• Home
• Subjects
• Blog Roll
• Blindside
• Kable
• Advanced Search

• 

28 Sep 2004

How about systems we can use and data access standards we can trust?

I’d settle for systems that are fit for use by ordinary, fallible, human beings. 

I particularly want systems that my 84 year old mother or her older brother will use (and that I can use when I am their age). That means keys the size of pennies, a big joy-stick not a mouse and a great big screen with voice-over confirmation. Also they must be quicker and easier to use than ringing my sister to do it for her and have security with which they feel confident.

They still have their mental faculties but have long exerience of watching their children (including me) and their grandchildren wrestle with systems which are fine so long as you are browsing or playing games but worthless as soon as you wish to do anything serious and supported by youngsters who they would not trust with their door key, let alone access to their pension or bank account.

I’d settle for systems that my sister or I, or some-one they trust, can use for them. That means allowing them to chose who they trust with their data and us to decide, in turn, who we trust to look after it for them.

That means a revolution in standards of governance. Currently we have almost the worst of all possible worlds. We are spending vast sums on electronic security while those who build, operate and support the systems can (who checks?) include former (?current) hackers and fraudsters.

Meanwhile data sharing is compulsory or forbidden according to legacy investigatory powers or departmental legislation for a manual world, with fragmented, usually unknown, governance with the call centre and data handling outsourced to the lowest bidder and their hierarchy of subcontractors.

The Data Protection principles are not enough.

All staff need to know to whom they are supposed to allow access to which data, how they are to check the authorisations, who to ask if in doubt and the penalties for them (as individuals) if they break the rules. The provenance of those developing and running the systems (indivduals and subcontractors) needs to be checked (with periodic life-style spot checks on those in key roles).

As far as possible the routines should be common and apply to the type of data, not just the department (one set of rules for name and address, another for routine medical data (allergies et al), another for sensitive medical data etc) and allow for consent driven over-ride (but how do you check it really is me and I am not under duress).

Philip Virgo, Secretary General, EURIM

• Posted by Philip Virgo on 28/09/04 at 9:30am
• Categories · Across the Board
Trackbacks (0)  Permalink

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

• "What do we want?"
  • Wibbipedia/MindtheGap
  • Design: Co-creation
    • Online Maps
  • Design: user-oriented
  • Foundation of Trust
    • Identity
    • Data nitwittery
  • Save Time and Money
• Greener government IT
• Pertinent Art
• Power of Information
• Political engagement
• "Transformational Government"
• Government Procurement
• Across the Board
• Ideal Goverment - project

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

Sign up for new articles

Copyright

Designed by...

Statistics

This page has been viewed 1295191 times

Entries: 1598 | Comments: 2648 | Trackbacks: 206
Most Recent Entry: 09/07/2008 09:35 pm
Most Recent Comment: 09/08/2008 12:18 pm

Members: 185 | Logged in: 0 | Guests: 41
Most recent visitor: 09/08/2008 02:59 pm
Most visitors ever: 443 on 10/12/2005 02:21 pm