09 Mar 2008

Civil Serf: another one bites the dust

*Sigh* Civil Serf is down, after a piece in the Sunday Times. Could just be traffic, but I reckon she cant keep up the blog and hold down her job. 

 

08 Mar 2008

Really Responsive Government

Yesterday, mis-reading a blog on a business network, I made a comment about a little problem with an overseas government’s online service;

Amazingly, it was passed to that country’s Prime Minister, who had the problem fixed, instantly.

That’s what I call Ideal Government!

More details below…

 

More of the weeks’ ID stuff: catching up on Demos’s “FYI”

Demos were dishing out copies of their 2007 For Your Information report at Thursday’s ID speech. I hadn’t seen it before, and it’s quite good, tho it doesn’t condense very well into its executive summary.

It focusses straight on the issue of mechanised compassion and rules-based discrimination. That, the authors argue, is why we need a politics of personal information: there’s a tension between empowerment through information and control by information. It recommends that people must be put at the centre of their own information flows and protect their personal information. Government should get its act together on the issue, apply “cash-handling” disciplines to personal data. About the ID Scheme they say

There needs to be a serious, renewed debate about the identity card scheme, with the kind of engagement that should have happened at the start of the process. Otherwise, the scheme should be dropped.

Interesting piece of work. All these pieces of work - Crosby, FYI, the OECD piece - suggest a maturing of the debate.

I reckon the one piece of text that didn’t add much to ID life last week was the Home Secretary’s speech - the Demos director Catherine Fieschi’s intro was a whole stack better. And surely the seminal ID event of last week will turn out to be the Microsoft-Credentica deal. 

 

Reflections on the Crosby report

Soon after I’d signed to A&M Records the MD of a small merchant bank tried to explain the pop industry to me: “Essentially,"he said, “it all revolves around the bank.” In his long-awaited, much delayed & redacted and nearly buried-alive report Sir James Crosby views identity assurance from the same perspective.

He uses a banker’s vision of ID assurance to charge down the wholly government-centric view of ID management. The banker’s version is more enlightened than the Home Office/IPS/unmentionables version because it recognises up front that this must work for the data subjects. Crosby uses each of three terms - consumer, customer, citizen - in different contexts without elaboration. But he doesn’t seem to have talked to a lot of them per se.

Those hoping for robust public debate ID management or assurance will be delighted. Those who never wanted a debate but just wanted everyone to do what they’re told managed to delay things for quite a bit but now simply have to gnash their teeth and start to face reality. The confirmation of different perspectives in different Departments has belatedly brought government into a two-dimensional debate. There is of course more to come.

Here are a few specific thoughts on ”Challenges and Opportunities”.

Crosby makes a series of powerful points about switching from the “control” model of central ID management to more a consumer-led system of ID assurance. I made dozens of ticks in the margins about points like consumer acceptance and technological evolution, and even a few smileys.

In over a decade of looking for it, it’s the first time I’ve seen long-overdue presumptions for the deletion of unnecessary personal data and maximal anonymity in a government report. The Home Secretary said

Sir James strongly supports a universal identity scheme, including a role for identity cards, and makes a strong case for speedy and consumer-led introduction.

This may be. But the headline-news finding, (as I quoted below) is that he dismisses the Benighted Scheme as an irrelevance: it won’t deliver the customer-led ID assurance he says is necessary.

He writes as if he overestimates the extent to which people or businesses need to know each other. For example he says cash facilitated trade between people “who didn’t necessarily know each other” but he could have said “between people who longer needed to know or trust each other”. Cash works fine anonymously. And suppliers don’t always have to know their customers. I happen to know the opera- and cricket-loving Mr Patel who sells me newspapers but that’s an incidental pleasure and not germane to our transaction. He says Chip & PIN enjoys high levels of trust but, like the citizens of Peterborough, I’d rather hand over cash to Sri Lankans in a petrol station full of CCTV cameras.

He doesn’t seem to set out why one universal ID assurance scheme is so much more desirable than a series of overlapping schemes that work well. If there is to be just one scheme, are all the others to be exterminated somehow, or just fall into disuse?

He assumes that the output of a successful ID assurance scheme will inevitably be a mass of surveillance audit data for security purposes. This ignores the possibility of anonymous or privacy-protective schemes (such as Microsoft will soon be able to provide after its acquisition the same day of Credentica). This comes back to his own point about consumer acceptance. Given a choice, will consumers choose a scheme which is known to leak data to law enforcement over one that doesn’t? Or will it be like the phone system, where everyone can be tapped unless they go to extreme lengths of an encrypted phone or use Skype? Put another way, will consumers be as offended by ”Eingriffe in den absolut geschützten Kernbereich privater Lebensgestaltung” as the authors of the German constitution are?

He is much more focussed on social and economic benefits in an increasingly online world than the (now mostly long-gone) architects of the Home Office/IPS/Intellect/spook-central Scheme. His arguments about the benefits of increased usage really only apply to new business in the online world. It’s not as if more convenient systems of ID assertion are going to make us want more bank accounts, do more foreign travel or to apply for more jobs.

Anyway, a pretty cool piece of work in very challenging circumstances, so well done Sir James and the team. He forgot to credit Ruth, Scott and me for the presentation Kable worked pretty hard to put together for him and his team. But hey - it was fun to do, and his report echoes a lot of what we said.

 

07 Mar 2008

LibDem MP Richard Allan was ahead of his time…

You know this fab new suggestion that we can choose whether to have an ID Card or a passport after we’ve been interrogated, fingerprinted and enrolled on two different registers? I seem to recall someone suggesting three years ago the last people we needed to issue ID cards to were people with passports. But the government was too busy pressing ahead to listen....

 

“The web and I” - a reflection

Sir Bonar Neville-Kingdom writes

Can I first say how delighted I am to be communicating with you all through the medium of this ideal government online web log. You may be surprised to learn that this is something of a first for a serving Permanent Secretary. But we should not be surprised.

The famous talk I always give to fresh young high-fliers when they arrive in the Office is based around what I call the six C’s. The first is Continuity. But the second is Change. Third is Communications, and fourth is Co-ordination. Sometimes the media accuse us of Centralisation, but we prefer to call it Co-ordination (from the centre).

Continuity and Change, Communication and Co-ordination: these are what defines the Cabinet Office, which is the fifth C. And the Cabinet Office, at the heart of the Civil Service, gives us our sixth C.

The Civil Service, and in particular the Cabinet Office, has changed out of all recognition in the years since I joined it: computers, air-conditioning, and water coolers, to mention but three Changes. Yet, throughout all that Change we have provided Continuity. These are not mere words. This is the very essence of our professionalism.

Now of course, we’re adding a seventh C to everything we do: Customer insight. May I say straight away that I am profoundly enthusiastic about Customer insight and its transformative potential right across Whitehall. I believe the work we have done in this area places the British Civil Service, and the Cabinet Office in particular, at the very forefront of Customer Insight. Indeed we welcome a constant stream of Commonwealth delegations here to study our leading work on Customer Insight.

But what is Customer Insight, and why is it so important to the future of the Civil Service? The answer, first hinted at in the seminal Nodiss policy work in 1999 (in which I can claim some involvement) is that Customer Insight means knowing as much as possible about everybody, so we can do our job better.

People differ greatly, and if we at the centre know as much as possible about their likes and dislikes, the things they’re good at and the things they’re perhaps not so good at, then we’re able to send out messages far more effectively, serve people better. This in turn means we can be far more efficient and effective as a country, which is what everyone wants. Of course, there’s a great deal more in the detail, but in essence it’s really as simple as that.

Before I finish this first blog-cast may I just thank our good friends at Ideal Government for giving me the opportunity to join this new channel of dissemination. I greatly look forward to continuing our fascinating conversation.

 

ID news: it ain’t all bad….

Well, the British government may grind on in its inexorable path of unenlightenment. But Microsoft has bought Credentica’s U-Prove patents. And Stefan Brands (one of the very few potential saviours of this world, whom the British government studiously ignores) is now colleagues with Kim Cameron (one of the very few other potential saviours of this particular world, whom the UK government also studiously ignores but whom the more enlightened Scottish government lionises). Great move Kim and Microsoft! Well deserved Stefan! I look forward to a great deal of synergy and traction. 

 

06 Mar 2008

Home Secretary and the future of ID Cards

Ho hum. I’m listening to the Home Secretary with a heavy heart..

She’s a true believer, and finds it inconceivable there should not be a single secure way to secure our identity. She asserts that the control of who gets one or not is or government. There’s language of choice, but it only really means you can use an ID Card or a Passport (or maybe soon a driving licence) to link to your record on the register. There’s a timescale and stuff, and they think they’ve carved £1bn out of the costs (details will be in the statutory cost review). I’ll try to reproduce all the language of choice, benefit, ability to correct problems.

Ooh. Michael Keegan from Fujitsu has just asked when Easter 2007 is likely to fall. The Minister’s answer is....today, alongside this, and the Crosby report is in the room. So let’s have an Easter egg hunt.

UPDATE 1348. It wasnt there, but it’s on the web now. Crosby says in his press blurb

“Like never before we all need to be able to assert our identity with ease and confidence. Collectively, our ability to do so is of significant economic and social consequence. But first and foremost our identity belongs to us, no one else. The potential of any mass ID system such as ID Cards therefore lies in the extent to which it is created by consumers for consumers.

“I have had the privilege of listening to a very wide range of opinion [Yup. He listened to our, and was both polite and pretty forthright in his own views]. But Government departments and agencies, private sector companies, regulators, special interest groups and technology providers were all united on one thing. The future of identity lies in putting the consumers first. [Hurrah] For many, including Government, that calls for radical new thinking.” [Hurrah]

Speaking about the ID Scheme he says this

I have no remit to comment on the desirability or otherwise of this plan [Which must be a relief for IPS]. However, in my opinion, the Strategic Action Plan (2006) will not be the catalyst for the emergence of the consumer-driven universal ID assurance system envisaged by this report.

Man, that’s the REDACTED version, after 18 months’ delay and wrangling. How must the original version have been like?

Then he sets out his 10 principles

For that to be the case, I believe the design of any ID card scheme would need to be based on the following
ten broad principles:

1. The purpose of any scheme should be restricted to that of enabling citizens to assert their identity with ease and confidence. The scheme should set targets for the quality of assurance achieved at enrolment and verification, which should generally exceed those achieved elsewhere, and it should regularly report its performance against those targets.

2. The scheme’s governance should be designed to inspire the highest level of trust among citizens. It should be operated independently of Government (say, accountable directly to Parliament) and in principle its processes and security arrangements should be subject to the approval of the Information Commissioner, who should have the power periodically to review delivery.

3. As a matter of principle, the amount of data stored should be minimised. Full biometric images (other than photographs) should not be kept. Only non-unique digital representations of biometric images should be stored. Additional data accessed during enrolment and records of verification enquiries should not be retained. All data and systems should be protected by “state of the art” encryption technology. Citizens should “own” their entry on any register in the sense that it should not be possible, other than for the purposes of national security, for any such data (to include digital representations of biometrics) to leave the register without their informed consent.
Verification of identity should be performed without the release of data.

4. Enrolment processes should be different for individuals with different circumstances, and change over time so as to minimise costs and give citizens the simplest and most hassle-free experience consistent with the achievement of the published assurance targets.

5. In order to respond to consumer demand and achieve early realisation of economic and social benefits, the scheme should be capable of being rolled out at pace.

6. In order to respond to consumer demand and achieve early realisation of economic and social benefits, the scheme should be capable of being rolled out at pace.

7. Citizens who lose cards or whose identity is compromised should be able to rely on their cards being replaced or their identity being repaired quickly and efficiently and in accordance with published service standards.

8. Technically the scheme’s systems should be closely aligned to those of the banks (both initially and in the future) so as to utilise their investment, de-risk the scheme’s development, and assist convergence to common standards across the ID assurance systems and processes deployed internationally by banks and other national ID card schemes.

9. To engage consumers’ hearts and minds on the scale required, enrolment and any tokens should be provided free of charge.

10. The market should play a role in delivering a universal ID assurance scheme. This will improve the ease with which consumers can use the scheme and minimise costs.

I regard each aspect of these principles to be critical to the goal of creating the conditions for a consumer-driven universal ID assurance scheme to emerge and flourish.

This is going to need careful comment and scrutiny. It’s already happening on the mail lists. Help! Sam! We need a CommentonThis version! (Maybe he’s doing it already).

 

05 Mar 2008

Scene set for ID announcement tomorrow….

Just got a message from the Pea-Moss (who often has an uncanny insight into the inner thoughts of the tribe). He said

that Cabinet met for approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes this morning. The main items of discussion were; where we were on ID cards ahead of Jacqui Smith’s speech on Thursday and a presentation from Ruth Kelly on roads and congestions, outlining some of the main themes of her speech this morning.

