To continue the questioning theme in respect of Nanny's HMRC cock up of the century:
Could Nanny please explain to her subjects why she not only sent the data records of 25 million of her subjects to the National Audit Office, but also to KPMG?
What the fark have they got an interest in this data for?
Is this not also a breach of the data protection act?
The thing is Ken that there is absolutely no point at all in keeping any data records if the data are not going to be used.
ReplyDeleteNanny is totally reliant on outsourced partnerships so other 'agencies' will clearly be involved with use of the records. The question is who are they and how reliable are they?
For many of the things that we 'need not be worried about if we have nothing to hide' there are probably at least 3000 officially entitled bodies, authorised by government process and partnerships, who have 'a right' to ask for information. These range from the NAO and similar bodies indirectly assessing the workings of government through to the companies working for local councils enforcing parking rules. I would guess that the NAO is likely to be somewhat more careful about its handling of the data than the typical wheel clamper. But it is the weakest link that matters.
(As an aside - I read in the paper this morning that the discs that have previously been sent out successfully have subsequently been returned. Why? What earthly purpose would that serve other than to put them at greater risk of loss? Why not just destroy them? And the data copies and derivations that will have been made if they have been used for any sort of analysis.)
I can only assume that the civil service and members of government are extremely naive about computer systems, think the public is extremely naive about computer systems or both. Certainly the former as it is the only explanation for so many expensive system developments going so badly wrong and over budget over so many years.
I can't actually believe that the service providers like EDS and Siemens are so generically and completely incompetent as ministers would like to claim in their own defence. Those companies are, after all, very capable of negotiating contracts which result in large revenue streams and guarantees of income even in cases of failure or cancellation. So one would have to conclude that either they plan to fail, in order to extend the tax grab potential, or political definition of projects and subsequent meddling with the specification makes their job impossible.
Or both of these factors and a number of others are in play.
On the other hand ...
What if these disks never went anywhere or perhaps never existed?
Any government who wanted to reduce the amount in information 'entitled' to be publically available might have some difficulty putting forward proposals for ever greater secrecy UNLESS they found a way to get the public clamouring for ever greater restrictions. The claim that 2 discs have been mislaid and MAY have fallen into the hands of dastardly people who could use it to their financial advantage, though whether this is the case may never be known, would be a perfect excuse for even greater restriction across the board encompassing much wider data types than would be necessary for personal privacy.
Previously the Data protection act has been a useful device for Nanny to bury information. Some recent legal pronouncements have made the breadth of that instrument appear rather wider than it should be. Stoking up new concerns from the public might be just perfect for regaining lost control options.
On the other hand simple incompetence seems far more likely.
It's just got worse - six more discs are now reported as missing on the news today.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you honestly expect when a government department is managed by a bunch of clowns at the top?