It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
ContactPoint was turned off at noon on Friday, following pre-election pledges by both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to scrap it, councils and charities warned that a replacement system needs to be introduced.
The database, which cost £224million to set up, was established following the murder of Victoria Climbié as a way for social services, police, teachers and doctors to keep track of at-risk children. It included details of every child’s name, age, address, school, GP and whether they had any contact with youth workers.
The report assesses 46 databases across the major government departments, and finds that A quarter of the public-sector databases reviewed are almost certainly illegal under human rights or data protection law; they should be scrapped or substantially redesigned. More than half have significant problems with privacy or effectiveness and could fall foul of a legal challenge.:
Red means that a database is almost certainly illegal under human rights or data protection law and should be scrapped or substantially redesigned. The collection and sharing of sensitive personal data may be disproportionate, or done without our consent, or without a proper legal basis; or there may be other major privacy or operational problems. Most of these systems already have a high public profile. One of them (the National DNA Database) has been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights, and both the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats have promised to scrap many of the others.
ContactPoint, which is a national index of all children in England. It will hold biographical and contact information for each child and record their relationship with public services, including a note on whether any ‘sensitive service’ is working with the child;
At the time of writing, the Government proposes to begin deployment in 2009. Because of the privacy concerns and the legal issues with maintaining sensitive data with no effective opt-out, and because the security is inadequate (having been designed as an afterthought), and because it provides a mechanism for registering all children that complements the National Identity Register, we rate this as Privacy impact: red.
Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by BANANAMONTANA
The reason it was set up was because social workers had contact with Victoria Climbe but as she moved lost touch, despite her being identified as "high risk" and she was then brutally killed by her carers. Had the workers involved been able to track her whereabouts, health etc and co-ordinated properly with other councils, it may well have been avoided.
To bin it totally brings us back to the point where someone who is being monitored for suspected abuse or neglect, or if a child is otherwise deemed "at risk" only has to move a few miles to a different local authority area and, poof, they have dropped off the radar of the social workers.
Aside from your grandstanding about supposed "breaches" of "civil liberties" (what exactly are these people bleat about?), what do you propose is done to fill the gap?
Or is the fact the Government holds data on some "at risk" children more henious an idea to you than someone beating, starving and abusing a child to death because they are able to get away with it simply by moving?
Her mother says her pleas to police and social services fell on deaf ears. "I used to say: 'When are you going to do something?' They'd say they couldn't do anything unless she complains, but when do you decide that a child has to complain? They said they could do nothing. She was 13. I'd take down the number plates of cars as they drove away, but the police wouldn't accept them."
Social services said she could no longer live in the same place and put her into foster care. The downward spiral accelerated. At 16, Joanne had been missing for seven weeks. "I took social services to court as they said they didn't have a duty of care," says Christine. "The judge said they did, and the next day she was found, locked in a house with an Asian man, with the door handle taken off."
Originally posted by BANANAMONTANA
no answers to the other posts ? thought not!