Wednesday, 11 March 2009

Data (non) Protection

Is it really too much to expect that some miniscule vestige of sanity might be allowed to penetrate our Laws?
A certain Bank has convinced itself that in order to prevent identity theft it is better to go on sending sensitive information to an old address rather than recognise a simple but obvious change of said address. In order to remove this blockage 'verification' documents are required. Of course if these should go astray in transit an identity thief has all that is needed for instant success. Never mind. Rules is rules - clearly drafted by imbeciles.

But I know you want worse. A person 'phones from a Bank and asks for my wife. This person, apparently on pain of dismissal, and allegedly because of the Data Protection Act [Given the amount of data that has been lost by Officialdom what a damn fool title that is], is not allowed to tell me WHICH Bank. My wife goes on the 'phone & a conversation ensues. She might, of course, NOT have been my wife. In fact no effort was made to check. She could have been any female hauled in off the street. In any case if we had been setting up an identity fraud does anyone seriously think that we would not have been aware of all this rubbish & been word perfect had 'verification' questions been asked?

The fact that identity theft is growing at a massive rate demonstrates that all this nonsense, apparently enshrined in these Acts, is simply an exercise in window dressing designed to give the illusion that these issues are being taken seriously whilst achieving absolutely zilch except irritation & raised blood pressure. Nothing new there then. Most of the deluge of legislation over the last decade or so has been to placate rather than achieve.

No comments: