Further to my previous post: customer-centricity

I think I’m listening, but nobody has explained to me the benefit of my having a central health record. No-one has explained to me why I want my one year old daughter to grow up having a record on ContactPoint, accessible by hundreds of thousands of public servants. No-one has convinced me there is any benefit for me or for any person I know of having their biometrics stored on an ID System. All of these systems, it seems to me, are accessible to huge numbers of people - including the statistically normal proportion of nitwits and crooks - to whom I and my loved ones will be nothing but a cipher or a data asset to be exploited.

I just can’t see how these things are customer-centric. My Google personalised homepage feels customer-centric. The Microsoft HealthVault sounds customer-centric - Steve Ballmer isnt going to leave my health records on a CD if they’re on my PC. Microsoft’s laws of identity sound customer-centric. We’re in a strange phase if the cutthroat entrepreneurs of Microsoft seem more enlightened than our well-intentioned, highly paid and powerful public servants. The service designers at Dott are totally customer-centric, and VRM sounds customer-centric. We need VRM as a corrective measure to make Transformational Government fit for humans.

Sorry to return to this but I felt bullied last night as we discussed these matters. Pending Ruth’s write-up (I cant say who said what or where) I wonder: Is it me that’s not listening to why these things are good for me? Or are the proponents of these system rationally and emotionally persuaded by some collective megabenefit of us all living in a more ordered and better disciplined society, a vision which would seduce me too if only I knew what they knew?

I don’t know, but we’re not yet all behaving as if it’s possible we could be mistaken (despite the HMRC events) and not yet able to listen to the intentions behind other people’s words. This is a major challenge.

Published by William Heath on 28/11/07 at 8:42am

Comments

I’m still cross about this so I’ve written to my MP
FOR THE ATTENTION OF:

Jeremy Hunt MP
South West Surrey

Wednesday 28 November 2007

Dear Jeremy

HMRC data breach and the “database state”
----------------------------------

The HMRC breach raises concerns about the other central government databases being built under the customer-centric policy of “transformational government”.

What troubles me is that, despite listening very carefully over several years, I just dont see the benefit to me of my health record to be centralised under Connecting for Health, my daughter’s social care on ChoicePoint, or all our biometric details on the ID System.

All the thrust of contempory service design and technology is for user-controlled devolved ID, health management etc. No third party cares how well my own records are maintained as much as me. To the officials involved my loved ones and I are just a cipher and our personal details some slightly valuable data to be shared and exploited.

All these centralised systems are accessible to tens or hundreds of thousands of public servants, including normal proportions of the clueless and the crooked. They could either be secure, or easy to use for the day to day work of thousands of people, but not both.

It’s not done with my consent, it’s an unnecessary risk, and I just dont understand what benefit it is supposed to deliver, yet it is supposed to be “customer-centric”.

I would like to try to understand. My mind is not closed, and I’m not trying to make a partisan point. But I feel very strongly about this (to the extent of pressing my GP to opt out of CfH and refusing to register for ID, heartened by being in the good company of Joanna Lumley and Dame Shirley Williams).

Do you think we could write to the Ministers responsible for ChoicePoint, ID System, and CfH and ask them to explain in plain language what benefits they seek to deliver? Or, in your experience of the system, is that a waste of all our time?

Yours sincerely

William Heath

Reply by on 11/28/07 at 12:10 pm
Sadly Mr Heath I think you will be fobbed off with something along the lines of answers to FAQs, eg the Benefits of the ID Card to the individual.

Reply by ukliberty on 11/28/07 at 1:30 pm
Well, here they are
British citizens

Once it is up and running the National Identity Scheme could:

* protect your identity from theft
* protect vulnerable people from those who have lied to gain positions of trust
* offer a convenient way to prove your age
* speed up many everyday transactions
* make it easier for you to travel in Europe
* make it simpler to prove your ID
* make the internet easier to use
* make it easier to replace lost and stolen documents
* protect your privacy

Protect your identity from theft

Identity theft or fraud involves someone using your identity to, for example, open bogus accounts, apply for loans, buy goods over the phone or internet, or take over one of your bank accounts. By registering and using your card to prove who you are you will be able to protect yourself and help reduce identity theft. The National Identity Scheme is designed to be more secure than current ways of proving identity. It will make it extremely difficult for someone else to impersonate you, even if they have your ID card, because only you can be matched to your biometrics. More about protection from identity theft and fraud
Protect vulnerable people from those who have lied to gain positions of trust

You need to know that people in positions of trust (such as nannies, carers for the elderly, childminders, and so on) are who they say they are. Biometric data in the ID card means that a potential employer could quickly and reliably confirm an applicant’s identity. The Criminal Records Bureau could also use the applicant’s Identity Registration Number (IRN) in order to check that they have no criminal record, for example. Use of the IRN will speed up such searches significantly. (See a case study that illustrates this benefit.)
Offer a convenient and trusted way to prove your age

Whether you are a young person wanting to buy a drink in a pub or an older person who wishes to claim a travel discount, the easy-to-carry ID card will offer a safe and secure way to prove your age. (See how this could work in practice.)
Speed up many everyday transactions

Once you are registered with the National Identity Scheme you will have a quick and secure way of proving your identity whenever you need to, for example via a match of your ID card and biometrics or PIN. (See how this could work in practice.)
Make it easier for you to travel in Europe

With a UK ID card that shows your nationality you will be able to enter European countries without the need to carry your passport. The card will also reduce checking time at ports and borders.
Make it simpler to prove your identity

There will be no need to keep many different identity documents – just one convenient card that can be used only by you, since only you have the biometrics associated with your ID card. You won’t need to carry the card with you at all times, and if you need to prove your identity without the card you will be able to do so by providing a few details about yourself along with a biometric, such as a fingerprint or PIN.
Make the internet easier and safer to use

There will be less need to remember an array of user names and passwords – just use your ID card and PIN online. Your card will help you securely log on to services and also provide a digital ‘signature’. With this you can authorise important transactions and application forms, giving both you and the service provider more confidence in the exchange.
Make it easier to replace lost and stolen documents

If you lose your ID card or passport, or if they are stolen, all you will need to do is to go to a local office where your identity can be checked against your biometrics. Your original documents will be cancelled so no-one else can try to use them and replacements will be sent out to you.
Protect your privacy

The National Identity Scheme has been designed with your privacy in mind. Only the most basic information is contained on the card itself (more detailed identity information is held securely in the National Identity Register (NIR), and only accredited user organisations will be able to use the NIR to check your identity.

Reply by on 11/28/07 at 6:05 pm
> You need to know that people in positions of trust (such as nannies, carers for the elderly, childminders, and so on) are who they say they are.

I wonder if this is a real of pseudo-justification. What you need to know is that they’re there and you can trust them. That’s about how they behave, not whether Heidi’s real name is Svetlana. It’s reputation in the relevant context, not identity.

Is there evidence of a problem of carers for the elderly systematically changing their names in order to be able to bully old people? Isnt that a problem that Patient Opinion fixes far more effectively and cost-effectively?

It feels to me this is based on a view of human nature which ends up saying “tick here if you’re a terrorist” (like the US Immigration form)

Reply by on 11/28/07 at 6:18 pm
Well, the parents are going to have to contact an accredited childminding agency if they want some certainty of someone’s identity, just as they do now. They aren’t going to pay out for a household biometric card scanner, accreditation for the use of the Identity Verification Service, and each use of the IVS.

So, as it is now, the situation in the future will come down to whether or not you trust an agency to verify someone is trustworthy. As you say, we don’t particularly care about a childminder’s or carer’s name.

The ID card and National Register scheme seems overkill for solving this problem. And there are already solutions - such as the National Childminding Association of England & Wales. I’d be surprised if there weren’t more.

A solution looking for a problem.

Reply by ukliberty on 11/28/07 at 7:30 pm
Hi William,

The reason why the current schemes are shaped as they are is that to date there has been no ‘bottom up’ counter-argument to engage with, i.e. one coming from the collective of individuals that shows how the benefits sought could be obtained through other means.

VRM is about helping individuals to organise and articulate their needs in order to build more equitable relationships than top down solutions (from public or private sector) can provide for. There is no doubt that ‘individual-centric identity’ will be a component of VRM solutions as they emerge. So we will end up with three views of an individual - the government one (central and local), the private sector one, and the individuals own one. My assertion is that over time the individual view will prove to be the richest, deepest and most accurate and that ultimately data will flow from there into trusted (or mandatory suppliers) - and not flow into non-trusted entities.

Getting to that stage will be a long and complex process - but the process has begun within Project VRM. Just to give you a quick insight into the metrics - everyone in the UK could be given an individual-centric identity with fairly rich online functionality for around £1m per year, a tiny fraction of the sums being spent on the top down approaches.

More to follow as Project VRM emerges.....

Reply by on 11/29/07 at 10:02 am
William

I wonder if your local MP should ask whether the recent donations from one person, but in the names of various aliases, would have been detected earlier had the recipient asked for a biometric identification and ID card ?

