Digital by default – the Government Digital Service, Digital Delivery Identity Assurance, Digital Engagement and Assisted Digital

Amazon.  eBay.  PayPal.  Google.  Facebook.  The Cabinet Office looks at these phenomena and sees a lot of hugely efficient money-making machines with global reach and a high-volume, popular, voluntary and growing take-up.

Then the Cabinet Office looks at Whitehall's tax-farming agency, HMRC, and at its big spenders, DWP and the NHS, and it sees ... something different, something sadder, something old-fashioned, halting and with a big hole where the dynamism and the optimism ought to be.

Putting to one side the obvious point – in fact forgetting entirely – that providing public services is a categorically different job from retail,  the Cabinet Office wants to look modern, it wants to partake in the glory of that spontaneous popularity enjoyed by Amazon et al, and it would no doubt like to experience the same energy and "buzz" as the web Titans.

But  the Cabinet Office just isn't Google. As soon becomes embarrassingly apparent.

Google provides web search facilities. But they didn't call themselves "W-Search Facilities". They called themselves "Google".

The Cabinet Office have been trying for years to develop a government digital programme. And what did they call it? To start with, the "G-Digital Programme".

It's flat-footed. The Cabinet Office want people to want to use Whitehall's services, the way people want to use Facebook, but no-one's nostrils are going to flare when they're hit by the pheromones of the "G-Digital Programme", the desire to know more is resistible ...

... which must have been pointed out to the Digital Engagement team, because some stolid worthy had the bright idea of writing "The Club" at the bottom of the G-Digital Programme webpage. Inviting, you see. Companionable. The sort of group people would want to join.

Which deadpan comedian called the digital engagement team the "Digital Engagement" team? Why not "S.W.A.T."? Or the "Whitehall Giants"? Or "Martha's Sappers"?

Talking of whom, Martha Lane Fox has provided the G-Digital Programme with a slogan – "digital by default".

And with that she has provided them with a problem, because millions of Brits have never used the web. How are they going to access all the public services that become digital by default? How are they going to avoid exclusion by default?

It's not a new problem. It arose six years ago when the Cabinet Office came up with Transformational Government -- Enabled by Technology. They didn't solve the problem then and they still haven't. It may be insoluble.

Non-web users would need help to access digital public services. Where could that help come from? Libraries? Maybe. Post offices? Maybe not.

For the moment, there's no solution in sight. But, next best thing, there is a blog – Assisted Digital. A blog with just two posts on it.

"Assisted digital"? How could they? How did anyone think it was a good idea to call the non-existent service to plug the gap between people and the public services they need "assisted digital"? There is only one name possible in the circumstances – "Dignitas".

The analogy between delivering books (Amazon) and delivering benefits (DWP) is misleading.

It is that analogy that turns us, the public, from being "patients" and "parents" and "travellers" into "customers" in the language of Cabinet Office communications. And it is that analogy that leads us to the notion of a digital Dignitas.

It leads to nonsense. The analogy should be abandoned.

Digital by default – the Government Digital Service, Digital Delivery Identity Assurance, Digital Engagement and Assisted Digital

Amazon.  eBay.  PayPal.  Google.  Facebook.  The Cabinet Office looks at these phenomena and sees a lot of hugely efficient money-making machines with global reach and a high-volume, popular, voluntary and growing take-up.

Then the Cabinet Office looks at Whitehall's tax-farming agency, HMRC, and at its big spenders, DWP and the NHS, and it sees ... something different, something sadder, something old-fashioned, halting and with a big hole where the dynamism and the optimism ought to be.

Martha Lane Fox, one of the unwritten bits of the British Constitution

Whitehall say that between nine and ten million people in the UK have never used the web. They also say that they intend to provide all public services over the web, and only over the web. How can they possibly have argued themselves into this position?

For once, Whitehall's answer is clear, ...

