their expenses.. With security like that what can possibly go wrong..

Re:390,000? Yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27993007)

yeah but it's not like the db will a hot or not rating.

Pedobear (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992711)

Jackpot!

(just a matter of when)

Re:Pedobear (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992751)

mysql -u pedobear -p password -P 3306

> SELECT * FROM underage_children ORDERBY date_of_birth DESC;

Re:Pedobear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992777)

lol status: lol'd

Re:Pedobear (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27993199)

mysql -u pedobear -p password -P 3306

> SELECT * FROM underage_children ORDERBY date_of_birth DESC;

>RESULT: You sick bastard !!!

Database hits gnutella in 3 ... 2.... 1 (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992719)

Seriously do they really expect this information to remain secret?

Re:Database hits gnutella in 3 ... 2.... 1 (4, Insightful)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992749)

390,000 are too many even if they could keep the secret. Because it is almost certain that in such a large group there are some people the information should be secret from.

Re:Database hits gnutella in 3 ... 2.... 1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992887)

Nothings more secure than a building with 390,000 keys is it?

Re:Database hits gnutella in 3 ... 2.... 1 (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992959)

I didn't see any mention of 390,000 secure tokens being handed out or anything on the amount of detail being kept in the access logs.

They did implement that ... right?

390,000 is about 1 person in 150. To me that seems far too many. And why would the records of politician's children need special "shielding" if this is secure?

Re:Database hits gnutella in 3 ... 2.... 1 (5, Insightful)

Builder (103701) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993041)

And why would the records of politician's children need special "shielding" if this is secure?

Bingo! Surely if this is so secure, MP's brats should be the seed data for the list.

Re:Database hits gnutella in 3 ... 2.... 1 (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993063)

Good idea. Every government database should start out with only politicians' data in it for six months.

Get them while they are young. (5, Insightful)

Tsuki_yomi (642789) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992727)

The article doesn't seem to make any mention of removing that information when they become adults. I can see where this is going... get a database of them now, when less people are likely to complain, and then you still have the info when they are adults. Instant (well sorta) database of all your citizens.

Re:Get them while they are young. (4, Insightful)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992775)

Well, there is already a myriad of government databases containing more sensitive information than this about everyone: NI/Income tax registers, Electoral registers, the (shudder) NHS system, Council Tax databases, birth certificates, benefits, criminal records etc.

This database just seems to aggregate a subset of this data together for children in an easily searchable place. I don't think the government is creating and *new* information that will be interesting to search when the children become adults.

Re:Get them while they are young. (4, Insightful)

robably (1044462) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992801)

This database just seems to aggregate a subset of this data together for children in an easily searchable place.

There's no "just" about it - that's the problem right there.

Re:Get them while they are young. (2, Insightful)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992861)

Agreed, but whilst it makes me shudder, it also belays any fears that this is a surreptitious plan to start collecting new information about kids which can be sneakily kept to provide useful information about them as adults.

Re:Get them while they are young. (2, Insightful)

Warbothong (905464) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993229)

As it stands, many database searches require a search warrant, which implies some kind of need for the search. However, the databases are so disparate that a warrant issued for, say, an NHS database will get you medical records for that person. Searching on the police database you can get their criminal record, but you need another warrant to specify why you need such information, and the same goes for the rest.

The problem with having a centralised system is that every warrant obtained to look someone up in "the database" for reason X will allow access to everything about that person.

It may be annoying to have paperwork to fill out which can stall legitimate investigations, but that paperwork is there to make sure they are indeed legitimate. Having a centralised system would make it legal for an agency with permission to get one piece of information (say, is this person allergic to penicillin?) to dig up ALL information on someone (criminal record, fingerprints, DNA, tax returns, etc.).

Scary if you ask me.

Re:Get them while they are young. (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992893)

MySpace and Facebook are just as bad. They teach people, even adults, to give up personal information without a second thought.

Re:Get them while they are young. (4, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992937)

You do understand the difference between giving information willingly and having it forced out of you?

If people want to tell everyone when they sit on the can, their biz. But don't expect me to tell you.

Re:Get them while they are young. (1)

gerrygerbil (1114913) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993167)

The article doesn't seem to make any mention of removing that information when they become adults. I can see where this is going... get a database of them now, when less people are likely to complain, and then you still have the info when they are adults. Instant (well sorta) database of all your citizens.

Yep, that's about the size of it. The State is playing a long game here. Everything, but everything about children gets stored in the database, including their DNA profiles. The scheme has been highly controversial over here, but in time the fuss will die over and it'll just become an accepted part of life. The next generation is going to have an awful shock waiting for it when it reaches adulthood and becomes uppity and rebellious. The 'rationales' for the scheme chime with public and media 'concerns', with cases of child abuse (Baby P) and abductions (Maddy) making the front pages every other week, and South Park slogan 'think of the children!' being public policy. How can a right-minded person possibly oppose a scheme that will, or so the State says, 'safeguard' children throughout their lives? The perfect smokescreen, carefully constructed over a decade of media manipulation.

not my children (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992729)

if i had kids i'd refuse or give bogus details.

if ever their was a reasonable cause to scream think of the children, this is it. and lets not forget that these kids will grow into adults, do we really believe the government will let go of that information once it has it?

Re:not my children (5, Insightful)

shabble (90296) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992787)

if i had kids i'd refuse or give bogus details.

That sort of behaviour would likely to earn you a criminal record, and a marker on this database to indicate that your child is now on the child protection register (one of the groups of people for whom this database is for I'd imagine after the farce over 'Baby P.')

And I'm not being cynical, I only wish I were.

Re:not my children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992817)

if i had kids i'd refuse or give bogus details....

If they'd asked me, it would not include my children. However, no-one has asked either me or my wife. This stuff sickens me. Where has privacy gone in this country? It's hiding under the stairs, scared of the big bad state... like me.

Re:not my children (1)

Dudibob (1556875) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992821)

I have a brother who's 11 and have heard nothing about having him opting into this database. The British Government have already got the children's details and they're already on the database

Re:not my children (2, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992947)

Unfortunately every child gets a birth certificate (unless you do a DIY home birth maybe) so it's pretty hard to avoid.

Re:not my children (1)

kondziu (1543467) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993019)

It could be difficult to sign up for school and other institutions without a birth certificate, though.

Re:not my children (4, Informative)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993071)

every child gets a birth certificate (unless you do a DIY home birth maybe)

You go to jail if you dont register the birth within 30 days.

Re:not my children (2, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993211)

every child gets a birth certificate (unless you do a DIY home birth maybe)

You go to jail if you dont register the birth within 30 days and the authorities find out.

Fixed that for ya.

Re:not my children (1)

shabble (90296) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993245)

You go to jail if you dont register the birth within 30 days.

No you don't. At least not in the country TFA is talking about: you get prosecuted (which might, but is highly unlikely to, result in jail - our prisons are full enough TYVM,) and you have 42 days to do it in:

http://www.barnsley.gov.uk/bguk/Community/Registrars/Registering_Births_Deaths/Registering_a_Birth [barnsley.gov.uk]

It is a legal duty to register a birth within 42 days. Failure to do so will not only leave you liable to prosecution but will also make it impossible for you to register to receive family allowance or register your baby with a doctor.

Knowing vs practising (5, Insightful)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992733)

390,000 people will have access to the database, but will have gone through stringent security training.

That's great, but having people know security through (unspecified) 'stringent training' is no guarantee it will be carried out effectively.

Oh, and at a nearly a quarter of a billion pounds, forgive my curiosity about precisely what value this is expected provide.

Sounds like a rabid white elephant with dangerously sharp tusks.

Re:Knowing vs practising (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992829)

Apologies for the self reply - but just to drive my incredulity home: If they spent half that budget on training (I suspect they spent much less than half), that's less than a £300 per head.

Sure wish I could get some stringent security training for that money. Must be a big government discount.

Re:Knowing vs practising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27993049)

I make that about £20 ($30 USD) per database entry!

With an expected time saving of 5 million person hours that is £50 ($77 USD) per hour saved in the best case scenario.

Re:Knowing vs practising (1)

jbacon (1327727) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993215)

Stringent security training, eh? I have some serious doubts that 390,000 child care professionals can be stringently trained in data security, not to mention that fact that very few of them should be trusted with this kind of data in the first place.

Och nooo! UK is not England! (-1, Flamebait)

pieterh (196118) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992737)

Large parts of the UK fought and bled for the right to not be part of England.

It is true that Tony Blair's Labour government was largely run by Scots, and that they seem to be implementing a spy state in England but not in Scotland.

However, the rumours that the Stazification of England is a Gaelic plot to prevent the sassanachs from ever again invading the Fair and Bonnie Lands of Burns are silly and I won't dignify them with repetition.

