Sunday, 5 January 2014

Bacon and Hope's faith is a mystery

Conundrum: Why every government gets things wrong and what we can do about it
by Richard Bacon MP and Christopher Hope

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, Richard Bacon has been an observer for years of the scandalous failures of our government in the UK. Not just an observer. An energetic and noble investigator as well.

In the first 12 chapters, he and Mr Hope tackle the gruesome Child Support Agency, the UK Passport Agency that couldn't issue passports, HM Treasury's tax credits fiasco, and nine more government failures.

They write clearly and authoritatively and it would be a pleasure to read their prose if it weren't for the fact that what we're reading is the story of how billions of pounds of public money have been wasted by the Executive – by Whitehall and the Ministers in political charge of Whitehall.

With 12 sets of raw material to work on, they then give themselves five chapters to do what it says in the title. That is, to explain why governments get things wrong and to suggest what we can do about it.

Messrs Bacon and Hope quote from a large number of studies of the problem. Again, they write very well. And it's a valuable service, hugely appreciated, to bring together so much of the literature in one place.

The many solutions proposed over the past 30 years or so are analysed with philosophical rigour, touching on the constraints of politics in a democracy. None of these proposals has worked – the same lurid mistakes carry on being made, Whitehall remains too often unbusinesslike and irresponsible.

Can Messrs Bacon and Hope succeed where everyone else has failed?

No. Regrettably.

In Chapter 13, which is devoted specifically to the failures of government IT, they tentatively suggest that "agile" software engineering methods might work better than "waterfall" methods. No. They might do better to consider Professor Sir Martyn Thomas's advice to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee – formalised languages.

And at the end of their tether , in Chapter 17, they assert that advances in behavioural psychology will improve the record of delivery by government. This desperate gesture is based on the fact that we humans share 98 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees and on the success of Whitehall's Behavioural Insights Team in improving the rate at which people in Devon pay tax by "nudging" them.

The Behavioural Insights Team (RIP) have made no suggestions what to do about the 12 chapters of Whitehall's delivery failures. No suggestions, at least, recorded by Messrs Bacon and Hope. Nor have any of the other behavioural psychologists they cite, the Thalers, Sunsteins and Kahnemans of this world. Bacon and Hope's faith is a mystery.

The National Audit Office reported that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs pay their contractors' invoices on the ASPIRE project even though they often don't know what the invoices are for. The contractors have been asked for a breakdown but they refuse to provide it. You don't need to be a behavioural psychologist nor a Nobel Prize-winning economist to know that this practice is unbusinesslike and irresponsible.

Arguably this practice, like the scores of derelictions in Bacon and Hope's first 12 chapters, amounts to misfeasance in public office. That is an offence. And prosecuting one or two of these offences might have a salutary effect while we're waiting to see what the chimpanzees can teach us.

Bacon and Hope's faith is a mystery

Conundrum: Why every government gets things wrong and what we can do about it
by Richard Bacon MP and Christopher Hope

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, Richard Bacon has been an observer for years of the scandalous failures of our government in the UK. Not just an observer. An energetic and noble investigator as well.

In the first 12 chapters, he and Mr Hope tackle the gruesome Child Support Agency, the UK Passport Agency that couldn't issue passports, HM Treasury's tax credits fiasco, and nine more government failures.

They write clearly and authoritatively and it would be a pleasure to read their prose if it weren't for the fact that what we're reading is the story of how billions of pounds of public money have been wasted by the Executive – by Whitehall and the Ministers in political charge of Whitehall.

With 12 sets of raw material to work on, they then give themselves five chapters to do what it says in the title. That is, to explain why governments get things wrong and to suggest what we can do about it.

Messrs Bacon and Hope quote from a large number of studies of the problem. Again, they write very well. And it's a valuable service, hugely appreciated, to bring together so much of the literature in one place.

The many solutions proposed over the past 30 years or so are analysed with philosophical rigour, touching on the constraints of politics in a democracy. None of these proposals has worked – the same lurid mistakes carry on being made, Whitehall remains too often unbusinesslike and irresponsible.

Can Messrs Bacon and Hope succeed where everyone else has failed?

Sunday, 29 December 2013

RIP IDA – individual electoral registration


The key to success with regard to IER lies in being boring.
The more boring the better.

No need to say it, it goes without saying, it should be obvious to all but, just in case it isn't obvious to all, IDA is dead.

IDA is the Cabinet Office Identity Assurance programme. And it's dead.

----------

If all goes well, the media will pay not the slightest attention to the changes promised for 2014 in the way the electoral register is compiled in Great Britain.

Beginning on 10 June 2014, England and Wales will switch from compiling the electoral register on a household basis to individual electoral registration (IER). In Scotland, the equivalent date is 19 September 2014 – the delay there is to cater for the referendum on Scottish independence.

IER will be a yawn and a bore. That's if all goes well. The new electoral register will be ready for the 2015 general election and it will be complete enough and accurate enough not to impugn the legitimacy of the election result.

The Electoral Commission published a readiness report back in October 2013. They've got the forms ready and they just need political approval before Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) send them out to individuals to register. That will be in July 2014 and there will be an accompanying public awareness campaign.

It is to be hoped that that public awareness campaign will be workmanlike, clear, simple and above all uncontroversial. Dull. Worthy. Yawn-inducing, as befits a highly respected, confident and mature democracy.

There are a few worryingly interesting bits of IER.

Confirmation
There is the "confirmation" element, for example:
The Government’s plan for the introduction of IER includes the intention to compare existing electors’ names and addresses on the electoral registers with records held by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in order to verify the identity of people currently on the registers. This process is known as ‘confirmation’.
EROs will be provided with reports comparing their electoral register records with records on DWP's Customer Information System database (CIS). On the basis of trials already carried out, it is expected that about 75% of the electoral register can be "confirmed" in this way.

How good is CIS?

Back in April 2007 there were about nine million records on CIS that no-one could account for, please see Fraud fear as millions of NI numbers are lost. Surely, you may say, DWP could clean up their data? They already had. Before the clean-up, there were more like 20 million unaccountable records according to David Blunkett.

