2½ marks out of 4 for IPS

Open letter to Alastair Bridges, Executive Director Finance, Identity & Passport Service (IPS), 21 October 2010:

You seem to have left Globe House. That’s a good first step on the road to recovery. Time now for a name change, get rid of the word “identity”. Make a clean breast of all the biometrics nonsense. Your Chief Executive has an MBA from the London Business School. She must know that GMAC tested flat print fingerprinting for two years and then dropped it, it’s not reliable enough. GMAC didn’t even bother to test facial geometry, everyone knows it doesn’t work and it must drive you mad at IPS having to pretend that it does. Give yourselves a break, for goodness sake, the nightmare of pretence is over ... Why does a passport cost £77.50 and not £23? If there’s no good reason, then, as part of your re-launch, along with your new name and address, the renunciation of biometrics and the defenestration of PA, how about putting the price down? Demand would go up and, who knows, IPS might be welcomed once again into communion with your fellow human beings.

Home Office press release, 13 May 2013:

The agency for renewing passports is changing its name to reflect its changing role and official status. A new name has been given to the agency which produces all UK passports – HM Passport Office ... Departure from Identity cards The inclusion of ‘Her Majesty’s’ in the title recognises that passports are the property of the Crown, bear the Royal Coat of Arms and are issued under the Royal Prerogative. It also marks a watershed moment in the agency’s departure from its association with the National Identity Service and ID cards.

Name change? Yes.

Price reduction? Yes, although not to £23, only to £72.50, a lot further to go.

PA Consulting defenestrated? Yes, for the moment.

Renunciation of biometrics? No. The charade continues.

And what, you ask, of Sarah Rapson, Chief Executive of IPS as was and Registrar General for England and Wales? Another day ...

----------

Updated 16.9.14

The campaign to reduce the price of UK adult passports began on 21 October 2010, please see above. At the time, they cost £77.50, instead of their natural price of £23. From 3 September 2012, the price fell to £72.50. Not enough.

Now the Home Affairs Select Committee wants a further reduction of £15 – Passport office ‘should cut prices, not make a profit’: "The government should stop exploiting the public by making almost £15 profit on every standard passport it issues, a parlimentary committee recommends in a report published today".

That would get the price down to £57.50. Another £34.50 to go before contact is once again made with Planet Earth.

2½ marks out of 4 for IPS

Open letter to Alastair Bridges, Executive Director Finance, Identity & Passport Service (IPS), 21 October 2010:

You seem to have left Globe House. That’s a good first step on the road to recovery. Time now for a name change, get rid of the word “identity”. Make a clean breast of all the biometrics nonsense. Your Chief Executive has an MBA from the London Business School. She must know that GMAC tested flat print fingerprinting for two years and then dropped it, it’s not reliable enough. GMAC didn’t even bother to test facial geometry, everyone knows it doesn’t work and it must drive you mad at IPS having to pretend that it does. Give yourselves a break, for goodness sake, the nightmare of pretence is over ... Why does a passport cost £77.50 and not £23? If there’s no good reason, then, as part of your re-launch, along with your new name and address, the renunciation of biometrics and the defenestration of PA, how about putting the price down? Demand would go up and, who knows, IPS might be welcomed once again into communion with your fellow human beings.

Home Office press release, 13 May 2013:

The agency for renewing passports is changing its name to reflect its changing role and official status. A new name has been given to the agency which produces all UK passports – HM Passport Office ... Departure from Identity cards The inclusion of ‘Her Majesty’s’ in the title recognises that passports are the property of the Crown, bear the Royal Coat of Arms and are issued under the Royal Prerogative. It also marks a watershed moment in the agency’s departure from its association with the National Identity Service and ID cards.

Name change? Yes.

Price reduction? Yes, although not to £23, only to £72.50, a lot further to go.

PA Consulting defenestrated? Yes, for the moment.

Renunciation of biometrics? No. The charade continues.

And what, you ask, of Sarah Rapson, Chief Executive of IPS as was and Registrar General for England and Wales? Another day ...