Re:Och nooo! UK is not England! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27993159)

> Large parts of the UK fought and bled for the right to not be part of England. ...and lost, and then we got your kings ...Queen Elizabeth is more Scottish than she is English (and much more German) ...and you do know that a sassanach is an (Anglo)-Saxon (as opposed to Celt/Pict).... which properly describes 2/3 of the Scottish population

Re:Och nooo! UK is not England! (2, Funny)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993233)

Large parts of the UK fought and bled for the right to not be part of England.

Hey, we bought you fair and square. You're ours now. That's how capitalism works. It wasn't even a hostile acquisition, it was an economic rescue plan.

This Will End Badly (5, Interesting)

dcposch (1438157) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992743)

I bet Bruce Schneier will post on how bad an idea this is any hour now. Some classic Schneier: "Why Technology Won't Prevent Identity Theft" http://www.schneier.com/essay-255.html [schneier.com] ...and what about the old-fashioned Law of Large Numbers? If you give 390,000 people access to something, the chance that some of them are criminals is: 100%! (Rounded to the nearest six decimals or so.) Simply because there are 390,000 of them.

Re:This Will End Badly (4, Insightful)

Armakuni (1091299) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992807)

And of those criminals, a significant percentage will be precisely the kind of criminals that take an interest in kids. Pedophiles naturally gravitate toward jobs and extracurricular activities where they know that they will have a lot to do with kids. How many of them are now given access to all the info they need to seek out the most vulnerable kids in their neighborhood?

Re:This Will End Badly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992847)

This does seem to be a serious concern. No doubt such criminals would target employment within the 390,000 given access. Even if most are denied, surely some will slip through the cracks. In addition, what happens when criminals with monetary intentions obtain this information for use in kidnapping crimes? This just seems like one of the most ridiculous ideas ever concocted. Looks like the UK is off of my list of places I'd ever consider living.

Re:This Will End Badly (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27993147)

surely some will slip through the cracks.

An unfortunate turn of phrase.

... And now we have the answer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992747)

Well, at least we know who'll be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes.

This idea reeks of a solution that was determined before asking the geeks '... is this a good idea?'
Anyone with any technical chops (whatsoever) would see a database with 400,000 weakest links, at best.

Security Training? (1)

pengipengi (1352837) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992757)

Security training meaning that they know how to break the system in the best way if they want?

Re:Security Training? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992827)

Security training? For 390 000 people? Yeah right... Most people I know, while having a degree of some sort, use the weakest passwords I ever saw, and others write down their passwords in their desk (War Games anyone?).
Now what's the security that they are talking about?

Surely this can't continue forever? (4, Informative)

realnowhereman (263389) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992767)

http://lpuk.org/ [lpuk.org]

I stumbled across this website last year. It is a very small (at present) political party. As far as I know, the only one who actively states they will scrap this state monitoring nonsense.

Hopefully, some of the other parties will realise that people don't want to be monitored, and there are votes to be had out of it.

Re:Surely this can't continue forever? (1)

Laughing Pigeon (1166013) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992881)

Hopefully, some of the other parties will realise that people don't want to be monitored,

The big problem is that many people feel safe when there is monitoring going on and they want it that way. At least that way terrorism becomes impossible (please tell me it is so), and someone should think of the children as well, this monitoring garantuees their safety (please tell me it is so). And as they themselves have nothing to hide, they ask people who do make a fuss about it why they are making such a fuss about it. These people must have things they want to hide. OK, it is important that these data remain private, but when almost 400.000 people have gotten a thorough security training, security just CAN'T be bad, can it? "They" will most certainly know what they are doing, right?

Re:Surely this can't continue forever? (2, Informative)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993209)

Nope, they don't like being monitored. They just do not think further than around the next corner. If you tell them the concept of cardinal Richelieu, that if they want to find something, they will find something to hang you, and this gives them the possibility to find something, then they suddenly are very scared and surprised. Or they just start the ignore-machine and stick their head in the sand, which means they got it, but it shocked them too much to look directly at it, so they buried it as deep as they could.

Re:Surely this can't continue forever? (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992929)

Is there some universal law that I missed whereby states won't get too big and abuse their power eventually? If anything, it's the other way round.

390.000 people (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992773)

I am one of them. But don't worry, I have gone through stringent security training. They will never be able to decrypt my collection of pictures.

will not prevent anything (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992791)

Here in Denmark, there is the CPR (central person registry), where EVERY person living in Denmark has a unique 10-digit number, and the state+ subscribing entities (such as tax, medical etc etc) has access to relevant data about you.

Yet, that does not stop children from being abused, disappear etc.

A database is worth little unless you implant a small tracking device in all you wish to track, and monitor constantly.