Back in the old days of the National Identity Scheme/Service (2002-10 RIP) when we were all going to have government-issued identity cards (RIP), the Identity & Passport Service (RIP) were going to build a brand new National Identity Register (RIP). Then they decided to use CIS instead ...

... and then the National Audit Office (para.4.13, p.23) pointed out that they could only use CIS if it met the security standards laid down by CESG, the information assurance arm of GCHQ. Which it didn't, please see the Public Administration Select Committee report Good Governance – effective use of IT, pp.295-304, particularly para.24ff. At which point the whole ID cards project collapsed into obvious chaos.

The Electoral Commission may say that CIS confirmation will "verify the identity of people currently on the registers" but they're just being polite. If there's a mismatch between CIS and the electoral roll, which database is right? Neither of them? Is it the EROs' job to clean up the CIS? No. It's all too interesting. No more chaos. Expect CIS confirmation quietly to disappear.

Verification
In one sense there's nothing new about "verification". It's always been the EROs' job to verify that people are who they say they are and that they are allowed to vote. EROs know how to do that and they will continue to verify the entitlement to vote, boringly it is to be hoped, without fuss and behind the scenes.

But there is supposed to be a new element in 2014, an IER digital system for verification, please see para.1.12 onwards in the readiness report:
1.12 ... [the] Commission has some remaining concerns around the timetable for developing the other significant element of the system - for verifying electors’ personal identifiers under IER ...

1.13 We are aware that some testing of the system has recently taken place ... We understand that there are further tests on the algorithm to be completed ...

1.15 ... the system for verification has not yet been fully tested, and according to the current plans will not have been fully tested until March 2014 ... We understand that the testing programme will be conducted on a rolling basis between now and next March, but the key risk is that it will not be fully clear until then whether the system is fully robust ...

1.17 We have not yet seen a detailed plan for the full testing process, although we understand from officials that this will be shared shortly ...

1.18 It will be important for this testing to demonstrate the ability of the system to cope with the volume of registrations ... We (and EROs) ... await reassurance on this point.

1.19 It is also important for effective and realistic contingency plans to be put in place in the event that problems with the verification system do arise ... We have not yet seen any detailed plans although we are aware that the [Electoral Registration Transformation] Programme team are working on them. We would welcome sight of them when they are available ...
It's not clear from the quotations above what digital identity verification is. The only thing that is clear is that the Commission's welcome for this new component of IER is heavily qualified. That is only to be expected after their experience of the dog's dinner served up by the data-mining pilots.

The suspicion is that what is intended here by "digital identity verification" is something to do with the Government Digital Service's identity assurance scheme, IDA.

IDA was meant to provide us with an "ecosystem" of competing private sector "identity providers". Philip Virgo tells us that there were initially "80 expressions of interest" in joining the IDA framework, please see Who won the battle between DWP and Cabinet Office over ID Policy?. 80 became eight a year or so later in January 2013. By September 2013, eight had become five. And now we're down to two, please see Beta launch for identity assurance this year:
... an official from the IDA programme ... explained that the first two identity providers will start supporting the scheme from the end of November ... These two providers come from a pool of five companies- Digidentity, Experian, Mydex, The Post Office and Verizon- who have signed contracts to deliver IDA services, out of a total of eight companies who were originally on the framework.

The official said that they are hoping for new providers to join in and start working on the programme next year ...
We do not know which two "identity providers" now occupy the shrinking "ecosystem".

And we do not know which brave "new providers" might join where 78 have already pulled out.

Perhaps the government could lean on the two banks which it controls, Lloyds and RBS? Let's hope not. We've been here before. There's no upside. It's all risk.

Perhaps the government could invite Facebook to help. Or Google:
Andrew Nash, Google’s Director of Identity, ran us [Francis Maude and ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken] through the current issues facing identity.He explained how Google aim to grow and be part of an ecosystem of identify providers, and encouraged the UK Government to play its part in a federated system. The UK ID Assurance team and Google agreed to work more closely to define our strategy – so look out for future announcements. Andrew also took the opportunity to walk the Minister through the Identity ecosystem.
All far too interesting for the Electoral Commission to let them become involved. Expect digital verification politely, quietly and firmly to be swept under the confirmation carpet.

On-line registration portal
Ditto the on-line registration portal, para.1.21 onwards in the readiness report:
1.21 ... we are concerned that the website which will enable online registration in Great Britain has also not yet been fully tested.

1.22 The current plan indicates that while the user-facing part of the application ... will be developed for the majority of users by the end of October 2013, testing the process that takes place ‘behind’ the screen ... will not be completed until later (likely to be March 2014). As with the verification development work more generally, this is a tight timetable given the intended IER start date in June 2014 and we have not seen a detailed timetable for this testing ...

1.23 We also understand that the technical development work required to allow use of the online application system by certain important groups of electors ... will not be completed until March 2014.

1.24 The [Electoral Registration Transformation Programme] team have assured us that this development work has been fully scoped and timetabled and that they are confident of delivering the work to time. However, ... this remains an important area of concern.
The Electoral Commission hardly need reminding that an on-line registration portal with no identity assurance and no "ID hub" is an invitation to electoral fraud. Unicorns. Too interesting. Drop it. Keep it boring.

Cloud computing
Always keen to follow the latest fad, the Government Digital Service want to store all our data "in the cloud", as they say. They have chosen to use Skyscape and Carrenza.

Storing data in the cloud is the most efficient way of losing control of it.

The Commission may care to look into the current practice of using the cloud for electoral rolls. One company, Halarose, which provides electoral registration services to 80 local authorities, runs its services on Amazon's cloud servers located in the Republic of Ireland.

Do the Commission agree that this raises interesting questions whether our data is properly under the control of the people who owe us voters a duty of care? If the questions are too interesting, perhaps the Commission would look into changing the current lenient procedures which countenance use of the cloud, not just by Halarose but throughout the electoral registration system.

The key to success with regard to IER lies in being boring. The more boring the better.

----------

Updated 8.1.14
Keep it boring. A simple enough suggestion. So what do the Electoral Commission do? They only go on the radio this morning and announce that we're all going to need photo-ID to vote. That's what.