What is a Cabinet discussion on identity like? Do they interrupt each other like Johannes Humphrissimus Maximus Interromptor? Do they listen to each other? Is there any reflective silence? Do they seek to be guided by divine will, by “what technology wants” or some global view informed by Mori of what is best for the country? Or is everything couched in terms of how the Opposition will attack them and how it will look in the Murdoch press?

Does the dimension of the online world feature in their perceptions of ID? Did Cameron’s laws get an airing?

Questions, questions, Anyway, it seems the Minister called Jacqui Smith will answer them tomorrow. I understand she’s making a speech at a think tank tomorrow morning. Perhaps she’ll speak in da House tomorrow also. It still feels like a long haul before we’re out of the woods on this one, and before the “absolut geschütztes Kernbereich unserer privater Lebensgestaltung” is out of danger.

The Pea-Moss also said [asked where the Government was in regards to ID Cards]

that it was best to wait for Jacqui Smith’s speech on Thursday which would set out the latest state of play. Asked for more information on the ID Cards discussion at Cabinet this morning, the PMS said that Jacqui Smith would set out the position on Thursday and it was best to wait for that. Asked if the position on ID Cards was somewhat different to the current one, the PMS said it was important for people not to get too far ahead of themselves; what Jacqui Smith would be doing on Thursday was providing a bit more detail on the implementation.

OK: we’ll wait in hope, and we won’t get too far ahead of ourselves. If all they’re talking about is implementing the existing plan-as-described we shall remain calm and constructive. We may have to let the Germans sort this out first, then copy what they did in 20 years’ time. 

 

04 Mar 2008

David Cameron “mash-up” speech to Tory councillors in Warwickshire

Look what Her Majesty’s loyal opposition came up with last week

The second announcement I want to make today is about information. For decades, information, power and control have been monopolised by well meaning public officials.

Now, because of the internet and dynamic change in our broader culture, we can consign this top-down model to history. We’re entering a post-bureaucratic age, where true freedom of information is making possible a new world of people power, responsibility, citizenship, choice and local control.

One of the best examples is crime mapping. In cities all over America, police forces regularly publish information about crimes in their area. What type of crime, when it happened, and where. Anyone can take this information and overlay it on an online map. This gives the public unprecedented information about crimes in their local area. And it gives social entrepreneurs, drugs charities, and a whole host of organisations to pick out hotspots, see what needs doing and transform neighbourhoods.

But look at our Government at home. It’s still bureaucratic, still top-down and still old-world. It still thinks it knows best and that it should keep all the information.

If you don’t believe me, try getting a supposed freedom of information request on important issues like exactly how taxpayers’ money is being spent. It’s next to impossible.; this is bad for democratic accountability....

Now, if the actual government (die Regierung an sich) were to pinch these ideas (which are already in its fredom of Information report) we’d be starting to get back on the right track. Hey; it would almost be Ideal grin

 

03 Mar 2008

Jenseits von Persönlichkeitsentfaltung

I’ve always thought our German cousins/ancestors, whose language is well suited to trenchant philosophising, would be the first to articulate some of the deepest technical-privacy issues. And a promising sign will be the emergence of fabulous compound words to describe new concepts in the identity space. I hazarded a student-German guess about Privatlebennotwendigkeitbewußtsein. Now I gather there’s a constitutional (Grundgesetz) protection for something called Persönlichkeitsentfaltung which I think means the development of one’s identity.

Help, someone. What would be the German word for a fundamental right, enshrined in the constitution, to privacy which cannot be overridden at the convenience of Kafkaesque bureaucracy?

 

02 Mar 2008

Where do we start the conversation on trust?

We’ve written quite a lot about trust and e-government over the years. Where have we got to? Here’s an edited version of a brief I was asked to prepare:

The two are often mentioned in the same breath. But is there a connection? Which is the cart and which is the horse?

It seems to us the default starting position has been to assume a level of innate trust government’s competence and good intentions, and to count on that relationship as we build new public-service systems.

There’s a strong case to make that new more responsive and open systems will further improve trust in public services, or restore it where it has been damaged.

At the same time, as Gordon Brown recognised in his “Liberty” speech of October 2007, there is a risk of losing people’s trust if data are not properly managed (and of course since his speech that has been shown frequently to be the case).

There’s a positive case to be made that Transformational Government will build trust with more responsive and with personalised services. People will trust a modernised and more responsive NHS thanks to Connecting for Health. Children will be better protected thanks to the array of childrens’ databases and earlier interventions based on more comprehensive profiling. And the purpose of the ID System is at the same time to create better security and better access to public serivces.