Tom Loosemore: This journey started with Martha Lane Fox’s report demanding that Government ‘revolutionise’ its online services ... Francis Maude: Established in response to Martha Lane Fox’s report ... our core purpose is to ensure the Government offers world-class digital products that meet people’s needs. GDS Projects: The Single Government Domain team are responsible for designing, developing and testing a single domain for government as recommended by the Martha Lane Fox report. Digital Engagement: The Government Digital Service is the new name for the organisation created by the merging of Directgov and the Cabinet Office Digital Delivery and Digital Engagement teams, following the recommendations of the Martha Lane Fox review ... David Mann: HMRC is way ahead of the game in terms of creating a ‘wholesale’ model for delivery of government services online, an approach strongly advocated by Martha Lane Fox ... James Stewart: Martha Lane Fox’s report made delivering high quality APIs a key objective of our work ... Ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken: The mission for GDS, outlined by Martha Lane Fox, requires us all to collaborate ...

... "Martha Lane Fox told us to".

This is a novelty in public administration. When did Ms Lane Fox's dicta take on the mantle of statute law? The constitutional historians must be scratching their heads – nowhere in any of the books covering Henry VIII clauses is there any reference to the MLF Prerogative. Not yet, at least.

----------

Added 12.12.12:

Government Digital Service Invitation To Tender APPENDIX B – SERVICE DESCRIPTION 1.                  BACKGROUND TO GOVERNMENT DIGITAL SERVICE 1.1               The Government Digital Service (GDS/the Authority) is a new organisation that has been created through a merger of the Cabinet Office Digital Delivery and Digital Engagement teams with Directgov, the "one-stop shop" for online government. It is the aim of GDS to be the centre for digital government in the UK, building and championing a 'digital culture' that puts the user first and delivers the best, low-cost public services possible. 1.2               GDS is responsible for implementing the recommendations set out in the 2010 review of Directgov, undertaken by Martha Lane Fox. These recommendations called for the overhaul of 750 separate government websites, to be replaced by a single Internet "front-door" to public services on the web.

Martha Lane Fox, one of the unwritten bits of the British Constitution

Whitehall say that between nine and ten million people in the UK have never used the web. They also say that they intend to provide all public services over the web, and only over the web. How can they possibly have argued themselves into this position?

Universal Credit, the Whitehall computer game in which real money is used to provide imaginary services to a virtual public

There was Nick Robinson the other day, on BBC Radio 4's Decision Time, asking how policy is made by ministers and their officials. And there was Rachel Lomax, telling him.

Ms Lomax was Deputy Governor of the Bank of England from 2003 to 2008. The poor regulation and ultimate collapse of the UK banking system was nothing to do with her. With immaculate timing, she picked up a non-executive directorship of HSBC on 1 December 2008 and another one subsequently at BAA, the airport operator that cancels half its flights when three inches of snow fall.

The BAA appointment no doubt benefits from her experience as Permanent Secretary at the Department for Transport. She's also "done" the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), the Welsh Office, the World Bank, the Cabinet Office and the Treasury.

She's been around and, according to her, the answer to Nick's question is that ministers should bring their little policy ideas to their officials and let them, the officials, work out the details, she just hates it when ministers think they know how to achieve their objectives, that never works.

Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, played it by the Lomax book and took his Universal Credit idea to his officials and let them work out the details. It's not a bad idea, Universal Credit. And what horse designed by a committee did his officials come up with?

Let Steve Dover tell you himself, otherwise you won't believe it. Mr Dover is director of major programmes at DWP and he is quoted in the Guardian today as saying:

The starting point, I said to our telephony collaboration teams based in Newcastle, was just think of a contact centre, but it has got no people in it and think of an operating model that has got no back office, and start from there.

Universal Credit will be claimed over the web, and only over the web, and it will be paid over the web, and only over the web – "New dole system is 'digital by default', like it or not", as they put it in ElReg.

Never mind the fact that something between nine and ten million people in this country have never used the web, the Cabinet Office want all public services to be delivered over the web, and only over the web, even if the nine or ten million people who have never used the web are the nine or ten million people most likely to need Universal Credit and other benefits.

