Monday, 19 November 2012

PRESS RELEASE: midata – time for BIS to answer the questions


PRESS RELEASE


To:

Home Office

OIG (re US-VISIT)

IDABC (re OSCIE)
China (re Golden Shield)
Pakistan (re NADRA)
FBI (re NGI)
UIDAI (re Aadhaar)
Agencies
midata – time for BIS to answer the questions
19 November 2012
When midata was announced a year ago Rory Cellan-Jones, the BBC’s Technology Correspondent, asked “what's the catch for consumers and why is the government getting involved”? Good questions.
Lifestyle choices
... individual users were not yet being allowed to exploit all the information relating to them to make their lives easier. Armed with the information that social networks and other web giants hold about us, he said, computers will be able to "help me run my life, to guess what I need next, to guess what I should read in the morning, because it will know not only what's happening out there but also what I've read already, and also what my mood is, and who I'm meeting later on".
Thus Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the web, interviewed by the Guardian in April.
Slightly dotty, of course – your computer will know what mood you’re in? But the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) are trying to promote their midata initiative and it suits their purpose to say, in a press release the other day, that midata will allow consumers to “make better lifestyle choices”.
Even if it was true, what business would it be of the government’s?
None. If there’s a demand for lifestyle software, let the private sector provide it.
Economic growth
BIS also claim that midata would be “good for growth in the economy”. Strange, because at the 9 August 2012 midata open forum David Miller, a BIS economist, was asked how much midata would make the economy grow by and answered, it’s very difficult to say what the macro-economic effects of midata would be.
Banks, phone companies and energy companies already provide us with detailed statements, on-line and on paper, they have done for decades, and the economy isn’t growing. So what’s new about midata?
Personal data stores (PDSs)
Answer – PDSs, please see para.2.19, p.24 of BIS's midata 2012 review and consultation. BIS want us all to have PDSs, databases storing all of our transaction data, which can be processed to make our lifestyle choices for us and which identify us uniquely.
We wouldn’t be expected to maintain the PDSs ourselves. That would be the job of so-called “trusted third parties”, who would store all our personal data on the web, where it would be continuously updated by permanent links with all our suppliers.
What personal data? The BIS press release refers us to a document of theirs, A midata future: 10 ways it could shape your choices. The answer seems to be any contracts you have entered into, any warranties you have taken out, your driving licence, your educational qualifications, your CRB report, your bank accounts, the clothes you buy, your gas and electricity usage and your neighbours’ usage, too, your health records, entertainment preferences and favourite restaurants.
It’s an extensive set of data about you. midata may not help the economy to grow but, in the PDSs which it relies on, it would provide you with an on-line ID card.
Trusted third parties
Who are the third parties you’re meant to trust with all this personal data? Only one is regularly mentioned and most people will never have heard of it – Mydex – so what reason is there to trust it?
At the 9 August 2012 midata open forum Kirstin Green, a deputy director at BIS, mentioned that the chairman of Mydex sits on the BIS midata strategy board. To understand BIS’ midata proposal it helps to understand Mydex is therefore written with considerable authority, as is Making midata work for you.
Identity assurance
Actually, you may have heard of Mydex. You may have read the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) press release about the Identity Assurance Programme last week, Providers announced for online identity scheme. Mydex is one of the seven “identity providers” appointed for the UK last week by DWP. The idea is that in Whitehall’s new digital-by-default world, if you want to register for benefits, you need an identity provider to vouch for you, to say that you are you – a PDS is an ID card.
----------
They couldn’t answer them last year. Let’s see if BIS can answer Mr Cellan-Jones’s questions now.

About David Moss
David Moss has worked as an IT consultant since 1981. The past 9 years have been spent campaigning against the Home Office's plans to introduce government ID cards into the UK. It must now be admitted that the Home Office are much better at convincing people that these plans are a bad idea than anyone else, including David Moss.
Press contacts: David Moss, BCSL@blueyonder.co.uk

PRESS RELEASE: midata – time for BIS to answer the questions


PRESS RELEASE


To:

Home Office

OIG (re US-VISIT)

IDABC (re OSCIE)
China (re Golden Shield)
Pakistan (re NADRA)
FBI (re NGI)
UIDAI (re Aadhaar)
Agencies
midata – time for BIS to answer the questions
19 November 2012
When midata was announced a year ago Rory Cellan-Jones, the BBC’s Technology Correspondent, asked “what's the catch for consumers and why is the government getting involved”? Good questions.