Meanwhile checks and balances are in place. We have the HRA. We have the ICO working hard to check possible downsides, for example introducing new privacy impact assessments.

The new technologies can build trust. Government is certainly more open since central and local government introduced web sites. The latest MySoc web site shows the happy marriage between exemplary web design and the FoI law. Repressive regimes now see their secrets exposed on Wikileaks, and will perhaps feel pressure to mend their ways.

And there are more technologies that government is not yet widely using that could build trust further: privacy-enhancing tools, widespread encryption, biometrics, user-centric ID management tools or personalised health records services.

So the “glass half full” argument is that there is a basis of trust in government to build on, and the clear opportunity with contempory information systems to make it better.

The “half empty” view is that trust has to be earned not taken for granted, that the information age shines a harsh light on problems and current IT policies are making it worse, and that we in the UK (unlike, say, the Dutch or Finns) show no sign of yet accepting how deep we will have to dig in order to create the foundation of trust on which transformed services can be delivered.

Initially the expressions of concern about this have come from geeky privacy groups which robust politicians have managed to marginalise and ignore. But they are insistent and seem to be growing (No2IDnow has 40,000 paying members).

Concern about the competence of government IT went mainstream with the HMRC and subsequent data losses. Soon after, YouGov polled the first majority against the IPS NIS. And there’s a serious issue about online NHS record opt-outs

The debate (whether on health, children or NHS records) is unedifying. More broadly there is criticism of the use of stastics and scientific evidence (eg in the drugs debate). Electronic news media give us a shorter attention span, as Rowan Williams found out with his comments on Sharia law. There is no space for nuance.

Darker pictures, the successors to Kafka and Orwell, emerge in paranoid surveillance dramas such as the (partially UK-funded) Bourne Identity/Supremacy/Ultimatum trilogy, or the forthcoming BBC series “The Last Enemy”. “Dr Who” is liberally sprinkled with attacks on NHS IT or ID cards.

There is a growing chorus of concern from serious commentators, from the surprise documentary hit “Taking Liberties”, Henry Porter, Simon Jenkins even now Tim Garton Ash.

Perhaps The Economist government-technology special on 14 Feb (link above) is a fair current summary of intelligent opinion. 

These appear to be real concerns. It seems they’re becoming more widespread. It seems fair to say they are not yet being well handled. Either we reject them, or we need to find a way restore trust, and fast. We have real choices to make, about centralisation and the architectures for key social systems that look after our finance, health and social records.

Perhaps what we need above all is to find a channel and rehearse a mode of discourse which works. It’s no good alientating anyone, and we must come up with some constructive, positive and practical suggestions.

It’s clear that up to a certain - pretty senior - level this is a conversation that makes Whitehall uneasy. At the same time it is absolutely clear that among an enlightened few, including those advising the very top government the growing trust problem is recognised and people are sending out feelers to find new ways forward. What can we offer?

 

01 Mar 2008

Onion TV: Diebold accidentally leaks results of 2008 US elections early

The latest Diebold gaffe has leaked the results of the 2008 US Presidential elections early, says Onion TV.


Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

Verily, the Onion goes from strength to strength. The production values are fab. And is the main presenter a machinima character, or “treated” live actor? I can’t decide.

 

29 Feb 2008

E-government is greener, study shows

Peter Blair from DCLG writes to say

I just wanted to draw everyone’s attention to a study report published by my department in the UK last month, which shows that encouraging more citizens to carry out business with Government online helps to reduce carbon emissions from service delivery operations - far outweighing any negative impact from increased IT server capacity.

The report is a world-first in e-government terms, in that it focuses attention on quantitative carbon reduction, rather than fashionable ‘green-washing’ about environmental performance. Not least, increasing citizen understanding of carbon emissions demands the communication of real ‘green’ facts.

Identifying new areas where CO2 emissions can be reduced is also a democratic concept. To paraphrase a recent statement by the UK Environment Secretary, David Miliband, “A ton of carbon dioxide emitted in the delivery of government services is as threatening as a ton of carbon dioxide emitted in the aviation industry”.

The report is also actively influencing current UK debate around ‘Green IT’ amongst IT managers in local government, away from a passive stance whereby the IT profession is portrayed as “a bad CO2 polluter which can get better”, towards a proactive stance of “you’re not green unless e-business is a corporate priority”.

A copy of the full report can be downloaded free of charge at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgo…

What do others think of these findings? Will this world-first quantitative study help in reappraising the position of e-government within the green agenda?

