Curiouser and Curiouser!

Curiouser and Curiouser! on e-government http://matt.blogs.it/ RSS feed for topic e-government Copyright 2006 Matt Mower Squib/0.1 self@mattmower.com self@mattmower.com en-gb open standards, not open source Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:14:13 +0100 <A href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26752.html">O'Reilly questions free-SW regs</A>. Politics, yuck [<A href="http://www.theregister.co.uk">The Register</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Legislate to mandate open standards for e-government, not open source.  Sounds reasonable to me.  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000365.html The real argument is e-gov should be open Tue, 20 Aug 2002 22:53:14 +0100 In the former case its patents and proprietary file formats, in the latter case its misuse of the law. Where is the integrity in either case? So, lets use software written by developers who show each other respect and integrity, by developers who wouldnt lock down our choice and our data by legialation or non-openness. It isnt commercial vs. open source, but rather, closed against open. The Intellectual Property (and Thought) police against the common man. Lets not lose perspective! [<A href="http://tig.nareau.com/">TIG's Corner</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Hmmm... I'm not sure that a law that specifies that governments have to use open source software is "misuse of the law".  You may find it not to your liking, you may not agree with it, but I don't see how it's a misuse.  Also I think it's very hard to legislate respect. I do agree that the real argument should be about open vs. closed (read proprietary).  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000395.html Shrinking liberties... it doesn't wash with me Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:46:47 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://www.smartmobs.com/archives/000692.html">Smart Mobs</A> picks up on a <A href="http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11573&c=39">report</A> by the <A href="http://www.aclu.org/">ACLU</A> which argues that surveillance is increasing, civil liberty guarantees are shrinking, and the combined impact of surveillance data from multiple sources is far greater than the sum of its parts. Although I only follow the issues from the sidelines, I have growing concerns about corporate and governmental prying. The more my life is easily traced by following electronic trails, the more I worry about who is sniffing those trails out. Whether or not my career as a criminal mastermind is tediously pedestrian is beside the point - the fact that I have nothing to hide makes me more concerned about my actions being watched, logged, collated, catgeorised and cross-referenced. Sometimes I take comfort in the thought that the more data the government has, the less it will know what to do with it. Trying to integrate it meaningfully will be way too complicated - trying to see and understand patterns across all the disparate data streams is just a cyber-spook's wet-dream. But then I get back to cold reality. Just because they can't do it, won't stop them trying. The integration may not be meaningful - the patterns may not be understood - but patterns there will be. And in the paranoid world of the cyber-spook, an excess of false positives will be a fair price to pay for tracking down the bad guys. So my real concern is not that they're sniffing my electronic trail. Sure, it's an invasion of my privacy but it's rather an abstract invasion. My real concern is what cock-eyed conclusions someone will draw from matching this parameter with that pattern and what real-life, concrete actions they will take against me (or you, or any of the other millions of people whose profile just doesn't smell right). Paranoid? Maybe. Except, they are watching us... [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0118812/">Making Connections</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> Simon neatly identifies the conumdrum facing most of us in relation to privacy issues.  We see our rights being eroded on the back of claims of this or that (today it's terrorism) but we have no trust in the custodians that they will not betray us. That the government cannot possibly assimilate all the information it eventually hopes to hold does not, however, make me feel any happier.  This is, I think, for two reasons: <OL> <LI>We have seen many times how a single idea (or cluster of related ideas) can revolutionise an industry completely.  Today they may not be able to use the data in aggregate, but they will keep it and, who knows what they will be able to do tomorrow?</LI> <LI>The data may not be useful in aggregate but it will be open to targetted abuse.  That is, if my data is separable somehow from everyone elses then what is to stop corrupt officials from selling it to those who, for their own reasons, would wish to use it against me.</LI></OL> Even if these massive TIA style super-databases are a boon in the fight against crime (and I have yet to see the cogent and persuasive arguments for this) I would, I think, still be find the countervailing arguments for liberty more compelling. Total Information Awareness and it's ilk are sledgehammer solution to the wrong problem.  We should not be asking how to catch more terrorists but how to avoid situations in which terrorists want to kill us. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001192.html Electronic patient records... fileshare anyone? Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:47:38 +0100 <blockquote><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/23/nhs_data_security/">How safe is your medical record?</a>. Decide for yourselves, says UK.gov IT supremo By Lucy Sherriff <lucy.sherriff @theregister.co.uk="">. [<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/">The Register</a>]</lucy.sherriff> <lucy.sherriff @theregister.co.uk=""></lucy.sherriff></blockquote> <lucy.sherriff @theregister.co.uk=""> </lucy.sherriff>Richard Granger, director general of the National Programme for IT, was speaking today about the introduction of electronic patient records.  He was, obviously, quick to sound the benefits (and there are many) but a little more coy about how this information will be secured.  His response: <blockquote>"The system is NOT secure at the moment," he said. "There is lots of private personal information flowing around by phone, by post, by fax, and even by post-it note. Electronic records will be more secure, and more accurate." </blockquote> Whilst it is true that the current system is not terribly secure it is probably protected by it's lack of centrality which makes systematic abuse more difficult.  Besides, as El Reg points out, replacing one insecure system with another, more expensive, insecure system isn't an example of great thinking. For someone with the responsibility (and salary) of DG of the National Programme for IT I think Mr Granger should have better answers on a key question like this. After all it's hardly the first time it's come up! http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002358.html