Saturday, 17 November 2012

Cutting costs/making savings, and GDS's fantasy strategy

For some time now, the Government Digital Service (GDS) have made the meaning of their digital-by-default agenda clear – they want the UK to be like Estonia.

It is thanks to the fact that practically every service in Estonia is delivered over the web that, back in 2007, Russia was able to bring the country to its knees in a matter of days. If GDS succeed with their "modernisation" plans, there will be nothing to stop that happening here in the UK.

GDS are in awe of the financial success and popularity of Apple, Amazon, eBay/PayPal, Google and Facebook. With no experience of government behind them, the over-promoted software engineers at the head of GDS want to bring their heroes' tricks to the delivery of public services in the UK.

Sensible people will see Facebook et al as latter-day Pied Pipers of Hamelin – sensible people, including the tens of thousands of public servants who will be laid off and replaced by GDS's computers when government is, as they say, "transformed".

Many of these organisations are famous for avoiding tax on their UK profits and for using their near-monopolies to tyrannise their suppliers and to milk their customers. But GDS somehow maintain their naïve veneration and on 6 November 2012 they published their Government Digital Strategy.

This fantasy strategy is an elaboration of Martha Lane Fox's ideas, set out in her October 2010 letter to Francis Maude, Directgov 2010 and beyond: revolution not evolution. Ms Lane Fox is the Prime Minister's digital champion, she's a historian, and when she says "revolution" she means it.

Her revolutionary fervour is carried over into last week's GDS strategy, which Sir Bob Kerslake – head of the home civil service, permanent secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and previously the chief executive of first the London Borough of Hounslow and then Sheffield City Council – has greeted with a post on GDS's blog, Welcoming the Digital Strategy:
Our reform plan also made a clear commitment to improve the quality of the government’s digital services, and to do this by publishing a Government Digital Strategy setting out how we would support the transformation of digital services [how does publishing a wishlist improve the quality of public services?].

We fulfilled that commitment yesterday with the launch of the Government Digital Strategy, Digital Efficiency Report and Digital Landscape Report and I very much welcome their publication.
But why? Why does Sir Bob "welcome" this emmental cheese of a strategy? It's full of holes. Consider cutting costs/making savings for example.

Let's get our duck in a row.

Martha Lane Fox says:
Shifting 30% of government service delivery contacts to digital channels would deliver gross annual savings of more than £1.3 billion, rising to £2.2 billion if 50% of contacts shifted to digital. I strongly suggest that the core Directgov team concentrates on service quality and that it should be the "citizens' champion with sharp teeth" for transactional service delivery ...

The savings from a reduction in duplication are significant, but will take time to realise. The Government recently announced a 75% rationalisation of Government websites. It is estimated this should reduce overall Government web expenditure from around £560 million to about £200 million a year. I think there is agreement that Government can go much further than this, perhaps over time reducing overall expenditure to less than £100 million a year (and some think much less than this though I think we should be careful to manage expectations at this stage) ...

I recommend that any savings from the reduction in duplication should remain in departments, once transition costs and ongoing funding for the new central team have been taken into account.
How are we doing with managing expectations?

In his Foreword to the Government Digital Strategy Francis Maude, Cabinet Office Minister, waves a couple of high-sounding numbers around without asserting anything, the statement is short and conditional:
By going digital by default, the government could save between £1.7 and £1.8 billion each year.
The main body of the document is even more non-committal:
On the basis of historical savings achieved by existing digital services we estimate that £1.7 to £1.8 billion of total annual savings could be made by shifting the transactional services offered by central government departments from offline to digital channels. Of this, £1.1 to £1.3 billion will be saved directly by the government, with the rest passed on to service users through lower prices. These figures do not include the potential costs of a transition to digital [potCosts], but also do not include the additional savings [addSav] that could be gained from fundamental service redesign or back-end technology changes ...

Our estimates suggest that an hour spent interacting with government costs the average citizen £14.70. If just half an hour were saved by digitising every transaction currently completed offline, the total savings to the economy could therefore be around £1.8 billion. Furthermore, many public services are run by agencies that recover their costs directly through user charges, so reducing costs provides the potential for savings to be passed on to users.
Not quite an equation, we have an approximation here:

Savings p.a. ≈ £1.7 billion - potCosts + addSav

We don't have even an approximation of the values of potCosts and addSav.