Universal Credit will be introduced in October 2013, says to Mr Dover. It's the way he tells them.

Universal Credit, the Whitehall computer game in which real money is used to provide imaginary services to a virtual public

There was Nick Robinson the other day, on BBC Radio 4's Decision Time, asking how policy is made by ministers and their officials. And there was Rachel Lomax, telling him.

Ms Lomax was Deputy Governor of the Bank of England from 2003 to 2008. The poor regulation and ultimate collapse of the UK banking system was nothing to do with her. With immaculate timing, she picked up a non-executive directorship of HSBC on 1 December 2008 and another one subsequently at BAA, the airport operator that cancels half its flights when three inches of snow fall.

John Vine report delayed

Hat tip: Anonymous

Home Office Publications:

Report by the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency - WMS This written ministerial stement (sic) was laid in the House of Commons on 31 January 2012 by Theresa May, and in the House of Lords by Lord Henley. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Theresa May): Following the resignation of Brodie Clark, a senior UK Border Agency official, last November, I asked John Vine, the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, to carry out an independent investigation into border checks conducted by the UK Border Agency. Mr Vine has asked for more time to complete his investigation. Once I have received his final report I will update the House after constituency recess on both the findings of the report and on the action the government will take. Tuesday, 31 January 2012

John Vine report delayed

Hat tip: Anonymous

Home Office Publications:

Report by the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency - WMS This written ministerial stement (sic) was laid in the House of Commons on 31 January 2012 by Theresa May, and in the House of Lords by Lord Henley. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Theresa May): Following the resignation of Brodie Clark, a senior UK Border Agency official, last November, I asked John Vine, the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, to carry out an independent investigation into border checks conducted by the UK Border Agency. Mr Vine has asked for more time to complete his investigation. Once I have received his final report I will update the House after constituency recess on both the findings of the report and on the action the government will take. Tuesday, 31 January 2012

GreenInk 5 – The Economist magazine publishes a surprising article

Unpublished:

From: David Moss Sent: 17 January 2012 15:26 To: 'letters@economist.com' Subject: ... seeing what/the man will do/unbribed, there's/no occasion to. http://www.economist.com/comment/1208953#comment-1208953 Sir With their suggestions that only the dimmer Indians have stayed at home, and that Indian men are all ne'er-do-well drunks, and that the blandishments of the snake oil salesmen of the biometrics industry are all credible, last week's articles on India's Unique Identity scheme (14 January 2011: Reform by numbers and The magic number) didn't read like real Economist articles. Were they unflagged advertorials, written by its desperate management, trying to save the fast failing UID project? Yours David Moss

---

For information on the Unique Identification of Authority of India and their Aadhaar project, please see India's ID card scheme – drowning in a sea of false positives.

GreenInk 5 – The Economist magazine publishes a surprising article

Unpublished:

From: David Moss Sent: 17 January 2012 15:26 To: 'letters@economist.com' Subject: ... seeing what/the man will do/unbribed, there's/no occasion to. http://www.economist.com/comment/1208953#comment-1208953 Sir With their suggestions that only the dimmer Indians have stayed at home, and that Indian men are all ne'er-do-well drunks, and that the blandishments of the snake oil salesmen of the biometrics industry are all credible, last week's articles on India's Unique Identity scheme (14 January 2011: Reform by numbers and The magic number) didn't read like real Economist articles. Were they unflagged advertorials, written by its desperate management, trying to save the fast failing UID project? Yours David Moss

---

For information on the Unique Identification of Authority of India and their Aadhaar project, please see India's ID card scheme – drowning in a sea of false positives.

The Economist magazine's chickens, now on their way home to roost

Normally hard-boiled, The Economist magazine chose to publish a glowing soufflé of a report on the Unique Identification Authority of India in its 14 January 2012 edition. Not surprisingly, this article, The Magic Number, now takes pride of place on UIDAI's website:

---

UIDAI website, 1 February 2012

---

UIDAI does have its detractors.