Re:will not prevent anything (4, Funny)

montyzooooma (853414) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992989)

A database is worth little unless you implant a small tracking device in all you wish to track, and monitor constantly.

Finally, someone offering a workable solution.

Obligatory quote (5, Funny)

jmak (409787) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992799)

Melchett: Now, I've compiled a list of those with security clearance, have you got it Darling?

Darling: Yes sir.

Melchett: Read it please.

Darling: It's top security sir, I think that's all the Captain needs to know.

Melchett: Nonsense! Let's hear the list in full!

Darling: Very well sir. "List of personnel cleared for mission Gainsborough, as dictated by General C. H. Melchett: You and me, Darling, obviously. Field Marshal Haig, Field Marshal Haig's wife, all Field Marshal Haig's wife's friends, their families, their families' servants, their families' servants' tennis partners, and some chap I bumped into the mess the other day called Bernard."

Melchett: So, it's maximum security, is that clear?

Blackadder: Quite so sir, only myself and the rest of the English speaking world is to know.

Entries for English children arrested for racism (3, Interesting)

XavierItzmann (687234) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992811)

So, will they include in the database the 14-yr old Greater Manchester girl arrested for telling her teacher "can I change groups because I can't understand them?"

The others where speaking Urdu and the the assignment was "discuss."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-410150/Schoolgirl-arrested-refusing-study-non-English-pupils.html [dailymail.co.uk]

I'd like to see the database entry for the arrested girl.

Re:Entries for English children arrested for racis (5, Insightful)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992919)

You can't link to the daily mail and expect to be taken seriously.

Re:Entries for English children arrested for racis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27993155)

Perhaps you could provide a link to show that this story is bogus, then your argument may hold more weight.

Re:Entries for English children arrested for racis (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27993235)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6047514.stm

Good enough?

Small thing, England != United Kingdom (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992823)

This only afffects England.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own Devolved governing bodies which have been less interested in these massive Databases to date.

England doesn't have such a body. It was offered but there was a lack of interest.

Re:Small thing, England != United Kingdom (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993131)

England doesn't have such a body. It was offered but there was a lack of interest.

Are you saying they have nobody?

stringent security training (1)

fluch (126140) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992835)

Haha! Isn't UK known for notoriously making backups of their data in the cloud by leaving secret data lying around on trains, loosing unencrypted CDs in transit and alike? I can't wait until the first scandal arises about this database!

Re:stringent security training (2, Insightful)

dugeen (1224138) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992875)

Indeed. And give them as much training as you like, it still won't stop them flogging the data to private investigators and tabloid journalists.

Re:stringent security training (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992985)

God fucking damn it, learn to use the proper fucking form of "lose" already. This fucking site resembles 4chan and Digg ever more as months pass.

Re:stringent security training (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27993175)

That's what you get for forcing the world to speak your language. Serves you right -- bastard.

Appalling (3, Insightful)

Fleeced (585092) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992889)

This is appalling - the "facepalm" tag is spot on. I have a great fondness for the UK, even though I've only visited once, and the people there have my sympathies for such bureaucratic stupidity. Policies like this and ASBO's of the last few years have had a disastrous effect... government is getting way too intrusive over there.

Sadly, I think Australia is heading in the same direction, though at least the Australia Card/Access Card proposals have been shelved by the current mob (for now)

Think of the children (3, Insightful)

redhog (15207) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992903)

Seriously, doesn't anyone think of the children?! Please?!

Re:Think of the children (1)

ElKry (1544795) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993185)

There's a very specific group of people that think of the children a lot, and that's why this is a bad idea in the first place.

Simple solution ! name your child one of these: (5, Funny)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992909)

Invalid entry
Syntax error
Test ignore
Null value
And my personal favorite:
rm -rf

Re:Simple solution ! name your child one of these: (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992971)

If they allow special characters, mine would be named ;drop table *;

Re:Simple solution ! name your child one of these: (2, Funny)

redhog (15207) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992987)

Or even better:

'; delete from users; commit;

Re:Simple solution ! name your child one of these: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27993005)

Robert'); DROP TABLE Children;--

Re:I'd pity you in your old age... (1)

N Monkey (313423) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993067)

Invalid entry
Syntax error
Test ignore
Null value
And my personal favorite:
rm -rf

Do that and I doubt you'd find yourself in a pleasant retirement home in your old age >:->

What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992975)

Given, this is the UK that will be doing this, and they're known for not respecting privacy, someone care to make a list of everything that could possibly go wrong?