But we do have the thumbs up. Digital-by-default has been given the go-ahead.

How much will it cost? We don't know.

How much will it save? We don't know.

If it saves anything, will the public be allowed to keep their own money? No, Martha Lane Fox recommends that Whitehall departments should keep it. For whose benefit is this project being conducted?

What are these savings we're talking about? Lay-offs. Lay-offs of public servants no longer needed. Replaced by computers. How many of them? When? Which ones?

What are the chances of digital-by-default working? And when – how long will it take?

How much advertising revenue could GOV.UK raise? Will GDS follow its heroes Google, Facebook et al into this – into advertising – as they have done into everything else?

Where there should be answers to these questions in the Government Digital Strategy there are just holes. Revolution is proposed with no justification. And yet Sir Bob, the head of the home civil service, welcomes this fantasy.

Cutting costs/making savings, and GDS's fantasy strategy

For some time now, the Government Digital Service (GDS) have made the meaning of their digital-by-default agenda clear – they want the UK to be like Estonia.

It is thanks to the fact that practically every service in Estonia is delivered over the web that, back in 2007, Russia was able to bring the country to its knees in a matter of days. If GDS succeed with their "modernisation" plans, there will be nothing to stop that happening here in the UK.

GDS are in awe of the financial success and popularity of Apple, Amazon, eBay/PayPal, Google and Facebook. With no experience of government behind them, the over-promoted software engineers at the head of GDS want to bring their heroes' tricks to the delivery of public services in the UK.

Sensible people will see Facebook et al as latter-day Pied Pipers of Hamelin – sensible people, including the tens of thousands of public servants who will be laid off and replaced by GDS's computers when government is, as they say, "transformed".

Many of these organisations are famous for avoiding tax on their UK profits and for using their near-monopolies to tyrannise their suppliers and to milk their customers. But GDS somehow maintain their naïve veneration and on 6 November 2012 they published their Government Digital Strategy.

This fantasy strategy is an elaboration of Martha Lane Fox's ideas, set out in her October 2010 letter to Francis Maude, Directgov 2010 and beyond: revolution not evolution. Ms Lane Fox is the Prime Minister's digital champion, she's a historian, and when she says "revolution" she means it.

Her revolutionary fervour is carried over into last week's GDS strategy, which Sir Bob Kerslake – head of the home civil service, permanent secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and previously the chief executive of first the London Borough of Hounslow and then Sheffield City Council – has greeted with a post on GDS's blog, Welcoming the Digital Strategy:
Our reform plan also made a clear commitment to improve the quality of the government’s digital services, and to do this by publishing a Government Digital Strategy setting out how we would support the transformation of digital services [how does publishing a wishlist improve the quality of public services?].

We fulfilled that commitment yesterday with the launch of the Government Digital Strategy, Digital Efficiency Report and Digital Landscape Report and I very much welcome their publication.
But why? Why does Sir Bob "welcome" this emmental cheese of a strategy? It's full of holes. Consider cutting costs/making savings for example.

Identity assurance and midata – two new ideas for a grateful public to get used to

Mydex and the Post Office – the instant cartel,
just add money to taste

The UK was lucky enough last week to have seven "identity providers" (IDPs) appointed, one of which is the Post Office. One man who worked on the Post Office's bid is Toby Stevens. Writing about how he moved from being anti-ID cards to being pro-identity assurance (IDA) he says, among other things:
How I learned to stop worrying and love identity assurance
... The IDA programme differs from its predecessors in many ways, in that public bodies can't be Identity Providers (IDPs) - IDPs will be exclusively private sector ...
New idea #1 – the Post Office is not a public body.