"Some of the resistance", The Economist said, "is principled, but much comes from the people who do well out of today’s filthy system. Indian politics hinge on patronage—the doling out of opportunities to rob one’s countrymen. [UIDAI's Aadhaar initiative] would make this harder. That is why it faces such fierce opposition ...".

The resistance to UIDAI at government level comes from the Home Ministry and the Finance Ministry. Are these "the people who do well out of today’s filthy system", as The Economist put it? Are they the ones "doling out of opportunities to rob [their] countrymen"?

The Economist may or may not be wise to jump into bed with UIDAI. But they run the risk – surely quite unnecessarily – of putting some very powerful noses out of joint. No more juicy stories coming their way from the Home Ministry and the Finance Ministry for The Economist any more.

Which is a shame, because there are some good stories around:

• UIDAI are fighting a turf war with the Home Ministry, who have a rival identity management scheme of their own, the National Population Register (NPR).
• And the Finance Ministry were opposed to funding any more work by UIDAI, who were about to run out of money – until the Prime Minister sorted out a (slightly ham-fisted) truce.
• Not only that, but the statutory basis for UIDAI's work is questionable. The National Identification Authority of India Bill 2010 still hasn't been enacted.

Why did The Economist do it?

---

NB For anyone who reads the articles linked to:

• 1 crore = 10,000,000. 1.2 billion Indians = 1,200,000,000 Indians = 120 crore Indians = 12,000 lakh Indians, because
• 1 lakh = 100,000. 100 lakh = 10,000,000 = 1 crore and
• £1 = 78.7618 Rupees

The Economist magazine's chickens, now on their way home to roost

Normally hard-boiled, The Economist magazine chose to publish a glowing soufflé of a report on the Unique Identification Authority of India in its 14 January 2012 edition. Not surprisingly, this article, The Magic Number, now takes pride of place on UIDAI's website:

---

UIDAI website, 1 February 2012

---

UIDAI does have its detractors.

"Some of the resistance", The Economist said, "is principled, but much comes from the people who do well out of today’s filthy system. Indian politics hinge on patronage—the doling out of opportunities to rob one’s countrymen. [UIDAI's Aadhaar initiative] would make this harder. That is why it faces such fierce opposition ...".

The resistance to UIDAI at government level comes from the Home Ministry and the Finance Ministry. Are these "the people who do well out of today’s filthy system", as The Economist put it? Are they the ones "doling out of opportunities to rob [their] countrymen"?

The Economist may or may not be wise to jump into bed with UIDAI. But they run the risk – surely quite unnecessarily – of putting some very powerful noses out of joint. No more juicy stories coming their way from the Home Ministry and the Finance Ministry for The Economist any more.

Which is a shame, because there are some good stories around:

• UIDAI are fighting a turf war with the Home Ministry, who have a rival identity management scheme of their own, the National Population Register (NPR).
• And the Finance Ministry were opposed to funding any more work by UIDAI, who were about to run out of money – until the Prime Minister sorted out a (slightly ham-fisted) truce.
• Not only that, but the statutory basis for UIDAI's work is questionable. The National Identification Authority of India Bill 2010 still hasn't been enacted.

Why did The Economist do it?

---

NB For anyone who reads the articles linked to:

• 1 crore = 10,000,000. 1.2 billion Indians = 1,200,000,000 Indians = 120 crore Indians = 12,000 lakh Indians, because
• 1 lakh = 100,000. 100 lakh = 10,000,000 = 1 crore and
• £1 = 78.7618 Rupees

John Vine, Brodie Clark, Keith Vaz, Theresa May, Damian Green and Helen Ghosh

Today's the day. The deadline for John Vine, Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, to submit his report on the Brodie Clark affair to the Home Office.

Will the public be allowed to see it? This matter concerns our border security and it concerns the safety of the 2012 Olympics. It's a matter of public interest.