Many thanks Peter; I missed that, and it seems very pertinent.

The press release is here.

 

Coming soon: the UK’s first-ever blogging Permanent Secretary

IdealGov is delighted to welcome, starting shortly, the first-ever blogging Permanent Secretary. We’ve had Ministers: Jim Murphy, and Hazel Blears’ PR department, but to have a Permanent Secretary reporting direct to the Prime Minister is a UK first, perhaps a world first.

Sir Bonar Neville-Kingdom is Permanent Secretary at Large with especial responsibility for efficiency, globalisation and customer insight throughout Whitehall and beyond. He is acknowledged among the senior Civil Service as a moderniser and one of the most articulate proponents of technology in its various forms and ramifications. He has gained vast experience in a widely varied career across the Cabinet Office, including a secondment in the Ministry of Defence. He is generally credited with authorship of the seminal “Nodiss” memo. He’s also a keen gardener and occasional author.

Within the constraints of the Official Secrets Act Sir Bonar has promised to contribute frankly his thoughts about the potential of technology for modernising Whitehall and to share insights from his books and other interests. Sir Bonar: welcome. We’re delighted to add you to our list of authors. 

 
Page 5 of 94 pages « First  <  3 4 5 6 7 >  Last »

Ideal Government

Let's say what we want from e-enabled government. Let's observe government first-hand. Let's say "Wouldn't It Be Better If" (WIBBI). Become an ethnographer of bureaucracy today! It beats getting frustrated with public services.

Categories

Comment

Anyone is free to comment. Or mail with an article if you want to be an author. I'll post it up and send you a password. This whole thing is supported by Kable.

Sponsor

Authors with password: click here to post

BLOGS etc
 Bruce Schneier
Jeff Jonas, IBM
Jerry Fishenden
Headshift
Ian Brown
Kim Cameron, MS
Matthew Somerville
Public strategist
Richard Allan
Robin Wilton, Sun
Sam Smith
Stefan Brands, Credentica
Toby Stevens, EPG
Whitehall Webby
Will Davies

CRITICAL FRIENDS
 Action on Rights for Children
Big Opt-Out
FIPR
Light blue touchpaper
NHS23
No2ID
Perfect e-democracy
Spy blog
Verified Voting

PERTINENT ART
ACLU privacy pizza
Very model of a notional identity
Swizz of the cards
Handelsman: NSA wiretaps
Handelsman: US spying
Wearcam
Googlezon
Three dead trolls
Stefanos Pantagis

ESSENTIALS
Cluetrain Manifesto
RAE Dilemmas of Privacy
NCC Playlist for public services
Sousveillance
Stefan Brands' book summary
Ross Anderson book

Engelbart Mother of all demos
OTHER ID/SECURITY
 ID theft spy
Planet Identity
Pledgebank for refuseniks
Home Office ID cards
Credentica
Ann Cavoukian, Ontario


MYSOCIETY & SAM'S STUFF
 MySociety/
They work for you
Fax your MP
DirectionlessGov
Comment on This

...and the original
Stand ID card campaign
PUBLIC SERVANT BLOGS
 David Milliband
Read my day
Lynne Featherstone MP
David Copperfield - police
Roy Taylor, Kingston
ReadmyDay
Bill Sticker - parking
Ealing Magistrate
Cllr Andrew Brown
Reynolds/Ambulance

MAPS MASHUPS WE LIKED...
 Plymouth Schools
Ben's UK speed cameras
5-day weather forecast
House sale prices
g-Traffic info
Place-O-Pedia

For Google maps mashups see
 Googlemapsmania blog

ADVISERS, NGOs
 Advice now
Advice Services Alliance
Advice UK
Citizens' Advice


Old stuff
RSS in government blog

Authors

Member List

Sign up for new articles

Locations of visitors to this page

Copyright

Creative Commons License - Some Rights Reserved Protect your Bits. Support ORG. Open Rights Group

Designed by...

visit ScoreCommunications Ltd

Statistics

This page has been viewed 1000687 times

Entries: 1523 | Comments: 2374 | Trackbacks: 206
Most Recent Entry: 05/16/2008 10:36 pm
Most Recent Comment: 05/16/2008 11:49 am

Members: 185 | Logged in: 0 | Guests: 29
Most recent visitor: 05/17/2008 02:07 am
Most visitors ever: 443 on 10/12/2005 02:21 pm