How will IDA work in practice? That has yet to be decided. When he was interviewed by Ctrl-Shift, the consultancy company famous among DMossEsq readers, Mr Stevens was able to tell us this, though:
The significance of the Identity Assurance programme
Over the next 18 months the selected IDPs will collaborate to develop their service offerings and a delivery Scheme which can handle the branding and governance for IDA services. DWP will pay those IDPs to register and maintain identities on a 'per active user, per annum' basis ...
Ctrl-Shift conducted an interview with one of the other newly-appointed IDPs, Mydex – please see Identity assurance: Mydex's unique contribution. Given how close the two organisations are, Ctrl_Shift may as well have interviewed itself. What is Mydex's market offer? That's one of the tricky questions lobbed at Mydex during the interview, along with how do you see the market changing? The last line of the interview is:
This is [a] recipe for positive change and we are delighted to be part of the market solution.
New idea #2 – when the government (Cabinet Office + Department for Business Innovation and Skills) pays a consultancy (Ctrl-Shift) to produce reports recommending one of its policies (midata) which is designed by the chairman (William Heath) of the software house (Mydex) on which the policy depends and then pays them (Mydex) "on a 'per active user, per annum' basis", that is a market solution.

In the old days, before we were all born, yesterday, "markets" meant competition. In the new cartelised world, now, at no risk to consumers:
... the selected IDPs will collaborate to develop their service offerings ...

Identity assurance and midata – two new ideas for a grateful public to get used to

Mydex and the Post Office – the instant cartel,
just add money to taste

The UK was lucky enough last week to have seven "identity providers" (IDPs) appointed, one of which is the Post Office. One man who worked on the Post Office's bid is Toby Stevens. Writing about how he moved from being anti-ID cards to being pro-identity assurance (IDA) he says, among other things:
How I learned to stop worrying and love identity assurance
... The IDA programme differs from its predecessors in many ways, in that public bodies can't be Identity Providers (IDPs) - IDPs will be exclusively private sector ...
New idea #1 – the Post Office is not a public body.

Wednesday, 14 November 2012

Every blogger's dream comment

The following anonymous comment was received by email, 14.11.12@11:35. Paragraph numbers have been added for ease of reference:
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Cloud computing, and GDS's fantasy strategy":

1. I've been following your blogs with interest, and whilst I agree with some of your points, particularly early on, you now seem to be ratcheting up the rhetoric a bit, without really doing any research on what you're talking about.

2. For example, regarding Larry Ellison, that quote was from 2008; in the last four years, he seems to have changed tack slightly:
http://dawn.com/2012/10/03/oracles-ellison-focused-on-cloud-not-deals/

3. Taking lawyers and the cloud, the following sites would tend to show that at least some firms are making use of cloud services, and they don't seem to have gone out of business:
http://www.lawcloud.co.uk/case-studies
http://www.inksters.com/lawinthecloud.aspx

4. You also miss the main point about "Utility Computing" - the benefits that organisations can realise from being able to pick and choose (on a month-by-month basis, if necessary) from a range of suppliers, is a big advantage compared to legacy, multi-year contracts.

5. Regarding gas/electricity prices in the UK, technically you are free to move supplier as and when you want, to gain better pricing or service, just as you do with utility computing. The fact that utility prices are increasing and appear "fixed" is more of a comment on the energy utility market, than the "utility" concept in general.

6. Compare this to "legacy computing", where you are tied into long-term contracts with horrendous break clauses.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/31/it_waste_pac/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/20/...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/government_raytheon_court/

7. You mention about "somebody" having to pay for the overhead involved in cloud services... well, no. The whole point of the cloud is you pay for what you use - and if you don't like the price, you go somewhere else. Yes, the company has to make a profit, but then so does any supplier - unless you're suggesting that Govt in-sources its IT?

8. Regarding loss of control in the cloud, not really, no. As always within Govt IT, ultimately the risk assessment lies with the Department, not the procurement framework. So, when GDS chose to use Skyscape, they would have been responsible for managing the risk assessment for using that provider - and will be accountable if things go wrong. Ditto HMRC with their data.

9. Moving services to the cloud doesn't remove departments responsibility - if anything, it makes you think harder about it, whereas before, when the contract went to a major SI, the track was trying to outsource your risk as well - and then you get into the horrible contractual messes like those shown above.

10. And whilst I'm not going to defend Amazon (or the rest) on their tax record, in terms of investment into its services, Amazon is better than most - check out it's most recent quarter's results - it reinvests a lot of its profits in further developing its range of services.
https://www.google.co.uk/finance?...

