(8) Members of staff have your bank details, where did they get those from?

[boatyboy]

Report by Big Chris Swinson Auditor General,  wipes the floor with the health department, for lack of patient confidentially. It seems the Management at Health are working in a complete unaccountable mess.


What is also a fact is that the Social Security Department has eight people with information they are not supposed to have regarding banking details. Also in the Big Chris report.

Those people on benefits understandable have to give details to show they are low on funds. So let us have a go at questions the public are entitled to ask about our own personal information.

Were the details of peoples bank details given freely by applicants or under duress, at social security ?

Is the Social security department working with the Tax department, if permission is NOT given regarding banking details, was it acquired through sharing of information ?

If a person has not handed over bank details  to social security were they still acquired if so how ?

It would be reasonable to assume that in an office environment files are left on individuals desks and information can be casually viewed, the same data protection issues as the hospital no doubt. So if eight people have access to bank details by job description, i.e. its there daily work routine how many further work mates can have a look if they so wish.

Is it just bank details or is Social Security colluding with other States departments  
to get medical records, housing records etc ? Is file sharing ( personal and financial details) becoming the illegal norm ?

Is the population now under secret investigation? If it can happen to States Members (operation blast) why not us the general population?  

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/09/11/report-health-are-failing-on-security/

Boatyboy.

[imacrappaud]

Boaty Boy, to be honest I dont mind the states looking at my bank account because I have nothing to hide. I pay my taxes correctly and I dont sponge off the state for anything.

People who do sponge do not give all the information required and thats a fact otherwise how would so many of them be able to live a very comfortable life, with nice car, nice states home, money to shop dill they drop and yet somehow be continually, supposedly, skint. Unless of course their breeding habits have entitled them to a very comfortable states hand out.

However, I understand your point. I have worked in banks where information is just left about willy nilly, and even if not then anyone with a bit of common sense could just look in the bin under someones desk for a tidy bit of info.

I suppose what I am trying to get at is that if you are taking state handouts then you should have no right to confidentiality regarding you bank accounts, and frankly if you do object then there is more to it than just confidentiality.

Actually, I think I might have missed your point alltogether and just had a rant, sorry!

[Chevalier Blanc]

Social Services and Income have always worked together to comfirm or not that the details you have given are correct in the case of applying for any money from Social, it also i believe includes applying for rent rebates etc.

[boatyboy]

 
Hey Imacrappaud liked your post you said.


Social Services and Income have always worked together

You may be right but It is my understanding that States departments are not allowed to share confidential information. This would seem to make sense, unless your express permission is given.

Regarding spongers abusing the system I agree, safe guard's checks and balances should be in place ( a drum, I beat about States departments and life generally ).

However you state " you don't mind the States looking at your bank account " you have nothing to hide. Nor do most of us but there is an important principle here. Your personal details belong to you no one else.

The Auditor General Big Chris Swinson does mind and clearly said so.

Established accepted protocols have been broken. There are rules for some good reasons, otherwise why bother to have data protection at all. Information on people is a valuable saleable commodity, used by the wrong people for the wrong reasons clearly dangerous.

If you doubt me ok, read about Hoover on the internet, the head of the American FBI. Information on people, used for the wrong reasons.

Hoover's FBI mailed tapes of King's sexual affairs to his wife and tried to blackmail him politically; in an anonymous letter, encouraged him to commit suicide;

http://www.zpub.com/notes/znote-jeh.html

He used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders,[2] and to use illegal methods to collect evidence.[3] It is because of Hoover's long and controversial reign that FBI directors are now limited to 10-year terms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover

Boatyboy

[Chevalier Blanc]

The world certainly knows all about Hoover and his hold over people what always surprised me was that he never got bumped off.

[stoofa]

ok. I've just read through the report (http://www.auditorgeneral-jersey.org/pdf/2009P-DATA_SECURITY-FINAL.PDF). Firstly lets make sure  were reading the same thing as I think your completely misrepresenting this.

wipes the floor with the health department, for lack of patient confidentially.

No it doesn't. It states that their data security is lacking, so data could potenitally be obtained by people who had the means and motive to obtain it, but in no way implies that staff are braching patient confidentiality (i.e. purposely disclosing confidential data to 3rd parties)

What is also a fact is that the Social Security Department has eight people with information they are not supposed to have regarding banking details. Also in the Big Chris report.

No, it doesn't.

re the banking information I assume what you are referring to is this paragraph - its the only reference to it

In the Department of Employment and Social Security, eight members of staff can access the BACS1 file and it is not ‘read only’. The BACS file is the file which retains information about the banking details of people receiving Social Security benefits. It would be normal practice to restrict access to such a file to the smallest number of people possible and to monitor the use of such access. The fact that the file is not ‘read only’ leaves open the possibility that members of staff accessing the file might be able illegitimately to change information held within the file.

This in no way implies that these 8 people have obtained access to the banking information improperly or in fact shouldn't have it. It suggests that a good policy would be to restrict this to less people and have tighter controls - nothing more.

Also, the information detailed above, a BACS file, would be account numbers for making payments, assumedly of benefits, and in no way implies that they have any ability to check balances.

Were the details of peoples bank details given freely by applicants or under duress, at social security ?

Is the Social security department working with the Tax department, if permission is NOT given regarding banking details, was it acquired through sharing of information ?

If a person has not handed over bank details  to social security were they still acquired if so how ?

Blimey...

Possibly, just possibly, they have the bank account details (and only the bank account detail - not the ability to check balances) for the purposes of paying people benefits to them, much in the same way that my employer has my banking details to make payments to me.