----------

Updated 16.9.14

The campaign to reduce the price of UK adult passports began on 21 October 2010, please see above. At the time, they cost £77.50, instead of their natural price of £23. From 3 September 2012, the price fell to £72.50. Not enough.

Now the Home Affairs Select Committee wants a further reduction of £15 – Passport office ‘should cut prices, not make a profit’: "The government should stop exploiting the public by making almost £15 profit on every standard passport it issues, a parlimentary committee recommends in a report published today".

That would get the price down to £57.50. Another £34.50 to go before contact is once again made with Planet Earth.

Dialogue of the deaf

In accordance with the Justice and Security Act 2013, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC) has today laid before Parliament its 2012-2013 Annual Report:

... The threat the UK is facing from cyber attacks is disturbing in its scale and complexity: we have been told this year that the threat is at its highest level ever. The theft of intellectual property, personal details, and classified information causes significant harm, both financial and non-financial. It is incumbent on everyone – individuals, companies and the Government – to take responsibility for their own cyber security. We support the Government‟s efforts to raise awareness and, more importantly, to strengthen our nation's defences ...

That's what the ISC say.

Meanwhile, parliament is putting its data in the cloud – so is the Government Digital Service (GDS), HMRC, the MOD and the Home Office – the Cabinet Office is compiling an on-line electoral roll, GDS has appointed eight "identity providers" to make public services digital by default and the Department for Business Innovation and Skills wants us to store all our personal data on the web, in personal data stores.

That makes it hard, to say the least, for "everyone ... to take responsibility for their own cyber security".

Is anyone listening to the ISC?

Dialogue of the deaf

In accordance with the Justice and Security Act 2013, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC) has today laid before Parliament its 2012-2013 Annual Report:

... The threat the UK is facing from cyber attacks is disturbing in its scale and complexity: we have been told this year that the threat is at its highest level ever. The theft of intellectual property, personal details, and classified information causes significant harm, both financial and non-financial. It is incumbent on everyone – individuals, companies and the Government – to take responsibility for their own cyber security. We support the Government‟s efforts to raise awareness and, more importantly, to strengthen our nation's defences ...

That's what the ISC say.

Meanwhile, parliament is putting its data in the cloud – so is the Government Digital Service (GDS), HMRC, the MOD and the Home Office – the Cabinet Office is compiling an on-line electoral roll, GDS has appointed eight "identity providers" to make public services digital by default and the Department for Business Innovation and Skills wants us to store all our personal data on the web, in personal data stores.

That makes it hard, to say the least, for "everyone ... to take responsibility for their own cyber security".

Is anyone listening to the ISC?

Smiley's people

Writing in today's Guardian, Simon Jenkins makes the case that reality comprises the bits John le Carré cuts out of his novels.