But don't get your hopes up. Look what happened to the Home Affairs Committee.

Along with the three investigations into the Brodie Clark affair launched by the Home Office, the Home Affairs Committee looked into it and published their report a couple of weeks ago, Inquiry into the provision of UK Border Controls:

2. The precise facts of the case are disputed and the Home Office has denied us access to original documents that would have helped us to clarify the sequence of events ... 9. The Home Office has refused to provide us with a copy of the HOWI Guidance, a document we believe to be of importance as it has been discussed extensively in oral evidence to this Committee, as well as in the House itself ... 18. ... We have requested a copy of the slide presentation from the Home Office, which again has been refused. Without access to the slide, we are unable to comment on ... 27. Despite agreeing to make both the Home Office Warnings Index Guidelines and the periodic updates available to us when she came before us on 8 November, the Home Secretary has since refused to provide us with these documents ... notwithstanding any internal departmental investigations, these documents would have assisted our inquiry in confirming witness accounts and we would normally expect a Government of any party to acquiesce to such a request from a Select Committee. We recommend that the Home Secretary deposit copies of all the documents that have been made available to the three internal investigations in the Library of this House. This will allow this Committee to reach an informed conclusion of our own and would be consistent with the Government's commitment to transparency and accountability ...

The House of Commons, in the form of the Home Affairs Committee, can go hang. Parliament may call itself "supreme", but the Executive is unmoved. They will spend our money on useless technology – £491,304,533.51 and counting – and (constructively) dismiss anyone who dares to tell us that it is useless and there is nothing that Parliament can do about it.

John Vine, Brodie Clark, Keith Vaz, Theresa May, Damian Green and Helen Ghosh

Today's the day. The deadline for John Vine, Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, to submit his report on the Brodie Clark affair to the Home Office.

Will the public be allowed to see it? This matter concerns our border security and it concerns the safety of the 2012 Olympics. It's a matter of public interest.

But don't get your hopes up. Look what happened to the Home Affairs Committee.

The Economist magazine sticks its nose into Indian politics, comes away with egg on its face

After 30 years of reading The Economist, you know what to expect.

The correct answers to most questions are found by letting markets operate freely, as far as The Economist is concerned and politically, that rules out any system that pretends to be able to manage control the economy. The magazine is socially liberal. There's not a hint of racism in it, or sexism – "meritocracy" is the name of the game. Arguments are conducted logically, preferably they're quantitative, the emphasis is on rational management techniques and evidence-based public administration. The magazine is the opposite of insular, open to new ideas wherever they come from, and always up to speed with new technology.

Given which, what on earth happened in the 14 January 2012 edition? It was out of character. Its Scottish Enlightenment body was snatched by aliens. Did The Economist suffer some sort of editorial stroke?

Take a look at The magic number, a leader on Aadhaar, one of India's many identity management schemes, this one operated by the Unique Identification Authority of India, chaired by Nandan Nilekani:

Armed with the system [Aadhaar], India will be able to rethink the nature of its welfare state, cutting back on benefits in kind and market-distorting subsidies, and turning to cash transfers paid directly into the bank accounts of the neediest. Hundreds of millions of the poor must open bank accounts, which is all to the good, because it will bind them into the modern economy. Care must be taken so mothers rather than feckless fathers control funds for their children ... Mr Nilekani harnessed the genius of Indians abroad, including a man who helped the New York Stock Exchange crunch its numbers and one of the brains behind WebMD, an American health IT firm ... India plainly needs better data-protection laws, but even if the existing rules remained unchanged, the threat to liberty would be dwarfed by the gains to welfare: to people who live ten to a room, concerns about privacy sound outlandish. Some of the resistance is principled, but much comes from the people who do well out of today’s filthy system. Indian politics hinge on patronage—the doling out of opportunities to rob one’s countrymen. [Aadhaar] would make this harder. That is why it faces such fierce opposition, and why it could transform India.

According to The Economist then, Indian fathers are feckless but Indian mothers aren't, the Indians who have left the country are brighter than the ones who have stayed at home, poor people don't need privacy the way western journalists do and UIDAI are clean whereas the other gangs dispensing opportunities to rob their own countrymen are "filthy", a most unEconomist word.

And this, too, is most unEconomist – normally the magazine would instantly spot the problem with the following claims:

The state spends a fortune on subsidised grain for the hungry, but an estimated two-thirds of it is stolen or adulterated by middlemen. The government pays for an $8 billion-a-year make-work scheme for the rural poor, but much of the cash ends up in the capacious pockets of officials who invent imaginary “ghost workers”. Suppose those thieving middlemen were obliged to deliver grain, not to poor people in general but to named individuals who could confirm receipt by scanning their fingerprints? And suppose those ghost workers had to undergo an iris scan before being paid?

UIDAI computerisation may make it harder to steal public money from PDS, the food security programme, and from NREGA, the temporary employment scheme, as The Economist suggest. But equally, it may make it much easier.

Aadhaar could make corruption a much more modern, clean, white collar, highly automated pursuit. It's a lot quicker to use a computer to claim wages for thousands of ghost employees than it is to complete manual requests. If Aadhaar wants biometrics, then a computer will provide them. And if Aadhaar has helped to provide everyone with bank accounts and electronic transfer facilities then, thank you very much UIDAI, the "thieving middlemen" may say, now there's no need to handle any cash and it's easier to launder our ill-gotten gains.

This leader of The Economist's barely rises above the level of sales literature. It is obvious why UIDAI would want it published. But why did The Economist allow it? That is a question for Adam Roberts, the South Asia bureau chief based in Delhi, and for Dominic Ziegler, the London-based Asia editor, and for Patrick Foulis, the India business and finance editor in Mumbai, and maybe for Alpesh Kandoi, to whom all media enquiries should be addressed.

---

(See also)

The Economist magazine sticks its nose into Indian politics, comes away with egg on its face

After 30 years of reading The Economist, you know what to expect.

The correct answers to most questions are found by letting markets operate freely, as far as The Economist is concerned and politically, that rules out any system that pretends to be able to manage control the economy. The magazine is socially liberal. There's not a hint of racism in it, or sexism – "meritocracy" is the name of the game. Arguments are conducted logically, preferably they're quantitative, the emphasis is on rational management techniques and evidence-based public administration. The magazine is the opposite of insular, open to new ideas wherever they come from, and always up to speed with new technology.

Given which, what on earth happened in the 14 January 2012 edition? It was out of character. Its Scottish Enlightenment body was snatched by aliens. Did The Economist suffer some sort of editorial stroke?

While acknowledging that the web is a dangerous place to be, that's where Whitehall want to put all public services

There is a constant stream of scare stories in the media about hackers committing crimes on the web. National infrastructure can be disabled (Russian hackers), companies have their intellectual property stolen (the Chinese), and your bank account can be raided (Ukrainians). The stories have one message – the web is not a safe place. The government agree, and have set aside £650 million for the UK's cyber defences. At the same time, the government are planning to put all public services on the web. Are they coming or going? Do they know?

Last month Sir Gus O'Donnell retired as Cabinet Secretary, Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office and head of the home civil service, all three rolled into one.

Public Servant magazine devoted a valedictory article to him, Sir Gus on Whitehall's big challenge:

"It's a very challenging time for public services," he acknowledges. "I think what we were delivering over the past few years was, as it were, more with more – better results with more resources. You saw practical results with reduced waiting times, more doctors and nurses and so on. "The challenge we are undergoing now is to achieve better with less – trying to preserve services for the public, particularly for the most disadvantaged groups, while having to think of new, innovative ways of doing that." That means "making the most of every single pound" through maximising the potential of the internet and using the range of new ideas being developed on influencing behaviour change. "The scale of budget reductions means I am putting down the challenge to everyone to innovate; to think about completely new ways of providing services," he says.

It takes a while to adapt, no doubt, but Sir Gus must understand that he's not putting down a challenge to anyone. He's retired.

There is nothing innovative about making every pound count. At least there shouldn't be. There never was a time when Whitehall was licensed to waste money.

But never mind that. Note, instead, the way the assumption is introduced that Whitehall will get the best value for our money by maximising the use of the web. That is supposed to be the key to delivering high quality, trusted public services. Three questions spring to mind:

1. Tony Blair asked Sir Gus, when he took up the reins as  Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office, to concentrate on "transforming government". He was meant to deliver "joined up government". That was in 2005. Six years later, he's left, and the job still isn't started. The same people are still there, in the Cabinet Office, particularly Ian Watmore, who is the new Permanent Secretary. Is there any reason to believe that the Cabinet Office, which has already failed, can now rise to the challenge?
2. Suppose that all public services are delivered over the web, and only over the web. Then what? Something like ten million people in the UK have never used the web. How are they going to get access to public services? What's to stop them from being excluded?
3. Once the hackers want to disrupt a service on the web, whoever is running it, even the Pentagon, the defences seem to collapse and the hackers break in. Why should the UK's public services be any different? What's to stop hundreds of billions of pounds of fraud being perpetrated by the Ukrainians, or whoever, once tax is all received over the web and benefits are all paid over the web? And what's to stop the whole system being brought to a halt by the Russians, or whoever?

Sir Gus is now yesterday's man. And perhaps putting all government services on the web is yesterday's big idea. We have a Whitehall department in charge who have already proved that they can't deliver the services. We have a public who, many of them, can't receive the services. And meanwhile, there is an international corps of hackers, some state-backed, standing by waiting to cripple the system and/or steal all the money. It's not the obvious strategy.

The assumption that putting public services on the web is the solution to anything needs to be questioned. Watch out for people like Sir Gus slipping that assumption into their sales talk.

While acknowledging that the web is a dangerous place to be, that's where Whitehall want to put all public services

There is a constant stream of scare stories in the media about hackers committing crimes on the web. National infrastructure can be disabled (Russian hackers), companies have their intellectual property stolen (the Chinese), and your bank account can be raided (Ukrainians). The stories have one message – the web is not a safe place. The government agree, and have set aside £650 million for the UK's cyber defences. At the same time, the government are planning to put all public services on the web. Are they coming or going? Do they know?

GreenInk 4 published – Private Eye blinks, misses a scoop

Private Eye
13 January – 26 January 2012
Eye 1305
p.17

Prints fingered:

Sir While the Eye joins in with the establishment rubbishing of Brodie Clark ("Border line personality", In the Back, Eye 1302) – in your case by quoting the ineffably smug Michael Mansfield – you ignore the improvised explosive device Mr Clark detonated when he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. The fingerprinting technology wished on UKBA is the least reliable identity/security check made at the border, Mr Clark said, it is the ninth and bottom priority and, if any check has to be suspended, it is "very sensible" to suspend the fingerprint check. It is presumably of no interest to you that the Home Office want to replace hundreds or even thousands of Border Force staff with a technology that might work in Hollywood films but certainly doesn't at Heathrow. Yours David Moss

GreenInk 4 published – Private Eye blinks, misses a scoop

Private Eye
13 January – 26 January 2012
Eye 1305
p.17

Prints fingered:

Sir While the Eye joins in with the establishment rubbishing of Brodie Clark ("Border line personality", In the Back, Eye 1302) – in your case by quoting the ineffably smug Michael Mansfield – you ignore the improvised explosive device Mr Clark detonated when he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. The fingerprinting technology wished on UKBA is the least reliable identity/security check made at the border, Mr Clark said, it is the ninth and bottom priority and, if any check has to be suspended, it is "very sensible" to suspend the fingerprint check. It is presumably of no interest to you that the Home Office want to replace hundreds or even thousands of Border Force staff with a technology that might work in Hollywood films but certainly doesn't at Heathrow. Yours David Moss