Supreme Court Rules NIDS Unconstitutional,

[Lazie]

Supreme Court Rules NIDS Unconstitutional, Declares Proposed Law Null And Void.


http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/n...-null-and-void

[OJ]

Fair decision need to go back to the drawing board. I do think some of the justice Sykes pov can be challenge, especially around collection of biometric data. His take was once you are collecting biometrics, then the storage of that private data makes it a risk to privacy. I can argue that other data is stored which contains privacy, if that was the case then we would not do e-health initiatives.

The second issue is the idea of it being mandatory, I thought this was the crux of the issue. MY suggestion is to make it an anchor so it not mandatory unless you need, a TRN, Drivers license, passport, start a business, etc.

[Lazie]

Fair decision need to go back to the drawing board. I do think some of the justice Sykes pov can be challenge, especially around collection of biometric data. His take was once you are collecting biometrics, then the storage of that private data makes it a risk to privacy. I can argue that other data is stored which contains privacy, if that was the case then we would not do e-health initiatives.

The second issue is the idea of it being mandatory, I thought this was the crux of the issue. MY suggestion is to make it an anchor so it not mandatory unless you need, a TRN, Drivers license, passport, start a business, etc.

I am not surprised by the ruling. Based on what I read about the hearing, the AG continuously fumbled the case.

[Assasin]

It is more than just the AD. OJ I can say that if there is no mandatory part it iw not effective in crime fighting and many people will choose to opt out. I would take it to Privy counsel. Not sure they would rule the same way. Data privacy? we know how that is. You do your damn best but it is not impossible for a break in. The courts without the help of IT expert can't just make such a judgement in my view.

[OJ]

I dont think The AG vetted it properly or argued it properly. Look at it this way it can be mandarory without calling it mandatory. For example there is no law in canada or the U.S that says I need a Social insurance Number. But if I need a job, buy a house, finance anything.. get a passport ect I need one so I make it a dependent ID for other IDs which forces people to do it. The chief justice spoke about the ability to protect data which he does not have scope over. If that is the case then I should not collect tax because I may waste it. I think that part can be challenged in the privy council but it may not be a good political move. Table it have a join working session with a working comitee and get back to the two troubling areas, biometrics and mandatory aspect of the bill. The biometrics is not an issue if we can do finger print although I disagree with sykes on this.

[Reggaedoc]

I dont think The AG vetted it properly or argued it properly. Look at it this way it can be mandarory without calling it mandatory. For example there is no law in canada or the U.S that says I need a Social insurance Number. But if I need a job, buy a house, finance anything.. get a passport ect I need one so I make it a dependent ID for other IDs which forces people to do it. The chief justice spoke about the ability to protect data which he does not have scope over. If that is the case then I should not collect tax because I may waste it. I think that part can be challenged in the privy council but it may not be a good political move. Table it have a join working session with a working comitee and get back to the two troubling areas, biometrics and mandatory aspect of the bill. The biometrics is not an issue if we can do finger print although I disagree with sykes on this.

This AG tends to stumble a lot.

[OJ]

one of the weak links in the admin.