Govt intends to stop masking NRIC numbers, says there is not 'much value in doing so'

[radish]

of cos nric is confidential and it should be. having nric in sg we apply for a lot of services .

seriously those ppl in gov, say something one day then change 180 another day,

if sg gov canot stop nric from being compromised then scrap nric and replace it digital cert or something, not make nric open public bec nric also contain our year of birth which is our age too.

 

[Loratadine10mg]

let see thrash muddershit pro-whitey supporting absolute powah political entity spitting on personal/private data of citizens - thks ah 60%

They May not report it. Not news worthy

 

[mryang]

The Straits Times​

https://www.facebook.com/#
This follows a Dec 14 statement that the Government intends to move away from the practice of masking NRIC numbers.



straitstimes.com
Personal Data Protection Commission updating guidelines on use of NRIC numbers
The update comes amid Acra temporarily disabling its search function that revealed people's NRIC numbers. Read more at straitstimes.com.

All reactions:
2020

The article highlights several flaws in the government's decision to move away from masking NRIC numbers:

1. Exemption of Public Agencies: The most significant flaw is the exemption of public agencies from the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). This means that public agencies can collect, use, and disclose personal data without the same level of protection as private organizations. This creates a potential for abuse and raises concerns about the government's commitment to data privacy.

2. Lack of Comprehensive Public Education: The article mentions that the government intends to conduct public education efforts in 2025. However, this plan seems reactive and insufficient, considering the potential impact of the policy change. The government should have engaged in comprehensive public education before implementing the change, addressing concerns and building trust.

3. Ignoring Public Sensitivity: Despite acknowledging that Singaporeans are sensitive to having their full NRIC numbers made public, the government seems to downplay this concern. It argues that masking is ineffective and that the public should adapt. However, this ignores the potential for social and economic harm that could result from the misuse of NRIC numbers.

4. Vague Justification: The government's justification for the policy change relies on vague statements like "basic algorithms" and "preparing the ground." These statements lack specificity and clarity, making it difficult to assess the validity of their arguments.

5. Potential for Misuse: The article mentions that full NRIC numbers can be used to unlock large amounts of information. This raises concerns about the potential for misuse of this data, especially by malicious actors. The government has not adequately addressed these concerns or outlined safeguards to prevent misuse.

6. Lack of Transparency: The article notes that the PDPC guidelines are no longer available on their website. This lack of transparency raises questions about the government's commitment to open and accountable governance.

These flaws highlight the need for a more cautious and thoughtful approach to the use of NRIC numbers. The government must address public concerns, ensure adequate safeguards against misuse, and provide comprehensive public education before fully implementing this policy change.

 

[prusswan.net]

WTF.... Because they failed to protect the privacy of the NRIC numbers now they argue that there is no need for NRIC numbers to be private anymore.

Superb logic from them.

More to indemnity themselves so less work for AGO

 

[buttbERry]

in after analysis

 

[gonewiththesmart]

Official can arson.
Common man cannot light a lantern.

 

[prusswan.net]

Means they cannot and do not intend to be held accountable for personal data breaches

Liddat wat is the value for such gahmen to exist?

 

[arcturuz]

Absolute bollocks

 

[Thoreldan]

Wah mess orgy ah...

Who will be next to speak ?
Academics from NUS/NTU/SMU ?

 

[Teufelhunden]

There is little value in voting for such politicians too.

 

[Thoreldan]

The article highlights several flaws in the government's decision to move away from masking NRIC numbers:

1. Exemption of Public Agencies: The most significant flaw is the exemption of public agencies from the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). This means that public agencies can collect, use, and disclose personal data without the same level of protection as private organizations. This creates a potential for abuse and raises concerns about the government's commitment to data privacy.

2. Lack of Comprehensive Public Education: The article mentions that the government intends to conduct public education efforts in 2025. However, this plan seems reactive and insufficient, considering the potential impact of the policy change. The government should have engaged in comprehensive public education before implementing the change, addressing concerns and building trust.

3. Ignoring Public Sensitivity: Despite acknowledging that Singaporeans are sensitive to having their full NRIC numbers made public, the government seems to downplay this concern. It argues that masking is ineffective and that the public should adapt. However, this ignores the potential for social and economic harm that could result from the misuse of NRIC numbers.

4. Vague Justification: The government's justification for the policy change relies on vague statements like "basic algorithms" and "preparing the ground." These statements lack specificity and clarity, making it difficult to assess the validity of their arguments.

5. Potential for Misuse: The article mentions that full NRIC numbers can be used to unlock large amounts of information. This raises concerns about the potential for misuse of this data, especially by malicious actors. The government has not adequately addressed these concerns or outlined safeguards to prevent misuse.

6. Lack of Transparency: The article notes that the PDPC guidelines are no longer available on their website. This lack of transparency raises questions about the government's commitment to open and accountable governance.

These flaws highlight the need for a more cautious and thoughtful approach to the use of NRIC numbers. The government must address public concerns, ensure adequate safeguards against misuse, and provide comprehensive public education before fully implementing this policy change.

Very well written

一针见血

 

[batman_888]

So why they never announce this before arca allow such thing??? Can answer this

 

[prusswan.net]

I am ok for this change.

But at least consult the industry to ensure they already update their system before publishing the numbers.

They did the reverse. How they expect industry now to react? Have to finance changes to their IT system again.

This is to create jobs... Less work less jobs

 

[Mr BBFA]

So why they never announce this before arca allow such thing??? Can answer this

it's because of this ACRA thing then.....

 

[treeskull]

Never admit wrong
Never take responsibility

actions speaks louder than words

 

[junjie433]

The Straits Times​

https://www.facebook.com/#
This follows a Dec 14 statement that the Government intends to move away from the practice of masking NRIC numbers.


straitstimes.com
Personal Data Protection Commission updating guidelines on use of NRIC numbers
The update comes amid Acra temporarily disabling its search function that revealed people's NRIC numbers. Read more at straitstimes.com.
All reactions:
2020

Quoted"
Acra’s move on its Bizfile portal had “run ahead of the government’s intent”, said MDDI. It apologised for not co-ordinating better between agencies, and causing public anxiety.
"
Lol ahead of govt's intent.

 

[campoix]

Well done Jo Teo! Fast game already adopted actions to solve the problem

 

[miko66]

Never admit wrong
Never take responsibility

actions speaks louder than words

No blame culture lol

 

[I_am_bored]

Its the opposite.

The false sense of security with NRIC is probably the cause of some scams.

Some kumgongs fall victim when they are addressed by the NRIC and they believe the scammers.

Don't know what you mean by that.
Now NRICs are not publicly available info. There's controls in place.

Why are we providing more data than necessary in public domain? This provides more data points for scammers no?

 

[spinning_quirK]

Like that singpass ID should not be NRIC number.

What should it be then, if it's to be something easy for both young and old to use?