Well the government today has shown us all how secure its data is. 25 million people and all their confidential information just sent by carrier on two discs, and lost....
Sadly, this level of incompetence is what we can expect if we ever are unfortunate enough to get Identity Cards. Just imagine the Biometric data of millions of people being stolen, well more likely picked up for free when some government twit throws it outside in a dustbin.
How about the database of all the children that is being made, including their addresses and capable of being accessed by some 300,000 or so authorised users.
It's all about as secure as a small metal bowl full of holes, a sieve I believe it's called.
I'm assuming the data was all heavily encrypted, so if it gets into the wrong hands then it should be pretty much useless anyway. I also notice no-one's yet suggested revoking TNT's contract as a result, like completely losing stuff is perfectly normal for them.
John, I'm with you in not being full of confidence for any large-scale schemes as a result of this. You'd think there'd be some kind of secure electronic transfer system for details like this anyway, but apparently not.
I am not full of confidence but either. The encryption will not actually stop people who are serious though! It could be a case of someone in the department having two disks on their desk and not realising what the hell it is!
This is a major embarrassment for the government that is for sure.
What makes me laugh hardest about this (and believe me, I know its not a laughing matter) is the fact that Alastair Darling is sure that the 'bad guys' don't have their hands on it. How on Earth does he know?
Sheer incompetence on a ridiculously high level. Two disks placed in an internal mail envelope and sent via non-registered courier post across London...genius.
Can't wait to see how they screw up the new medical database, not to mention the ID card scheme.
Nothing says "romance" like a kidnapped injured woman!
i had hardly think its fair to blame tnt for this as no one is sure even if it made it that far and isn't still in a forgotten desk out tray - and even if it had got to them, who in their right mind would send that information unrecorded by dispatch? is the inland revenue now run by monkeys? and the painful thing is this isn't the first occasion valuable data had been lost because it was posted. surely the government could stretch as far as sending it in a security van - the school dinner money at work gets a securitas escort for gods sake!
According to the papers it was because an 'unnamed' junior official broke all of the security rules for this item and NAO did not even ask for all that information it asked for account references and a name only! What were they thinking. They are not naming the junior office but they are quoted as saying 'I hoped it would just turn up somewhere' I think they were referring to the postal strike causing a delay.
Heads have rolled especially a man at the top who seems to have taken the flack for something major before he was able to really step in and fix the whole department. Alastair Darling seems to have accepted his resignation in a puerile attempt to prevent him from loosing his cabinet post. . . . We shall see how it pans out!
Apparently the info on the disks wasn't even encrypted...so that bodes well for the ID card scheme doesn't it!
Cost cutting seems to be to blame, the NAO only wanted a subset of the data (as Mike mentioned), the HMRC basically said it would be too expensive to separate the child data from the parents and said they would just have to have everything. I'm guessing this means that encrypting the data was considered too costly as well?
One good thing that has come out of it is that the Information Commissioner is now allowed to do spot checks on individual government departments to ensure they are keeping to proper data protection rules. Previously, the department has had to approve an audit before one can take place...giving them time to get everything in order.
Nothing says "romance" like a kidnapped injured woman!
Did you see the pictures today of the office at work - tracksuits, baseball caps...it's all part of a sloppy attitude.
Now I know that there's nothing intrinsically wrong in being casual at work - you could still do a cracking job - but psychologically if people have to dress smart they do have a different attitude. It's more "professional". I wouldn't want to see a doctor in a Hawiian shirt and shorts....
This I suppose is some of the logic behind school uniforms. It's to give a sense of pride and belonging.
So, should we have government offices back in suits? We probably should IMHO.
Based on personal experience, the highest performing people in our office dress fairly casually. Comfort equates to better productivity, it seems. Our dress code's quite easy: no jeans, no huge logos, nothing offensive, no shorts. There was a sex discrimination case which means all staff don't have to wear ties now, and will never be obliged to again. Given the lack of air conditioning in some offices, I'd say this has improved comfort for staff, and quite likely productivity as well. In short: no damn suits please!
As for the data protection issue itself, it's still a big "WTF!? Fools!" from me.
How is it sexual discrimination to wear a tie? Women could wear ties if they wanted to and they sometimes do just that! I am confused about this.
We have a building in the office where a huge feck off ramp is ruining the scheme to cope with about 0.35% of the population whilst the other 99.65% are being discriminated against! How is that fair?!
It's sexual discrimination to force men to wear ties whilst women are exempt from the rule. Well, in the DWP at least.
Mike, if we take the argument the whole way, we may as well provide no benefits or health care for the disabled, thus killing them earlier and removing the inconvenience of their existence: it would cost less and remove them from the gene pool. And then our buildings would look cool!
Sorry, slightly facetious point, but I feel a society should be measured, in part, by how it treats its most vulnerable members.
No extra news on the data protection crisis I can see, except the government are likely to be really strict about things until everyone forgets about it in a year or two.
If one thing pisses me off about my work as a teacher then it is this - uniform. Every single headteacher and local educational authority I have worked under insists that every student should have their tie up and shirt tucked in... fair enough. However, they also DO NOT insist that the women who enforce these rules should look as smart as the men. All the men in high schools I have been in have had to wear a suit and tie. All the women it seems are exempt from anything remotely smart looking. I was virtually castrated for stating this point but still stuck to my guns! Some look like an advert for New Look for Christ's sake. (This isn't just mine by the way, while I'm on the point, but all the primary schools and all the local secondary schools I've been in) Why? I agree with the students in my school when they complain that the female teacher doesn't look smart but still shouts at them for not putting their shirt in.
"A word to the wise ain't necessary -- it's the stupid ones that need the advice." Bill Cosby
But isn't not tucking in of the shirt an essential part of rebelling against authority. Whereas the constant insistence of the teachers that they should be tucked in is a useful life lesson in the futility of trying to be authoritarian?
A prominent visitor to Salford Grammar School delivered a long and arduous speech, the pinnacle of his thinking being that it was a good school because the hair cuts were generally very sensible. We knew he was a pillock at that point, that is, if we had doubted it before.
That wasn't relevant I know, but I just thought of it and decided to include it anyway. :)
And to add to that, I've probably mentioned this before, but it's always annoyed me.
There were only enought chairs in assembly for three years of pupils, so for three years I stood up whilst years 4,5 and 6 sat down.
Then someone decided that it wasn't fair for the younger ones to have to stand, so I then spent years 4,5 and 6 stood up as well.
This has obviously deeply scarred me and caused a basic dislike of standing at any time, along with a low tolerance for long speeches such as the sort headmasters feel they have to deliver at regular intervals.