Far too interesting.

What photo-ID? Passports and photo-ID driving licences. Or a special voting ID card for people who don't have a passport or a photo-ID driving licence. The special voting ID card will be free. "Free"?

If you need photo-ID to vote, why don't you need it to register?

The credit card companies rejected photographs on credit cards in the UK because, based on tests with supermarket staff, that would increase fraud and not reduce it. How would the people manning polling stations fare any better? What happens when you are refused your right to vote because one of these people says you don't look like yourself?

How long before someone points out that if you can register on-line you ought to be able to vote on-line? Perhaps proving your identity on-line using GDS's non-existent identity assurance system? Or, for old-timers, using biometrics.

How long before someone points out that if you need photo-ID to vote, then you must need it to get married? Or to get your children into state education? Or to be given non-emergency state healthcare?

It is strongly suggested that the Electoral Commission conduct trials to see if the benefits of photo-ID voting outweigh the costs. If not, the initiative is counter-productive and disproportionate and should be dropped. There is no loss of face in acknowledging the authority of a large-scale independent trial. The larger and the sooner, the better.

Then, let's hope, we can get back to boring. Please. Boring, boring, boring.

Updated 10.6.14

Today is the first day of individual electoral registration in England and Wales. There is not a single press release about it. Anywhere. Not even on the Electoral Commission's website.

Updated 28.6.14
UK should consider e-voting, elections watchdog urges

Rowena Mason, political correspondent
The Guardian, Wednesday 26 March 2014 18.31 GMT

... the head of the Electoral Commission, Jenny Watson, warned that the ... long-term trend of falling voter turnout was particularly marked among young people ...

... the election watchdog would examine a range of ways to make voting more accessible, including the "radical" option of internet voting and US-style same-day registration for those not on the electoral roll ...

... "we plan to look at a variety of options, assessing how they will help citizens engage more effectively" ... more could be done to make the system more reflective of wider society ... "an increasingly disenfranchised younger generation" ...

... "Unless our electoral system keeps pace with the way many voters live the rest of their lives – where the way they bank and the way they shop has been transformed – it risks being seen as increasingly alien and outdated, particularly to young voters as they use it for the first time" ...
The claims Jenny Watson makes for on-line voter registration and on-line voting are hypotheses. The potential benefits are great. It is worth testing these hypotheses. And they have been.

Estonia allow internet voting. And the University of Michigan discovered that the system is open to being hijacked – the result of the election may not be decided by the voters. The university had previously discovered the same fault in a proposed eVoting system in Washington DC. And now we hear that Norway have given up on eVoting after some careful testing:
E-voting experiments end in Norway amid security fears

BBC News – Technology
27 June 2014 Last updated at 12:12

... voters' fears about their votes becoming public could undermine democratic processes.

Political controversy and the fact that the trials did not boost turnout also led to the experiment ending ...

... criticism was levelled at the encryption scheme used to protect votes being sent across the net ...

... there was no evidence that the trial led to a rise in the overall number of people voting nor that it mobilised new groups, such as young people, to vote ...

... there was also some evidence that a small number of people, 0.75% of all voters, managed to vote twice in 2013 ...
The result of these on-line voting tests is to cast doubt on the hypothesis. It seems to be wrong. On-line voting doesn't boost participation and it introduces dangerous features which undermine the trustworthiness of the election. Conclusion: it is irresponsible to assume that on-line voting is a cure-all.

What about on-line registration to vote?

The Government Digital Service (GDS) introduced an on-line system on 10 June 2014 in pursuit of individual electoral registration in England and Wales. The system collects application details and forwards them to electoral registration officers (EROs) who have to decide whether to register the applicant to vote.

How do the EROs know whether the applicant is who they say are?

GDS have provided a check based on use of the applicant's National Insurance number. That is the same check they use in DVLA's view-driving-record application. And what do the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency have to say about it?
Access to the service is currently allowed by matching the user’s data to the driving licence number. We also use an existing link to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to check if the National Insurance Number (NINO) provided matches details held by DWP and HM Revenue & Customs.

Whilst this authentication process is fairly quick and straightforward, there are some downsides ... it does not provide us with the level of confidence the user is who they say they are in order to offer them more information such as their photo image or allow them to link to a transactional service.
Again, a perfectly sensible hypothesis, but the test results suggest that it would be irresponsible to rely on on-line voter registration.

Updated 3.7.14

All this febrile raving about photo-id and electronic voting and same-day registration? Too exciting. We need boring.

The Electoral Commission have started their public awareness campaign for individual electoral registration, hat tip Halarose:



30 seconds of total inanity. The postman delivers a letter. Men turn into women half way downstairs to the accompaniment of irritating music and then read the IER information leaflet while they enjoy a cup of tea.

The shoutline? "Make sure you're in".

Congratulations to the Electoral Commission. Perfect. A collector's item. More like that, please.

RIP IDA – individual electoral registration


The key to success with regard to IER lies in being boring.
The more boring the better.

No need to say it, it goes without saying, it should be obvious to all but, just in case it isn't obvious to all, IDA is dead.

IDA is the Cabinet Office Identity Assurance programme. And it's dead.

----------

If all goes well, the media will pay not the slightest attention to the changes promised for 2014 in the way the electoral register is compiled in Great Britain.

Beginning on 10 June 2014, England and Wales will switch from compiling the electoral register on a household basis to individual electoral registration (IER). In Scotland, the equivalent date is 19 September 2014 – the delay there is to cater for the referendum on Scottish independence.

IER will be a yawn and a bore. That's if all goes well. The new electoral register will be ready for the 2015 general election and it will be complete enough and accurate enough not to impugn the legitimacy of the election result.

The Electoral Commission published a readiness report back in October 2013. They've got the forms ready and they just need political approval before Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) send them out to individuals to register. That will be in July 2014 and there will be an accompanying public awareness campaign.

It is to be hoped that that public awareness campaign will be workmanlike, clear, simple and above all uncontroversial. Dull. Worthy. Yawn-inducing, as befits a highly respected, confident and mature democracy.

There are a few worryingly interesting bits of IER.

Friday, 27 December 2013

Whitehall misfeasance – something's up

Jill Sherman is the Whitehall Editor of the Times and she has a scoop in today's paper, please see Whitehall forced to call in the experts:
About one hundred high-powered troubleshooters are to be drafted into Whitehall from the private sector to save the Government’s riskiest projects, The Times has learnt.

The experts from management consultants and other industries will help to turn around difficult schemes such as Universal Credit, High Speed rail (HS2), and electronic tagging. They will also help to monitor new contracts and bulk purchasing across the public sector.

The move follows months of criticism over the lack of commercial skills within Whitehall after a series of IT disasters and other fiascos that have wasted hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money ...
Someone has clearly finally had enough of Whitehall's unaccountable failure.

We're talking about power here. Specifically about power changing hands. That spells danger. Adroitly handled, it also spells hope.

Whitehall misfeasance – something's up

Jill Sherman is the Whitehall Editor of the Times and she has a scoop in today's paper, please see Whitehall forced to call in the experts:
About one hundred high-powered troubleshooters are to be drafted into Whitehall from the private sector to save the Government’s riskiest projects, The Times has learnt.

The experts from management consultants and other industries will help to turn around difficult schemes such as Universal Credit, High Speed rail (HS2), and electronic tagging. They will also help to monitor new contracts and bulk purchasing across the public sector.

The move follows months of criticism over the lack of commercial skills within Whitehall after a series of IT disasters and other fiascos that have wasted hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money ...
Someone has clearly finally had enough of Whitehall's unaccountable failure.

We're talking about power here. Specifically about power changing hands. That spells danger. Adroitly handled, it also spells hope.

Sunday, 22 December 2013

Whitehall press release – an apology

In a blog post published on 19 December 2013, The peculiar art of the Whitehall press release, DMossEsq accused a Cabinet Office Minister of describing a manifest failure as a success. DMossEsq was wrong and he apologises.

As part of the move to individual electoral registration (IER), the Electoral Commission have reported on an exercise known as "the data-mining pilot". That exercise was a failure. As the Commission say in their report: "The findings from this pilot do not justify the national roll out of data mining" (pp.8 & 60).

The Whitehall press release quotes Rt Hon Greg Clark MP talking about "the successful dry run of the data matching process over the summer". If he had been referring to the data-mining pilot as DMossEsq wrongly believed that would indeed have been "peculiar".

But the Minister wasn't referring to the data-mining pilot. He was referring to a separate exercise known as "the confirmation dry run".

The report on the confirmation dry run says: "The Electoral Commission evaluated this pilot and concluded that confirmation should be used during the transition to IER as a way of safeguarding against a decline in the completeness of the registers, while maintaining their accuracy" (p.2).

In light of which DMossEsq acknowledges without reservation that the Minister's choice of words is unobjectionable.

Whitehall press release – an apology

In a blog post published on 19 December 2013, The peculiar art of the Whitehall press release, DMossEsq accused a Cabinet Office Minister of describing a manifest failure as a success. DMossEsq was wrong and he apologises.

Thursday, 19 December 2013

The peculiar art of the Whitehall press release

Date confirmed for Individual Electoral Registration (IER), says yesterday's Cabinet Office press release: "The government has today confirmed its intention to move to IER on 10 June 2014 in England and Wales and 19 September 2014 in Scotland".

We are moving in Great Britain from household registration to individual electoral registration. That is the will of Parliament as enshrined in the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013.

How will local Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) make sure that the electoral roll includes all those eligible to vote and only those eligible to vote? It's an old question. With old answers – we've been voting for several centuries now.

There was one new answer.

How about comparing the electoral rolls with other databases like the National Insurance number database? That way EROs could be given a list of people to follow up who should be on the electoral roll but aren't, and try to prevail on them to register.

Worth trying. The Electoral Commission drafted in the Government Digital Service (GDS) to do a "data mining" or "data matching" exercise.

Whatever you want to call it, the exercise was an unmitigated failure. "The findings from this pilot do not justify the national roll out of data mining", said the Commission in their July 2013 Data mining pilot – evaluation report, first recommendation, p.8, in bold.

The Commission gave several reasons for their conclusion, including the fact that GDS put forward not only foreign people ineligible to vote as candidates for EROs to follow up but also people who were already registered and didn't need any follow-up.

They had other reasons in addition. The delays caused by GDS. GDS's procedural changes mid-stream which meant results weren't comparable. The refusal by GDS to say how much their work had cost, with the result that the Commission don't know what the pilot cost and can't estimate the cost of live running.

And that's just the second pilot. In the first pilot, GDS made it look as though 82% of residents on the electoral roll in Ceredigion were impostors. EROs need reliable data. This is the election of governments we're talking about here, both local and national.

One way and another, the Commission's conclusion seems unimpeachable. The findings from this pilot do not justify the national roll out of data mining.

And how is this matter dealt with in yesterday's press release?

The Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, the Cabinet Office Minister responsible, is quoted as saying: "Following the successful dry run of the data matching process over the summer, and the Electoral Commission’s assessment that there is no reason to delay implementation, this confirms progress towards a more modern, secure system of electoral registration".

Somehow the unmitigated failure of the second pilot has become a "successful dry run". Please see comment below, 21 December 2013, 1:19 a.m. Please see also Whitehall press release – an apology.

The peculiar art of the Whitehall press release

Date confirmed for Individual Electoral Registration (IER), says yesterday's Cabinet Office press release: "The government has today confirmed its intention to move to IER on 10 June 2014 in England and Wales and 19 September 2014 in Scotland".

We are moving in Great Britain from household registration to individual electoral registration. That is the will of Parliament as enshrined in the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013.

How will local Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) make sure that the electoral roll includes all those eligible to vote and only those eligible to vote? It's an old question. With old answers – we've been voting for several centuries now.

There was one new answer.

Thursday, 12 December 2013

Vaz v. Rapson – book now to avoid disappointment

In their bid to transform government, the Government Digital Service (GDS) have chosen 25 public service transactions to demonstrate their prowess.

Three of them (see alongside) are Home Office transactions. No.20 out of 25 is something to do with criminal record checks.

But things have moved on. No.20 is no more. As ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken, executive director of GDS, tells us in his quarterly report:
Following discovery on exemplar 20 (criminal records checks), GDS and Home Office (HO) have agreed that due to contractual constraints and competing policy and legislative priorities, there would be more opportunity to effect transformational change by March 2015 in another service. GDS and HO have agreed to investigate working with HM Passports Office as an alternative, and details of the new service will be confirmed publicly on the transformation dashboard when finalised.
He also tells us that:
We have published guidelines on increasing digital take-up alongside case studies of how public sector organisations have successfully achieved channel shift; we intend to expand on this with additional case studies.

We’re doing further research with users of 2 services (online passport applications and Carer’s Allowance) to learn more about:
  • how we can get offline users to use a digital service for the first time
  • why users revert to non-digital channels
We’ll publish the outcomes of the research along with the guidance we develop from it.
The "contractual constraints" on the criminal records work can't have just appeared recently. They must have been known about a long time ago.

It looks as though GDS have been taken off criminal record checks but given something else to do on passports as a consolation. Do GDS and the Home Office realise that there are "contractual constraints" on passport work as well, just as much as on criminal record checks?

The contract to provide the Home Office with work on passports is worth £385 million and is currently held by CSC, the software house who contributed so much to the NHS's National Programme for IT (£12 billion of taxpayers' money reduced to ahes) and to the Home Office's biometrics-based visa applications system. CSC is also the software house which has been fined $250 million by the US military and is being sued by its shareholders.

CSC took over the passport contract from Siemens, who were paid £365 million between 1999 and 2009. When DMossEsq renewed his passport on-line 10½ years ago, the Siemens system seemed to work perfectly well. When he renewed it six months ago, the CSC system seemed to work perfectly well.

On that basis, it seems unlikely that we need GDS to do any more work on passport applications. It's a waste of their time and our money and it may invalidate any warranties CSC have given.

The effect of these huge passport contracts to re-write working software is that we are being over-charged by £296 million a year (DMossEsq estimate), a fact which has been brought to the attention of Sarah Rapson, who was executive director chief executive of the Identity & Passport Service (IPS) at the time.

No longer.

IPS is now HMPO, Her Majesty's Passport Office.

And Sarah Rapson isn't the executive director chief executive there any more – she's now interim Director General of UK Visas and Immigration. When she made her first appearance before Keith Vaz's Home Affairs Committee they treated her with sympathetic tolerance and patience.

UK e-borders scheme failing to make immigration checks, the Guardian told us in October: "Border control system's alerts are not being routinely used to stop terror suspects or war criminals, watchdog reveals", the watchdog being the excellent John Vine.

Her next appearance may be more dramatic. Book early.

----------

Updated 22.7.14
Home Office's 'flagship' £350m immigration computer system ditched

The Home Office wasted nearly £350 million on a computer system for dealing with immigration and asylum applications that was abandoned, forcing staff to revert to using an old system that regularly freezes.

The “Immigration Case Work” system was commissioned in 2010 and was supposed to be a “flagship IT programme”, a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) said.

However, it suffered "delays and problems" that led to it being shut down last August. Ministers have now commissioned another new computer system that is due to cost a further £209 million by 2016-17 ...

Vaz v. Rapson – book now to avoid disappointment

In their bid to transform government, the Government Digital Service (GDS) have chosen 25 public service transactions to demonstrate their prowess.

Three of them (see alongside) are Home Office transactions. No.20 out of 25 is something to do with criminal record checks.

But things have moved on. No.20 is no more. As ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken, executive director of GDS, tells us in his quarterly report:
Following discovery on exemplar 20 (criminal records checks), GDS and Home Office (HO) have agreed that due to contractual constraints and competing policy and legislative priorities, there would be more opportunity to effect transformational change by March 2015 in another service. GDS and HO have agreed to investigate working with HM Passports Office as an alternative, and details of the new service will be confirmed publicly on the transformation dashboard when finalised.
He also tells us that:

RIP IDA – Universal Credit, bad week/good news


Digital-by-default would work for Universal Credit
only if the JobCentre staff and the claimants were things like kettles.
They're not.

No need to say it, it goes without saying, it should be obvious to all but, just in case it isn't obvious to all, IDA is dead.

IDA is the Cabinet Office Identity Assurance programme. And it's dead.

----------


Private Eye No.1355 13-20 December 2013 p.5
There's been a lot of Universal Credit news this week.

And none of that news is good.

Or almost none ...

First of all, the money. Never mind Private Eye's figure of £34 million being written off, we know that the write-off will be a nine-figure sum in the end and hope it won't be any bigger.

That's bad news for the taxpayer – that's our money going up in smoke. Why bother to pay tax? It's bad news for the human beings who will remain caught in the benefits trap for years. It's bad news for Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It's bad news for Robert Devereux, Permanent Secretary at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). And it's not good news for the contractors who have been paid a fortune. World-class professional systems integrators every one of them – Accenture (£125 million), IBM (£75 million), Hewlett-Packard (£58 million) and BT (£16 million) – their name is Mudd.

There is one organisation it should have been good news for – the "hot-shot computer programmers from the Government Digital Service (GDS)", as Rachel Sylvester called them in the Times. But it isn't. Not even for them.

Last seen in these parts, DWP had two options. Stick with the existing contractors and try to make the Universal Credit IT systems work. Or ditch them, and opt instead for the more web-based approach recommended by GDS, something more "agile" and more "digital by default".

"As mentioned by DWP last week, we completed work on a digital strategic solution of the Universal Credit service on October 3rd. That included a proof of concept – tested with real users – and an outline of the operating model and any dependent technology required. With that delivered, we’re supporting DWP while they develop the digital skills needed to build and operate the full service."

Thus ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken, writing on the Transformation blog the day before yesterday. He is the chief executive executive director of GDS, part of the Cabinet Office, and the senior responsible owner of the pan-government identity assurance programme.

DWP's decision is thanks, but no thanks. They will continue with the existing contractors while re-writing the Universal Credit IT system without GDS's assistance. Once that's written, it will take over and the existing systems will be dispensed with.

But the new system will not be digital by default. Hat tip: Tony Collins, as ever, Universal Credit to be partly online (but not entirely on-line). Special hat tip: Brian Wernham, Universal Credit project to abandon ‘digital-by-default’ – £303m spent, £65m of IT assets to show for it.

That is the decision of Howard Shiplee, Director General for Universal Credit, overall manager of the project, following his success in getting all the Olympics 2012 buildings put up on time.

Mr Shiplee was up in front of the Work and Pensions Select Committee on Monday where there was some badinage about the relationship between DWP and GDS/the Cabinet Office. As Tony Collins puts it: "... Stephen Lloyd, Liberal Democrat, ... asked if there is any truth in the suggestion that if the Cabinet Office doesn’t stop interfering Shiplee will quit".

Mr Shiplee played that with a straight bat, of course, but why have DWP rejected digital-by-default?

The answer given to the Committee was: "From a security point of view to have everything digital is not at this stage a sensible or appropriate solution". Mr Shiplee was talking about the need for claimants to prove who they are and to prove that their current circumstances make them eligible for Universal Credit. What he is saying is that GDS's digital-by-default can't offer that proof.

And that, as others have pointed out, is a grenade with the pin pulled out.

If it is accepted that digital-by-default – or more precisely, on-line identity assurance – cannot offer the proof required, then it's dead. RIP. And if that's a reason for DWP to avoid digital-by-default, it's a reason for every other department, too.

Mr Shiplee holds out the possibility that on-line identity assurance could one day be available: "It will take some considerable time to get to a totally online system". But so what if it is one day available? Would it then be right to make Universal Credit digital by default?

No.

Go back two months to the Public Accounts Committee hearing. Take a look at Q155 and Mr Devereux's answer: "With regard to all those people who are currently out of work and are going to be supported by universal credit, I will want to see them in the jobcentre. I am trying to ensure that—in eyeballing my agents, in signing the claimant commitment and in understanding their obligations—there is going to be some human contact".

Are those "agents" Mr Devereux refers to – the JobCentre staff who are being "eyeballed" by the benefits claimants – doing a valuable job?

If you think the answer is no, then they are redundant, perhaps they can be replaced by computer systems and perhaps, 11 years after digital-by-default starts (GDS's estimate), 40,000 or more of those public servants can safely be laid off and perhaps that will save £1.7 billion a year (again, GDS's estimate).

GDS accept that there are occasions when you need to meet people face-to-face. Particularly when you are doing requirements elicitation, i.e. trying to find out what the users need from a computerised system. Even GDS don't think that all communication can be on-line. You have to be there, in the room with the users, during the "discovery phase" of a project, as GDS call it, otherwise something important is lost. That is an article of the "agile" methodology that they profess.

This is what we have christened before a "Class H" transaction, where "H" stands for "human", and we distinguished it from Class D (for "digital") transactions such as buying a book from Amazon, which can perfectly well be done digitally.

If you think that working with benefits claimants, assessing them and trying to get them back into work, is a Class H transaction, then digital-by-default is not "a sensible or appropriate solution" even if on-line identity assurance is available, which, at the moment, it isn't. The contribution of the JobCentre staff can't be replicated by the artificial intelligence of a set of algorithms and neither can the requirements of the claimants.

We have come across the phrase "the internet of things" before, please see Instrumenting the kettle. Digital-by-default would work for Universal Credit only if the JobCentre staff and the claimants were things like kettles. They're not. GDS's mission in the case of Universal Credit is inhuman. And if an understanding of that point comes out of this week's Universal Credit scandal then at least there'll have been some good news.

----------

Update 10.1.14

One month later, there continues to be a lot of Universal Credit news. In the past couple of days we've had:

RIP IDA – Universal Credit, bad week/good news


Digital-by-default would work for Universal Credit
only if the JobCentre staff and the claimants were things like kettles.
They're not.

No need to say it, it goes without saying, it should be obvious to all but, just in case it isn't obvious to all, IDA is dead.

IDA is the Cabinet Office Identity Assurance programme. And it's dead.

----------


Private Eye No.1355 13-20 December 2013 p.5
There's been a lot of Universal Credit news this week.

And none of that news is good.

Or almost none ...

First of all, the money. Never mind Private Eye's figure of £34 million being written off, we know that the write-off will be a nine-figure sum in the end and hope it won't be any bigger.

That's bad news for the taxpayer – that's our money going up in smoke. Why bother to pay tax? It's bad news for the human beings who will remain caught in the benefits trap for years. It's bad news for Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It's bad news for Robert Devereux, Permanent Secretary at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). And it's not good news for the contractors who have been paid a fortune. World-class professional systems integrators every one of them – Accenture (£125 million), IBM (£75 million), Hewlett-Packard (£58 million) and BT (£16 million) – their name is Mudd.

There is one organisation it should have been good news for – the "hot-shot computer programmers from the Government Digital Service (GDS)", as Rachel Sylvester called them in the Times. But it isn't. Not even for them.

Sunday, 8 December 2013

midata in the UK, MesInfos en France

300 individus volontaires ont accès à leurs données personnelles restituées par les organisations partenaires du projet via une plate-forme personnelle de données sécurisée.
Do what?

Look mate, it's French. Alright?

It means something like "300 volunteers have access to their personal data given back to them by partner organisations in the project via a secure personal data platform".

What project?

Project MesInfos, in French, or midata in pidgin English.

Norman Lamb mentioned it when he launched last year's non-consultation into midata, p.22, para.2.15:
In France the FING think tank has created the ‘Mesinfos’ group to look at developments in personal data and is hoping to run a pilot whereby a range of different datasets from the private sector are available to explore the opportunities for new applications and services.
Yes, they've got it, too, the French – midata – a bad dose:
Une communautĂ© de dĂ©veloppeurs et designer est mobilisĂ©e pour concevoir des applications et services innovants autour de ces donnĂ©es, ouvrant un nouveau champ d’usages pour les individus.
Or as we would say, roughly: "a community of developers and designers has been mobilised to conceive of innovative applications and services around personal data, creating a new utilities space for individuals".

And whereas we in the UK have Ctrl-Shift, the "market analyst and consulting business that helps organisations understand the implications and embrace the opportunities arising from the changing personal data landscape", over the water there in France they have Fing:
La Fing, coordinateur du projet, est un think tank de nouvelle génération qui aide les entreprises, les institutions et les territoires à anticiper les mutations liées aux technologies et à leurs usages.
Fing is "the co-ordinator of the [MesInfos] project, it is a new generation think tank helping businesses, institutions and local authorities to prepare for adaptations in technology use", least I fink that's what it says.

Oh lord. The poor old French being served up the same tosh as us Britanniques.

Do Ctrl-Shift and Fing really think we've never seen a bank statement before? Or an itemised phone bill? Do they think our pockets aren't already stuffed with detailed receipts from Sainsbury's and E. Leclerc? What are they talking about, suppliers refusing to give us our data back? It's nonsense. They're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

And they're not very good at solving even non-existent problems. Either of them. midata or MesInfos. They say they're going to create a personal data apps market. We've already got one. Yea, verily, Google's power stretches even unto France. (And Google is one of the MesInfos project partners.) They're too late to provide a solution, the market already has.

Faites attention, MesInfos, not to make the same mistake as the midata Innovation Lab, and produce five dreary apps that no-one wants.

They promise us control over our personal data:
MesInfos propose une voie nouvelle, diffĂ©rente : faire en sorte que les individus puissent (re)trouver l’usage des donnĂ©es qui les concernent, Ă  leurs propres fins.

Du point de vue des individus, il s’agit d’une nouvelle Ă©tape dans l’empowerment numĂ©rique.
That's Fing today echoing Ed Davey two years ago:
Today’s announcement marks the first time globally there has been such a Government-backed initiative to empower individuals with so much control over the use of their own data.
And it's just as hollow today as it was then. It is beyond the power of Fing to grant French consumers control over their personal data. Just as it is beyond the power of Mydex in the UK. So why do they make these ridiculous promises? You can ask them till you're bleu dans le visage, they can't answer the question how will you provide this control?

They both promise secure websites. A "plate-forme personnelle sécurisée" from Fing and a "hyper secure personal data store and platform" from Mydex. And what do we know about secure websites? They don't exist. Like unicorns.

In the UK the idea is that personal data stores should provide the basis on which "identity providers" can vouch that you are who you claim to be when you deal with government on-line. The personal data store is like a dematerialised ID card.

Is the same true in France?

Someone asked.

And Renaud Francou of Fing answered.

Who he? Answer, "Renaud Francou, 32 ans, a rejoint l’Ă©quipe Fing en 2003. Il anime depuis Marseille avec Charles NĂ©pote le programme IdentitĂ©s actives (2007-2009) et participe Ă  l’animation du dispositif PACA Labs destinĂ© Ă  soutenir les projets expĂ©rimentaux en rĂ©gion Provence Alpes CĂ´te d’Azur."

According to M. Francou:


So there we have it. Yes, he says, a MesInfos personal data store is an ID card. But a nice white one. Not a nasty black one. (You can say that in France. Presumably.)

Anyone remember Serge Blisko? Good luck, M. Francou, if MesInfos comes to his attention.

----------

Updated 18 December 2013:

The UK has midata. France has MesInfos. And the US? MyData.

MyData is in the purlieu of the Presidential Innovation Fellows: "The Presidential Innovation Fellows (PIF) program pairs top innovators from the private sector, non-profits, and academia with top innovators in government to collaborate during focused 6-13 month 'tours of duty' to develop solutions that can save lives, save taxpayer money, and fuel job creation".

You know what to look for now in these personal data schemes.

And it's all there in MyData.

"Empowering the American people with secure access to their own personal health, energy, and education data." Empowering? In what way? Secure access? Shouldn't that be hyper secure?

"... spurring the growth of private-sector applications and services that a person can use to crunch his or her own data for a growing array of useful purposes." The private sector applications and services market has already been spurred.

What is this array of useful purposes? Is it a 2013 echo of the South Sea Company's 1720 "undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is"? Is it like midata's equally imprecise "data-enabled online market place [that] will create new services that will take your data and do some really interesting things with it"? What really interesting things?

The only distinguishing feature of the Presidential Innovation Fellows' MyData initiative is that when it says "Stay connected: Follow @ProjectMyData on Twitter" and you click on  @ProjectMyData, you see this Twitter page:


All those top innovators? 13-month tours of duty? Saving lives? Saving money? Creating jobs? All those questions, and the answer's "that page doesn't exist"? The PIFs' heart's not really in it, is it?

Updated 23 December 2013:

You know about midata in the UK and MesInfos in France. Also MyData in the US. Dull, dull, dull.

But what, you ask, of India?

And the answer, typically, is far wiser and more human: "Midata is a Telugu Movie. Main Cast: Srikanth and Namitha. Music Composed by Yatish".

midata in the UK, MesInfos en France

300 individus volontaires ont accès à leurs données personnelles restituées par les organisations partenaires du projet via une plate-forme personnelle de données sécurisée.
Do what?

Look mate, it's French. Alright?

It means something like "300 volunteers have access to their personal data given back to them by partner organisations in the project via a secure personal data platform".

What project?

Have you ever had breakfast with Sophia Loren?

There was a very good programme on BBC4 recently, The Joy of Logic: "Documentary exploring the human quest for certainty and sound reasoning itself. Professor Dave Cliff asks, just how logical are we really and can humans stay ahead?". Highly recommended.

Never having had breakfast
with Sophia Loren,
David Moss sets out on a journey
from Plato to Bjørn Lomborg‎,
with a long pit stop
at Willard Van Orman Quine.
Why would anybody do that?
The BBC programme covers much of the same ground as the esteemed treatise on artificial intelligence penned by none other than DMossEsq himself currently basking at no. 5,298,041 in Amazon's bestsellers rankings. If even one person buys a copy for Christmas thanks to Professor Cliff, surely the book could once again shoot up into its rightful position in the high four millions.

Have you ever tried to read Gödel's Theorem? Couldn't even understand the definitions? Same here.

But it's important. In any formalised language, you can have either completeness or consistency, one or the other, but not both.

Professor Cliff reminds us of Gödel's belief that people were trying to poison him. The only person he would allow to prepare his meals was his wife. When she fell ill and went into hospital he starved to death.

Which makes the first of many important distinctions – just because a person like Kurt Gödel is highly intelligent, it doesn't follow that he's sane. Intelligence and sanity are two different things ...

... a Pandora's box which needs to be opened because the study of logic, the principles of mathematics and developments in computer science all wash up on the shores these days of artificial intelligence (AI), not to be confused with artificial insemination.

Surely the brain is like a computer. Surely the web is like a giant brain. Study neural networks and surely you're studying how the brain works.

Really?

Professor Susan Greenfield, who knows a bit about brains, is always magnificently withering about these claims of AI. Studying the computational activity of the brain is the easy bit, the bit that all the logicians and mathematicians and computer scientists just happen to have methods for. What about all the other activities that occupy the human mind? The AI bods have not a word to say about them, she points out scornfully and correctly, AI is baffled into silence.

AI is baffled into silence about human psychology and social dynamics and political governance. Not to mention aesthetic, ethical and theological judgement.

Just like the neuroscience bods who think they can study ethical decision-making by watching which bits of the brain light up during the process. Just like the econometricians who think they can analyse human motivation using nothing more than a trivial model of maximising returns. Baffled. Silence.

An AI bod may know an encyclopaediaful of facts about the web and yet still have nothing especially cogent to say about humanity. Here's professor Sir Tim-Berners Lee, for example, talking nonsense:
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".
And that's just the genuine academics. Then there's the retail end, the burgeoning industry of the so-called "quantified self" – "There is further investment in the quantified self space as Canadian company Retrofit announces $8 million in new funding ..." – where a little more self-knowledge of bafflement might promote a little more healthy silence.

Let's get back to the engaging Professor Cliff. He opens the programme with a disarming story of his own unintelligence. He wrote a computer program years ago that emulates the activity of traders in markets – purely computational, perfectly feasible – which was instrumental in removing the human traders and replacing them with, as he says, a computer, a dog and a man. The dog's job is to protect the computer and the man's job is to feed the dog.

Why unintelligent? He gave the computer program away for free and lots of other people have made a fortune out of it. Is that so unintelligent? Discuss.

The TV programme includes a large cast of eminent talking heads. Including Professor Sir Nigel Shadbolt, professor of AI at the University of Southampton, chairman and co-founder of the Open Data Institute and chairman of the Department for Business Innovation and Skills midata programme.

He's been putting himself about a bit recently, Professor Sir Nigel.



I think that you'll find that within the open data community there is a very strong recognition of the need to protect privacy but it’s more complicated than baldly saying 'open data is not personal data.
Technical Director of the Open Data Institute
There was his 22 October 2013 double act with Stephan "embrace the change" Shakespeare, for example, giving evidence in front of the Public Administration Select Committee – there is no good reason to preserve personal privacy, not when making personal data open would benefit society.

There was his appearance in the Financial Times the day before yesterday with his Maseratis and his 30-foot sloop and his book, The Spy in the Coffee Machine: The End of Privacy as we Know It, which is going on at least one person's Christmas list.

And there was his review of the work done by the midata Innovation Lab where he said that the five prototype me-too applications produced by the lab allow us to "get to the future more quickly". Che?

Logic.

That's where we started.

You and Professor Cliff could search high and low without finding the answer to the question where is the logic in Professor Sir Nigel wasting his time and our money re-creating what the market has already provided?

----------

Updated 9-6-14

Computer passes 'Turing Test' for the first time after convincing users it is human

Updated 11.6.14

As you were:
World to Captain Cyborg on 'Turing test' stunt: You're Rumbled
Man who pretended to be a robot fooled by robot pretending to be a man

... This week, the realisation may have belatedly dawned on much of the mainstream media that a Kevin Warwick claim needs to be taken with a mine's worth of salt ...

What did it this time is Warwick's claim that the "Turing Test" - which measures ability of a machine to convincingly mimic a human while communicating with real humans in a blind test - had been passed at an event Warwick had organised and hosted. This had all the hallmarks of a Warwick stunt - you only had to look.
Updated 14.6.14

Professor Sir Nigel Shadbolt:
No, robots aren’t taking over. But the future is dazzling

Building an engaging, general and well-rounded intelligence is as far away as ever.
Updated 17.7.14
Jesus College
Oxford

Election of Next Principal

Tuesday, 15 July 2014
Members and friends of the College will be pleased to learn that the Governing Body has resolved to elect as its next Principal, Professor Sir Nigel Shadbolt, who is, at present, Professor of Artificial Intelligence at the University of Southampton. The formal election will take place in October 2014. Sir Nigel will take up the post with effect from 1st August 2015.

Have you ever had breakfast with Sophia Loren?

There was a very good programme on BBC4 recently, The Joy of Logic: "Documentary exploring the human quest for certainty and sound reasoning itself. Professor Dave Cliff asks, just how logical are we really and can humans stay ahead?". Highly recommended.

Never having had breakfast
with Sophia Loren,
David Moss sets out on a journey
from Plato to Bjørn Lomborg‎,
with a long pit stop
at Willard Van Orman Quine.
Why would anybody do that?
The BBC programme covers much of the same ground as the esteemed treatise on artificial intelligence penned by none other than DMossEsq himself currently basking at no. 5,298,041 in Amazon's bestsellers rankings. If even one person buys a copy for Christmas thanks to Professor Cliff, surely the book could once again shoot up into its rightful position in the high four millions.

Have you ever tried to read Gödel's Theorem? Couldn't even understand the definitions? Same here.

But it's important. In any formalised language, you can have either completeness or consistency, one or the other, but not both.

Professor Cliff reminds us of Gödel's belief that people were trying to poison him. The only person he would allow to prepare his meals was his wife. When she fell ill and went into hospital he starved to death.

Which makes the first of many important distinctions – just because a person like Kurt Gödel is highly intelligent, it doesn't follow that he's sane. Intelligence and sanity are two different things ...