There follows the transcript of an interview with John Le Carré by BBC Radio 4 Front Row’s Mark Lawson. This interview never happened. ML: My guest today is David Cornwell, better known as John le Carré, the chronicler of the secret services who needs no further introduction. John, we were talking before going on air about how much of a novel never sees the light of day and that seems a good place to start, do you write and then discard a lot of scenes? JleC: Not if I can help it. Writing is quite hard work and you have to be organised in order not to waste your energy. But occasionally a scene will slip in, it will get past the positive vetting procedures and then fail at the editing stage. For example, in my latest novel, I had a character called Simon, an atheist so fascinated by churches that he visited them compulsively and wrote erudite books about them. ML: Was church history going to play a major rôle in the book? JleC: Of course not, that’s my point, this was a case of over-elaborate characterisation, a beginner’s mistake, you just don’t get such people in real life and they don’t make long speeches about the security services being out of political control. I actually made the same mistake with another character, Janet, an American, long settled in the UK, a trained philosopher, once a firebrand socialist, now mugged by reality, she was supposed to have a column in the Telegraph. I ask you! It’s embarrassing just to remember it. Who’s going to believe that? Maybe some earnest young undergraduate, but my readers wouldn't take the tosh I had coming out of her mouth about US presidents sanctioning mass surveillance and impounding journalists’ notebooks. My readers demand reality, feet firmly on the ground. ML: That sounds very serious. Is there no humour allowed in a le Carré book? JleC: There’s the odd high table epigram, I suppose, but you have to be careful with humour. I had a character called Stephan, for example, and I thought the scenes with him in were going swimmingly but then my editor pointed out that poor old Stephan just sounded like a buffoon, not the idea at all, and his appearances were verging on slapstick. Complete loss of dramatic tension. Out he had to go. What I think people want from my books is an insight into the hidden decision-making processes of public administration. Stephan was arguing that all personal information should be made public for the greater good. But he couldn't think of any way the greater good would be advanced. In everyday life, that would be the end of his project, Whitehall would kick it out, but in early versions of my book he was allowed to pursue his ridiculous programme. No good, you see – I'm not selling fantasy. ML: I'm interested that you should talk there of public administration and Whitehall civil servants. Your books are political but there are no politicians in them. JleC: I think the odd minister may turn up every now and again but, no, in the main, it’s best to have the politicians as silent characters, influences who make their requirements known mysteriously, they’re more effective that way. I tried putting a character called Nick in at one stage, a deputy prime minister who bore no resemblance whatever, I need hardly add, to any living person. Nick, in the book, was trying to introduce a computerised national electoral roll while heaping opprobrium on the previous administration for trying to introduce ID cards and a computerised national identity register. He claimed that he was a liberal, promoting democracy, and at the same time legislated to make it a criminal offence not to register. Hopelessly incredible, out went those scenes and the book is much improved now, in my opinion, with Nick saying nothing. ML: The waste paper basket next to your desk is beginning to overflow, isn’t it? JleC: Now now, Mr Lawson, I know I'm old, but waste paper basket, indeed! No, I press the delete button, just like other writers. But yes, you’re right, my recycle bin is filling up. I had a couple of journalists in the first draft, Fraser and Charles, writing sermons in defence of the security services, but they were caricatures, no journalist today would bend the knee just because of a D-Notice and Fraser, in particular, was meant to be a brave Leveson refusenik. It didn't make sense having him support official mass surveillance in the same breath. And I went a bit over the top having Charles compare Edward Snowden to the real spies of the Cold War. A silly mistake that the character Charles was far too intelligent to make. ML: So what are we left with in the novel, John, what is there for your loyal readers to look forward to? JleC: I'm rather hoping they’ll buy the book and find out for themselves but it’s not giving too much away to say that the plot revolves around a pretty young salesman called Martha who convinces a cynical former permanent secretary that all public services in the UK should be delivered on the internet and they hire a web designer from the Guardian and put him in charge of creating a national identity assurance system. He’s never done anything like that before but they get him a computer guru to help, some chap who’s left the BBC under mysterious circumstances, and soon they have a veto over government policy and they take control of government cloud computing. Only, a few days later, it’s announced that the US National Security Agency have access to everything in the cloud, there is no privacy, no confidentiality, no secrecy. Coincidentally, parliament has just decided to put all its computing in the cloud and there’s a tense scene where Joan, the woman in charge, says that it doesn’t matter about the NSA listening in, or the Chinese, or the Russians, because everything in parliament is meant for public consumption anyway and on the same day that the Intelligence and Security Committee announce that cyberattacks are the biggest threats facing the country the Board of Trade kicks off an initiative called "midata" to get everyone to store all their personal data in cyberspace. ML: And that’s the bit you expect your readers to believe? Good luck with that, Mr Cornwell, and thank you for that insight into the writer's craft. More reality, my guest tomorrow has amassed a fortune making radical feminist films in the backstreets of Havana. Join us again to find out how it's done. Until then, goodbye.

Smiley's people

Writing in today's Guardian, Simon Jenkins makes the case that reality comprises the bits John le Carré cuts out of his novels.

The Shakespeare poll

As noted, Stephan Shakespeare, the founder of YouGov, the political polling organisation, has been asked to devise a national data strategy. He has produced an independent review of public sector information (PSI) in which he says that PSI should be given to innovative data scientists because some good may come of it but it's hard to say what that good might be.

