Banks Get Worrying Powers

Original posting, August 2006

Banks and building societies will be able to withdraw credit and debit cards from people who have been cautioned (and consequently any allegations remain unexamined in a court of law) or convicted, of accessing images of child abuse.

I have no problem with that whatsoever after any allegations have been proven. However, this will not be enough to prevent the issuing bank making judgement. All through unproven allegation. My problem is this action to alleged activity. It can so easily be enhanced to net any alleged and unproven individual for any unproven 'crime'.

But: under new powers of the Data Protection Act (effective July 26, 2006) police can pass on information about alleged paedophiles to that person's card issuer.

Of course, any convicted paedophile should be... and I'm certainly NOT arguing in their favour, but yours and mine: any person not convicted is deemed innocent until proven guilty or so I thought.

This is the worrying part: the implication that any alleged offence, which means not proven, can be cited. Banks are free to cancel or suspend the cards and accounts used to commit the alleged offence.

A distinction between cancel and suspend is critical. The former is unacceptable, the latter is reasonable if restoration of service is made upon an innocent verdict. After trial.

If found guilty, then cancel. OK. It is no longer alleged, but proven.

If the 'authorities' don't like you, they can screw up your life completely.

The data on an individual can't be shared among banking groups, so a bank will have no idea what other cards an alleged offender may own. The new powers do not empower them to pass on details to other banks.

So, it seems, an alleged offender can be punished by the issuing bank, but any such crime cannot be communicated. Presumably because it has not been proven.

This is all endorsed by parliament. Department for Constitutional Affairs:

"...was a vital way to help disrupt and
curtail paedophiles activity...


on the internet"

This department is busy rewriting the

'official' constitution...


unofficially

Or so it seems.

The very thin end of a wedge? More State control?

Concerning Secret Societies

Is this really as confused as I am?