I think the Electoral Commission mis-led us at one stage because they could not spell McCarthy or Mcarthy so did not realise they were the same person

It’s not the technology, stupid ( to paraphrase a well know phrase from the US )

Reply by on 11/29/07 at 10:09 am
I don’t believe this Government is particularly interested in customer-centricity - that is the problem. Sure, they want you to think they are - you know, “this is about benefitting an individual in such and such a way”.

But really Transformational Government is about a top-down imposed means of central control and auditing and data-sharing.

Where a customer-centric approach coincides with this, fine. But where a choice has to be made - where there is any conflict - do you believe they will come down on the side of the ‘customer’ or central government?

Maybe I’m too cynical?

Reply by ukliberty on 11/29/07 at 12:18 pm
Oh wow. My MP has done a substantive reply in less than 24 hours
Dear Mr Heath,

Thank you very much for your email. I am grateful to you for taking the time to get in touch following the recent loss of 25 million child benefit records by HM Revenue & Customs. This has clear implications for many families in my constituency and throughout the country, because the information that has gone missing can be used by identity fraudsters, and so I can entirely understand the level of public concern.

My colleagues and I feel exactly the same way, as you may have seen from Prime Minister’s Questions last week, when David Cameron tackled Gordon Brown on just how this could have been allowed to happen. He said that the government had failed in its first duty to protect the public, and that Gordon Brown should be accepting some responsibility for this failure. The Prime Minister may argue that procedures were in place to prevent such a situation occurring, but that is no use if these procedures are simply disregarded.

As you say, the fact that HM Revenue and Customs have lost data on 25 million people shows the government can not be trusted to bring in ID cards, and it also has implications for our health records on Connecting for Health, and CentrePoint. Conservatives remain firmly opposed to ID cards on a number of grounds and my colleague David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, has made it clear that, if the Conservatives win the next election, his first act will be to scrap the scheme. He has written to the Cabinet Secretary to inform him of this. I urge you to visit http://www.conservatives.com to sign our petition on the campaigns page calling for the plans to be scrapped. I will also write to the Secretary of
State for Health, Alan Johnson, expressing your concerns about centralised health records, and asking him to reconsider implementing such a system. I will let you know when I receive any response.

The Conservatives will be doing all we can to hold the Government to account on this issue, and ensure that this is not allowed to happen again. If you should have any cause for concern then please contact HMRC on 0845 302 1444 between 8am and 8pm on any day of the week, and if you see any suspicious activity in your bank statements, then contact your bank immediately.

Thanks again for writing to me. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

Best wishes,

Jeremy Hunt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hunt
Member of Parliament
South West Surrey

House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

I wrongly called it ChoicePoint; shd have said ContactPoint, but he pre-empted me and called it CentrePoint anyway. But the real problem is eCAF. Anyway, cheers Jeremy.

Reply by on 11/29/07 at 3:44 pm
I Googled “benefits choicepoint ecaf” (In case I was missing anything obvious) and got (apart from IdealGov) this strange page: http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~skill/unique_n4.txt

Maybe this is what the evidence behind Transformational Government looks like?

Reply by on 11/29/07 at 5:41 pm
It’s a wonder Jezza didn’t think you were asking a question about CentreParks!

Reply by on 11/29/07 at 10:20 pm
I’m opposed to CentrePoint too. It’s a horrible building, albeit a useful landmark.

Reply by ukliberty on 11/30/07 at 11:32 am
Ah, Centralisation, the great equaliser, the leveler of all things. Of course, there’s an assumption that equality = A Good Thing, especially when talking politics. Equal opportunity for all, level playing field, etc.

Making things individualised is, on the contrary, just asking for trouble under a democracy. Individualism leads to inequality, which leads to unfairness and people complaining. Postcode lotteries and all that. So, better to force the same, centralised system on the lot of us.

Apparently the choice is between people as individuals, and people as an entire nation, with no in-betweens. A democratic perspective can only live with itself if it assume the latter.

Reply by Scribe on 11/30/07 at 6:41 pm

Next entry: ContactPoint: the basics and the basic questions

Previous entry: False notions of customer-centricity

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.

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.

Authors

Member List

Sign up for new articles

Further to my previous post: customer-centricity

Comments

Ideal Government

Categories

Comment

Authors

Sign up for new articles

Copyright

Designed by...

Statistics

Further to my previous post: customer-centricity

Comments

Ideal Government

Categories

Comment

Sponsor

Authors

Sign up for new articles

Copyright

Designed by...

Statistics