Can we trust Revenue and Social Welfare with our personal details

T

Towger

Registered User
Messages
2,501
Following from todays news that it is "common practice among civil servants to use their privileges to check up on the financial status of friends, family and acquaintances." Can we trust Revenue and Social Welfare with our personal details? They all want more and more details on out lives.



Links:

[broken link removed]

[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
 
While the breach of rules in this way is unforgiveable, I do sometimes wonder if our lip-service to a 'right to confidentiality' is a touch overblown. I don't really see why it is so important that all of my dealings with the state should be on a private and confidential basis. It seems a little contradictory to me on the one hand to say that paying taxes is a communal obligation, and on the other to treat the transaction itself (i.e. payment of tax) as being a private transaction between two people only (me and the state). I would be quite comfortable with the idea that all tax returns and all applications for social welfare payments would be documents of public record, with an 'opt in' for privacy on particular issues (on a case by case basis).
 
Towger said:
Following from todays news that it is "common practice among civil servants to use their privileges to check up on the financial status of friends, family and acquaintances." Can we trust Revenue and Social Welfare with our personal details?
Click to expand...

A relative (since deceased) who worked in an audit district of Revenue assured me some years ago that while Revenue staff can technically access anyone's files, there are audit trail mechanisms that track file access by staff and that where a staff member accesses a files outside their own area, they are routinely followed up and queried as to why they accessed the file.

Towger said:
They all want more and more details on our lives.
Click to expand...
Really? The online Form 11 for example requires much less input of personal data than the corresponding form did 10 years ago.


On a more general level, I would be more worried about the use that banks make of customers' bank account information in order to sell them mortgages, pensions, car loans etc.
 
If you have a loyalty card then your local supermarket has more info on you than anyone.
 
It has been my experience that neither government depts nor local authorities take confidentiality seriously at all.
 
Look at Dolores 'Euromillions' - her files were reportedly accessed by over 100 civil servants when she won the lottery.

And as for privacy, it would be no bad idea for all the information on the last benchmarking process to be release to the public domain.
 
shnaek said:
Look at Dolores 'Euromillions' - her files were reportedly accessed by over 100 civil servants when she won the lottery.
Click to expand...

All of whom were reprimanded let us not forget.

No matter how poorly confidentiality is respected among civil service staff, it is nothing on some private sector operators. In my younger days I worked in a market research firm where the boss actually laughed out loud when I asked him if he wanted the database amended to include an "opt out" clause.

At least if a problem is flagged in the civil service they can trace who accessed the relevant files and when, which provides some measure of protection.
 
Exactly and well said : "who is auditing the audit logs and how well are they doing it. Im my experance audit logs are only looked up there is a known problem." Most people I know do not think Revenue and Social Welfare are confidential with our personal details. The fact that over 100 civil servants thought nothing of looking up that one individual lotto winners details speaks volumes.
 
However even though over 100 looked at a file, that is only 1.5% of the workforce in Revenue (circa 6,600). ALso they looked, that doesn't mean that they all went out the door talking about it. Still it was 100 too many.
 
boris said:
However even though over 100 looked at a file, that is only 1.5% of the workforce in Revenue (circa 6,600). ALso they looked, that doesn't mean that they all went out the door talking about it. Still it was 100 too many.
Click to expand...
Perhaps some of the 100 accessed the file in the course of their normal work?
 
ClubMan said:
Perhaps some of the 100 accessed the file in the course of their normal work?
Click to expand...

According to Monday's Indo which ran the latest story, in Dolores McNamara's case "Just 12 workers were entitled to view her social welfare statistics but they were viewed by 106 curious officials -- including a high ranking Assistant Principal Officer -- after her big win"
 
It was a very unique story, so I would say that it was just a case of curiosity killed the cat. Alot of people have info regarding that particular story, but cannot divulge the information. I do think alot of people would be tempted to take a peek in that instance
 
orka said:
-- including a high ranking Assistant Principal Officer --
Click to expand...

I would be more alarmed if senior Revenue or Social Welfare officials were NOT familiarising themselves with past compliance records of individuals who come into serious wealth and/or public prominence. Ten years ago an individual with a long record of suspected Social Welfare fraud was elected to Dail Eireann. In the aftermath of his election, some assiduous research by the local Social Welfare Dept eventually shamed the guy concerned into settling his liability. This might not have happened had his election not sparked renewed official interest in his record.
 
I was in the Revenue about 10 years ago and some people had access to PAYE info so they could know what their mates were earning. Believe me, it was a young workforce back then and 'loads' of people were at it.

However, the Official Secrets Act was signed by all of us so you spoke about it at your peril. I don't think it was mentioned outside the building, ever!

If you looked at someones file when you had no business doing so, unless it was a case like John Gilligan or someone (whose files were probably very restricted anyway) then you would never be caught.

However, it's not practical for it to be so tightly regulated that no-one but the very person dealing with your case would have access to your files. You gotta have faith.
 
My own recollection was that the reason there was an investigation into the Dolores McNamara case was that personal information, that only really could have come from official sources, made it into the papers within days. So it wasn't merely curiosity but also gossiping/leaking.

I wonder would people be so nonchalant if a bank official gave out details allowing a vulnerable customer to be targetted by criminals. Has it come to the stage where we actually expect lower standards from our civil servants?
 
I would regard the gossiping/leaking as serious cause for concern. I would be less worried about the curiosity element once it stayed at that. If a few Revenue people had been a bit more curious about Charlie Haughey's tax records in the 70s & 80s the country as a whole might have been spared some grief.
 
Towger said:
Following from todays news that it is "common practice among civil servants to use their privileges to check up on the financial status of friends, family and acquaintances." Can we trust Revenue and Social Welfare with our personal details? They all want more and more details on out lives.
Click to expand...

Can you suggest any alternative? Do you expect them to have instant access to your file when you phone up with a query?
 
RainyDay said:
Can you suggest any alternative? Do you expect them to have instant access to your file when you phone up with a query?
Click to expand...

It's rare that I say this about the public sector but I think the system they have in place is a reasonably good one. Relatively unrestricted access to files but with a clear log of who accessed what files, when and for how long. This discourages abuse of the system without too much unnecessary encumbrance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top