The Exchequer would be deprived of at least £143 million of revenue but letting the innovative data scientists have the PSI for free would "leverage wider economic benefits far exceeding this by orders of magnitude". The wider economic benefits are unknown, as is the number of orders of magnitude by which they would exceed £143 million.

It's a "straightforward decision", he says, although it looks more like a straightforward guess, "the reforms that I have suggested should not result in an unjustifiably high cost to Government". Should? That depends what cost you regard as "high" and when you regard it as "unjustifiably" high.

It's a moot point. Shakespeare admits that "forecasting future benefits is also hard to predict. How businesses and individuals might use datasets in the future to generate new products and services and by implication impact economic growth, is equally unknown".

Despite having no costs available and despite being unable to name the benefits, Shakespeare says "my conclusion is that to quantify the costs and benefits precisely from outside Government is difficult due to the many complexities, however, I think there is sufficient evidence to support the theory that the benefits far outweigh the costs". Think? This looks more like make-believe.

Is he right? How would you know?

In the old days, when people still mooted, you might have insisted on being provided with facts and with a valid argument.

Not now. Now you conduct a poll, don't you.

And that's what we did. The results are there for all to see at the top of this web page, on the right, for just a few days more. "Is the Shakespeare review make-believe?", we asked on 4 June 2013, we broadcast the question to the blogosphere and the Tweetosphere and we left the polls open for a whole month.

Since the polls closed, innovative data scientists have been innovatively analysing the scientific results and here they are, presented graphically in the simple primary colours that even you can be expected to understand:

Over 83% of respondents consider Shakespeare's argument to be make-believe – incontrovertible evidence that we should ignore his review.

Only six votes were cast, you may say. Would that worry you if the result had gone the other way? How many votes would it take to convince you?

How do you decide the answers to those questions?

More polls?

The Shakespeare poll

As noted, Stephan Shakespeare, the founder of YouGov, the political polling organisation, has been asked to devise a national data strategy. He has produced an independent review of public sector information (PSI) in which he says that PSI should be given to innovative data scientists because some good may come of it but it's hard to say what that good might be.

"MPs express concern about the digital by default strategy"

C.f. Digital-by-default, an open letter to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and Digital-by-default – an eternal mystery? and Four professors review the Government Digital Strategy and IDAP: the stories our MPs are told and Shakespeare's take on property and ...

From: Science & Technology Committee [mailto:scitechcom@parliament.uk] Sent: 09 July 2013 00:01 Subject: Science and Technology Committee Press Release No.18: Embargoed until 00.01am Tuesday 9 July 2013 To: Attachments: 130617 Chair to Francis Maude.pdf  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE Select Committee Announcement No. 18 (13-14): 8 July 2013 MPS EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT THE THE DIGITAL BY DEFAULT STRATEGY **EMBARGOED until 00.01am Tuesday 9 July 2013** The Science and Technology Committee has today written to Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude MP raising a number of concerns about the Government’s Digital by Default strategy – including questions about the potential savings promised by the strategy and its implications for personal data security. The Committee urges the Government to be clearer about the savings being made as services become Digital by Default, including the costs of designing, or redesigning, online services. Andrew Miller MP, Chair of the Select Committee said: “A key justification of the Digital by Default strategy is savings to the taxpayer. Yet it is not evident that the Government is even able to measure these savings.”  In addition, the Committee is concerned that as public services go online, the Government may not keep up with advances in technology and that inadequacies in Government software may lead to security vulnerabilities. There is a risk that third party suppliers providing identity assurance could pass on their security vulnerabilities. Andrew Miller MP, said: “Public trust is absolutely essential. The Government must ensure the integrity and security of data and give people sufficient control over their stored personal information otherwise, the Digital by Default strategy will not succeed. We will continue to monitor the implementation of the strategy.”  The Committee considered the recently published draft identity assurance principles and suggests that the Government includes a ninth principle stating that (i) if a dispute arises concerning a citizen’s online dataset, that the citizen should be initially presumed correct; and (ii) if a mistake has been made, the citizen’s data should be instantly corrected. Digital by Default evidence sessions Science and Technology Committee Follow the Committee's business on Twitter @CommonsSTC FURTHER INFORMATION Committee Membership: Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Chair) Jim Dowd (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge) Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock) David Morris (Conservative, Morecambe and Lunesdale) Stephen Mosley (Conservative, City of Chester) Pamela Nash (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts) Sarah Newton (Conservative, Truro and Falmouth) Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) David Tredinnick (Conservative, Bosworth) Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon) Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire) Specific Committee Information:  scitechcom@parliament.uk / 020 7219 2793 Media Information: Nick Davies  daviesnick@parliament.uk / 020 7219 3297 Committee Website: www.parliament.uk/science Watch committees and parliamentary debates online:  www.parliamentlive.tv Publications / Reports / Reference Material: Copies of all select committee reports are available from the Parliamentary Bookshop (12 Bridge St, Westminster, 020 7219 3890) or the Stationery Office (0845 7023474).  Committee reports, press releases, evidence transcripts, Bills; research papers, a directory of MPs, plus Hansard (from 8am daily) and much more, can be found on www.parliament.uk. UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.