Already exists? (2, Informative)

PhilJC (928205) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992981)

I was under the impression that the information to be contained within this database already exists in one form or another and this is the problem that they are trying to solve. Currently this information resides in a hundred different systems and only a small proportion of these systems actually talk and exchange information between them. Such a fragmented system surely can't be good for anyone and by collating it we ensure everyone involved has the entire picture rather than just their service/authorities history of the child.

Don't get me wrong I do think the current plan is flawed and needs review. The security/integrity of the system needs an overhaul before going live, the number of people with access reduced, tighter regulation introduced outlining when the information can be accessed and a clear declaration as to when a child's information is no longer required by the state and deleted.

Re:Already exists? (2, Insightful)

pisto_grih (1165105) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993083)

Such a fragmented system introduces security through obscurity, but by collating it we ensure everyone involved has the entire picture, rather than just what they need to know about the child.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Already exists? (3, Insightful)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993101)

the information to be contained within this database already exists in one form or another

Yes, but the purpose of this project is to put it in a leakier sieve.

It's the usual political flamebait (5, Insightful)

AnalPerfume (1356177) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992993)

Announced to the media when the government are being hammered in the news over some other scandal. They do this all the time, the Torries before them did it too. Often they announce shit they KNOW is controversial and have no intention of actually doing just to make the press write about something else and forget the scandal they were writing about. It's the equivalent of waving a new flashy toy at a toddler to distract him so you can grab her blanky to get it washed as she won't knowingly let it go.

As far as the cost is concerned, the government just got an influx of unexpected cash from ministers in the form of repayments, so they can afford to splurge a little on some untendered, no doubt proprietary solution provided by an IT company who spend more on lobbying than their solutions, no doubt running on Windows. They will also keep the details hidden behind a commercial confidentiality NDA excuse too.

Labour do seem hell bent on kicked out at the next election with the added bonus of becoming unelectable, good luck to the bastards.

Re:It's the usual political flamebait (3, Insightful)

AnalPerfume (1356177) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993033)

Sorry to reply to my own post but /. does not have an edit feature so I had to add a new post for further points.

The other side to this approach is that whatever one the press go for, the other gets a reasonably free ride. If the press stick with the expense abuse / fraud stories, the database / invasion of privacy story goes undetected, and most likely without any opposition; meaning the government can then claim "hey, we did our part legally and announced it, nobody complained." If they go for the database story MPs who have had their feet to the fire over allegations of fraud get breathing time to destroy evidence, practice their excuses and call in favors which may keep them in a job....or at least keep their pensions and be allowed to resign with no charges to face and their reputations intact.

Either way it's a lose / lose for the people. Let's hope the people remember these games at election day.

Children now, everybody later (3, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992999)

In roughly 18 years time, these children will be young adults and they'll still have all their information.
Add a few more decades and they'll have complete details over every child and adult simply because the children have grown old.

Re:Children now, everybody later (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993011)

Will the information be all that accurate or valuable after 18 years?

Luckily for the government kids today will grow into adults that don't have any concept of privacy. For the twitter and myspace generation, their private lives are made public to millions of strangers, and it doesn't bother them one bit. While the rest of us lose sleep some nights wondering who has gotten into our personal info and what they might decide to do with it.

England != UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27993059)

The title claims all UK Children, and yet the post claims all children in England. It's incredible how many people are clueless to the difference.

Britain scared of its people (1)

tg123 (1409503) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993121)

I did not think britain could get more Orwellian with CCTV and a DNA register of all people arrested in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four [wikipedia.org]

This just says I was wrong.

So now Britain is getting ready, making sure the kids (i.e "the devils spawn") are on file.

Are Britian's leaders so scared of its people that they see them as criminals?

What happened to Free speech , Democracy , Innocent till Proven Guilty ?

Re:Britain scared of its people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27993243)

Thanks for the link to Nineteen Eighty Four. I didn't realise what Orwellian meant before reading that article.

Oh, and even though TFA is only talking about England, UK != just Britain, either.

Why? (5, Insightful)

atraintocry (1183485) | more than 4 years ago | (#27993179)

No, seriously, why?

Are children like some sort of disease that need to be tracked? Of what use is it to these "childcare professionals" to know the name of every child in the UK?

Over time this is going to be a 1:1 census.

What are the benefits of this that outweigh the severe risk of having all of that data in one place? It seems like once a week there's an article on here about some huge privacy violation that the UK is already finished with. And this...I don't know anymore. It's just absurd at this point.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...