11. Finally, I presume that you're comfortable using the cloud yourself, since you seem to be hosting your blog on Blogger, which is Google's SaaS blogging service. Why didn't you buy your own web server, install and configure it with Wordpress, and run it yourself from a UK datacentre? My guess is because Blogger is i) cheap, ii) easy, and iii) more secure than an individual's setup would ever be - and if you ever want to move it, there's no 5-year contract binding you, with lots of termination clauses or penalty payments.
DMossEsq looks forward to posting a reply, followed by further debate.

At 3,662 characters, the comment appears to be too long for Blogger to display. Which is all that needs to be said in answer to the 14.11.12@12:53 email:
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Cloud computing, and GDS's fantasy strategy":

Strange... pretty sure I posted a fairly detailed comment an hour or so ago, and now it's disappeared...?
Care to comment, DMossEsq?

Every blogger's dream comment

The following anonymous comment was received by email, 14.11.12@11:35. Paragraph numbers have been added for ease of reference:
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Cloud computing, and GDS's fantasy strategy":

1. I've been following your blogs with interest, and whilst I agree with some of your points, particularly early on, you now seem to be ratcheting up the rhetoric a bit, without really doing any research on what you're talking about.

2. For example, regarding Larry Ellison, that quote was from 2008; in the last four years, he seems to have changed tack slightly:
http://dawn.com/2012/10/03/oracles-ellison-focused-on-cloud-not-deals/

3. Taking lawyers and the cloud, the following sites would tend to show that at least some firms are making use of cloud services, and they don't seem to have gone out of business:
http://www.lawcloud.co.uk/case-studies
http://www.inksters.com/lawinthecloud.aspx

4. You also miss the main point about "Utility Computing" - the benefits that organisations can realise from being able to pick and choose (on a month-by-month basis, if necessary) from a range of suppliers, is a big advantage compared to legacy, multi-year contracts.

5. Regarding gas/electricity prices in the UK, technically you are free to move supplier as and when you want, to gain better pricing or service, just as you do with utility computing. The fact that utility prices are increasing and appear "fixed" is more of a comment on the energy utility market, than the "utility" concept in general.

6. Compare this to "legacy computing", where you are tied into long-term contracts with horrendous break clauses.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/31/it_waste_pac/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/20/...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/government_raytheon_court/

7. You mention about "somebody" having to pay for the overhead involved in cloud services... well, no. The whole point of the cloud is you pay for what you use - and if you don't like the price, you go somewhere else. Yes, the company has to make a profit, but then so does any supplier - unless you're suggesting that Govt in-sources its IT?

8. Regarding loss of control in the cloud, not really, no. As always within Govt IT, ultimately the risk assessment lies with the Department, not the procurement framework. So, when GDS chose to use Skyscape, they would have been responsible for managing the risk assessment for using that provider - and will be accountable if things go wrong. Ditto HMRC with their data.

9. Moving services to the cloud doesn't remove departments responsibility - if anything, it makes you think harder about it, whereas before, when the contract went to a major SI, the track was trying to outsource your risk as well - and then you get into the horrible contractual messes like those shown above.

10. And whilst I'm not going to defend Amazon (or the rest) on their tax record, in terms of investment into its services, Amazon is better than most - check out it's most recent quarter's results - it reinvests a lot of its profits in further developing its range of services.
https://www.google.co.uk/finance?...

11. Finally, I presume that you're comfortable using the cloud yourself, since you seem to be hosting your blog on Blogger, which is Google's SaaS blogging service. Why didn't you buy your own web server, install and configure it with Wordpress, and run it yourself from a UK datacentre? My guess is because Blogger is i) cheap, ii) easy, and iii) more secure than an individual's setup would ever be - and if you ever want to move it, there's no 5-year contract binding you, with lots of termination clauses or penalty payments.
DMossEsq looks forward to posting a reply, followed by further debate.

At 3,662 characters, the comment appears to be too long for Blogger to display. Which is all that needs to be said in answer to the 14.11.12@12:53 email:
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Cloud computing, and GDS's fantasy strategy":

Strange... pretty sure I posted a fairly detailed comment an hour or so ago, and now it's disappeared...?
Care to comment, DMossEsq?

Pass the sickbag



C.f.

----------

2.1.13 – for some reason, the video on the link above has been marked private and can no longer be viewed by ordinary members of the public. Luckily, there's another copy here.

Pass the sickbag



C.f.

----------

2.1.13 – for some reason, the video on the link above has been marked private and can no longer be viewed by ordinary members of the public. Luckily, there's another copy here.