"MPs express concern about the digital by default strategy"

C.f. Digital-by-default, an open letter to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and Digital-by-default – an eternal mystery? and Four professors review the Government Digital Strategy and IDAP: the stories our MPs are told and Shakespeare's take on property and ...

From: Science & Technology Committee [mailto:scitechcom@parliament.uk] Sent: 09 July 2013 00:01 Subject: Science and Technology Committee Press Release No.18: Embargoed until 00.01am Tuesday 9 July 2013 To: Attachments: 130617 Chair to Francis Maude.pdf  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE Select Committee Announcement No. 18 (13-14): 8 July 2013 MPS EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT THE THE DIGITAL BY DEFAULT STRATEGY **EMBARGOED until 00.01am Tuesday 9 July 2013** The Science and Technology Committee has today written to Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude MP raising a number of concerns about the Government’s Digital by Default strategy – including questions about the potential savings promised by the strategy and its implications for personal data security. The Committee urges the Government to be clearer about the savings being made as services become Digital by Default, including the costs of designing, or redesigning, online services. Andrew Miller MP, Chair of the Select Committee said: “A key justification of the Digital by Default strategy is savings to the taxpayer. Yet it is not evident that the Government is even able to measure these savings.”  In addition, the Committee is concerned that as public services go online, the Government may not keep up with advances in technology and that inadequacies in Government software may lead to security vulnerabilities. There is a risk that third party suppliers providing identity assurance could pass on their security vulnerabilities. Andrew Miller MP, said: “Public trust is absolutely essential. The Government must ensure the integrity and security of data and give people sufficient control over their stored personal information otherwise, the Digital by Default strategy will not succeed. We will continue to monitor the implementation of the strategy.”  The Committee considered the recently published draft identity assurance principles and suggests that the Government includes a ninth principle stating that (i) if a dispute arises concerning a citizen’s online dataset, that the citizen should be initially presumed correct; and (ii) if a mistake has been made, the citizen’s data should be instantly corrected. Digital by Default evidence sessions Science and Technology Committee Follow the Committee's business on Twitter @CommonsSTC FURTHER INFORMATION Committee Membership: Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Chair) Jim Dowd (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge) Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock) David Morris (Conservative, Morecambe and Lunesdale) Stephen Mosley (Conservative, City of Chester) Pamela Nash (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts) Sarah Newton (Conservative, Truro and Falmouth) Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) David Tredinnick (Conservative, Bosworth) Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon) Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire) Specific Committee Information:  scitechcom@parliament.uk / 020 7219 2793 Media Information: Nick Davies  daviesnick@parliament.uk / 020 7219 3297 Committee Website: www.parliament.uk/science Watch committees and parliamentary debates online:  www.parliamentlive.tv Publications / Reports / Reference Material: Copies of all select committee reports are available from the Parliamentary Bookshop (12 Bridge St, Westminster, 020 7219 3890) or the Stationery Office (0845 7023474).  Committee reports, press releases, evidence transcripts, Bills; research papers, a directory of MPs, plus Hansard (from 8am daily) and much more, can be found on www.parliament.uk. UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.