Economics made simple

The Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) belatedly issued a press release about the midata Innovation Lab which includes this:

Consumer Affairs Minister Jo Swinson said: "Today’s most successful businesses are the ones that are creative about building customer relationships. The new ’midata’ Lab is an exciting opportunity to put this to the test and explore how businesses could help customers use the data around their spending habits to make better choices. "There is a lot to be gained from being open and using the information gathered on customers with their knowledge. Developing new and innovative ways to see data also helps improve customer service which will in turn promote growth. I would encourage businesses and developers alike to take advantage of this opportunity and establish themselves as a market leader in the digital market."

Is that true? Do you have a "customer relationship" with Unilever? If not, it doesn't seem to have stopped Unilever from becoming a pretty successful business. What is Ms Swinson talking about? What does she know about economics? Very possibly, nothing, but it doesn't stop her claiming that midata will "promote growth". Utterly unconvincing, where does this idea come from?

Does it come, perhaps, from Professor Sir Nigel Shadbolt's Open Data Institute (ODI)? He's in charge at the ODI and he's in charge of midata and he says::

The Open Data Institute is catalysing the evolution of open data culture to create economic, environmental, and social value. It helps unlock supply, generates demand, creates and disseminates knowledge to address local and global issues.

Where did the ODI get this idea from? Was it, perhaps, from the Shakespeare Review?

Famously, Stephan Shakespeare – the founder of YouGov, the political polling organisation, the man who is devising a national data strategy for the UK – believes simultaneously that (a) you can't tell how much it will cost to open up Public Sector Information (PSI) and (b) the return will be "orders of magnitude" higher than the cost. But where did he get the idea?

Was it, perhaps, from the European Commission? Yes, them again:

Europe's New PSI Directive ... The expected effect of this new set of guidelines is also to generate income, as PSI data is raw ore to developers' — public or private —gold. Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission and head of the Digital Agenda, highlighted the potential economic value of going open with PSI: "Opening up public data means opening up commercial opportunities, creating jobs and building communities." She heralds it as a necessary transformation of European public and private culture. Despite the welcome perspective of promoting transparency and racking up to €140bn in business and employment, critics quibble that the new directive could have gone further ...

Probably. Possibly. Who knows where these Economics for Dummies ideas come from? They're memes. It's all something to do with the hive brain. That's what the artificial intelligence people would have us believe. Neural networks can demonstrate that we bees can take concerted action, but never how we manage it.

So many experts in economics, they pop up everywhere, like mushrooms, but can you be sure that opening up PSI will help the economy to grow by €140 billion? No. You know that.

All you can be sure of is that your personal data will be harvested along with the public data, as the midata Innovation Lab have confirmed (your public education, health and travel data will all be added to your passport number and National Insurance number and bank account details), and that you will be required to store your data in a personal data store (midata), which "identity providers" will then use to confirm your identity whenever you interact with the government to access public services (IDAP/the identity assurance programme).

And don't forget – it's now illegal in the UK not to register on-line to vote.

The economic result of all the proposed data-sharing is unknown. The only thing that's certain is that you will be enrolled in a national or possibly even a pan-European identity management system.

World-class economics expert though she may be, that's what Jo Swinson's really talking about. Even if her officials haven't told her.

Economics made simple

The Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) belatedly issued a press release about the midata Innovation Lab which includes this:

Consumer Affairs Minister Jo Swinson said: "Today’s most successful businesses are the ones that are creative about building customer relationships. The new ’midata’ Lab is an exciting opportunity to put this to the test and explore how businesses could help customers use the data around their spending habits to make better choices. "There is a lot to be gained from being open and using the information gathered on customers with their knowledge. Developing new and innovative ways to see data also helps improve customer service which will in turn promote growth. I would encourage businesses and developers alike to take advantage of this opportunity and establish themselves as a market leader in the digital market."

Is that true? Do you have a "customer relationship" with Unilever? If not, it doesn't seem to have stopped Unilever from becoming a pretty successful business. What is Ms Swinson talking about? What does she know about economics? Very possibly, nothing, but it doesn't stop her claiming that midata will "promote growth". Utterly unconvincing, where does this idea come from?

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.