The UK government love China's system so much they plan one of their own.
The UK government has drawn-up plans for its own Social Credit System, based on the Chinese Communist Party's model, Government Documents reveal. In the document Patrick Vallance, Chief Science officer to the UK Government and one of the architects of Lockdown, raves about the CCP model and how a similar system would work in Britain.
The Document lists: Social Media posts; Police Records; CCTV data, Local authority records; education records, health records, and even online purchases as being included in the system. These elements combined, that are referred to as 'Citizen data', amount to all of your personal data, effectively robbing you of all privacy.
What the document describes as 'Citizen Data' means every scrap of information about you that the government can find. NOTHING is off limits, if the data exists, now or in the future, the UK government believe they have the right to use that data for whatever they want.
Date of Birth
Social Media Data
Financial Data and Bank Records
Internet of Things Devices (Gadgets and Appliances etc)
A huge opportunity.
In the forward by MP John Whittingdale, Minister for Media and Data Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, suggests that the proliferation of personal data represents "a huge opportunity for the UK". "By harnessing the power of data, we can boost growth and productivity, drive innovation, improve public services and inform a new wave of scientific research. Our upcoming National Data Strategy is an ambitious bid to make the most of this moment, so that data’s value can be felt across the entire UK".
A duty to use the data to deliver 'better outcomes'.
Whittingdale goes on to say: "We also want members of the public to be active agents in the thriving digital economy, and have confidence and trust in how data – including citizen data – is used. This will be especially important as we transform government’s use of data to drive efficiency and improve public services – with a clear understanding that it is our duty to use data to deliver better outcomes."
Citizen data presents 'enormous potential' for authorities.
Patrick Vallance, the plan's lead author, gives a chilling message in the preface, writing:
"Citizen data presents enormous potential value to consumers, businesses and public authorities. In the digital age, a range of information about citizens can now be used far more easily for a wider set of purposes, and for purposes which were not initially anticipated. These can also involve malicious intent and, without careful management, harm to individuals, society and national security."
Across the boundaries of industry, government, and our personal lives.
Patrick Vallance: "Data collected for one purpose can be used many times over for a range of other ones, and government policy in one area can have unintended impacts elsewhere."
l"inking together of new types of citizen data – across the boundaries of industry, government, and our personal lives – offers some of the greatest opportunities."
Patrick Vallance again: "We use this to build four plausible scenarios for the landscape of data systems across the world in 2030. These are intended to help decision-makers form ambitious strategies that are resilient to the uncertainties that prevail."
Vallance goes on to boast: "Governments can use several levers and policy stances to shape domestic data systems. These include regulation on privacy and data protection; competition policy; use of data for national security and law enforcement; and the use and sharing of public sector data."
China's Social Credit System 'encourages certain behaviours'.
Vallance describes the totalitarian system of oppression as "China has prioritised national economic and social security, with strong government coordination and control of citizen data combined with restrictions on international transfers. These values are demonstrated by the Chinese Social Credit System, which is intended to aggregate financial, law enforcement, commercial, social media and other data in order to monitor citizens’ compliance with various obligations, determine sanctions and encourage certain behaviours."
Vallance goes on to praise China's model by suggesting that the citizens like the 'safety' it offers stating: "Evidence suggests people in China typically indicate higher levels of trust and lower levels of concern over data use and privacy than those in the EU and US."
Patrick Vallance goes on to sell the idea of a British Social Credit System on the grounds of 'safety' and 'national security' with vague references to 9/11 and US patriot act.
He goes on to state that "The UK government should seek to clearly articulate what it wants to achieve with its data system: what economic, social and security-related ambitions it has for better use of citizen data and what objectives for security, inclusion and individual rights it will prioritise."
further in the document Vallance lists the advantages of a mass surveillance system in terms of law and order, writing: "National security and law enforcement. Citizen data has always been a major source of information for national security. This can range from targeted interception of communications (e.g. the calls or emails of a suspect), to analysis of broader datasets such as travel data or communications metadata (e.g. the times of calls). Such citizen data can enable both individual interventions (e.g. using data to monitor and identify suspects) and higher-level strategic decision-making (e.g. using data to target enforcement activity across institutions or areas, and analyse factors driving offending rates to inform crime prevention policies)."
Shockingly, Vallance then goes on to list the worst ways government's around the world misused data to monitor citizens for infractions during lockdowns, often without their knowledge, but not to denounce them, but to show the potential of mass surveillance stating:
International approaches to COVID-19 and privacy.
Internationally, government and local authority use of data during COVID-19 has potential to shape citizen values, particularly where re-identification, surveillance, and privacy breaches have occurred. Conversely, effective deployment may support future digital governance initiatives. Public publishing of the movement of individuals to combat COVID-19 has resulted in re-identification. South Korea’s response involved linking GPS phone tracking, credit card records, surveillance video and interviews with patients . It published places that individuals who tested positive had been, resulting in a number of high-profile cases of re-identification in the media. Singapore has also been publishing detailed data about every infected person including age, gender, workplace, and where they had visited535 . State surveillance is being repurposed for COVID-19, being used to police lockdown, and to gather sensitive data on citizens. In Israel, the existence of mobile data which had been collected secretly to combat terrorism was made public and repurposed to trace contacts of COVID-19 cases. Russia is using an app to police lockdown, which requests access to calls and location to ensure that individuals who have tested positive to COVID-19 obey quarantine. The Colombian app reportedly asks people to answer questions about participation at protests and ethnicity.
Vallance doesn't denounce these Big Brother style action, on the huge potential of state overreach he's entirely silent, listing them as examples of just want can be done by such a system.
The 'greater good' trump's personal privacy.
"Potential future implications It is likely that COVID-19 will cause a shift in data systems, as changes made during the pandemic have the potential to become embedded, and to change public perceptions. All the approaches outlined above reflect that there may be benefits for the economy, innovation or public services to be gained by sacrificing some level of privacy during a pandemic. This is explicitly acknowledged in the UK’s COVID-19 approach: “In the end, the choice you have to make is a balance between individual, group and national privacy, and the public health authorities having the minimum information 81 This is not a statement of government policy necessary to manage the spread of the virus.” – Ian Levy, National Cyber Security Centre, 4th May 2020 In the UK, it is already legally specified that an infected person's privacy may be trumped by the risk they pose to other peoples' lives , with medical workers having a statutory duty to report incidences of certain diseases such as Cholera, Mumps and Rabies, as well as COVID-19 ".
Citizen Data in 2030
The document lists four scenarios all of which assume that the a social credit system will be in place, just whether it will be national, international or global.
The entire document reeks of totalitarianism. Written by technocrats who pay scant regard to an individual's rights to privacy, freedom, and personal autonomy. The answer is 'a social credit system' now what's the question? There will be no opt-out of the system either. Note the document doesn't include a scenario where "none of the above" is an option.
A social credit system is being implemented by stealth and it's straight out of the World Economic Forum's playbook.
Full document here: