Slashdot Mirror
Database of All UK Children Launched
An anonymous reader writes "'A controversial database which holds the details of every child in England has now become available for childcare professionals to access. The government says it will enable more co-ordinated services for children and ensure none slips through the net. 390,000 people will have access to the database, but will have gone through stringent security training.'"
Knowing our government, child professionals, council binmen, accounts clerks, councillors, dog catchers and that nasty lady on the front desk who's job is purely to be unhelpful.
Semper en excreta sumus solum profundum
Jackpot!
(just a matter of when)
The article doesn't seem to make any mention of removing that information when they become adults. I can see where this is going... get a database of them now, when less people are likely to complain, and then you still have the info when they are adults. Instant (well sorta) database of all your citizens.
if ever their was a reasonable cause to scream think of the children, this is it. and lets not forget that these kids will grow into adults, do we really believe the government will let go of that information once it has it?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
390,000 people will have access to the database, but will have gone through stringent security training.
That's great, but having people know security through (unspecified) 'stringent training' is no guarantee it will be carried out effectively.
Oh, and at a nearly a quarter of a billion pounds, forgive my curiosity about precisely what value this is expected provide.
Sounds like a rabid white elephant with dangerously sharp tusks.
I bet Bruce Schneier will post on how bad an idea this is any hour now. Some classic Schneier: "Why Technology Won't Prevent Identity Theft" http://www.schneier.com/essay-255.html ...and what about the old-fashioned Law of Large Numbers? If you give 390,000 people access to something, the chance that some of them are criminals is: 100%! (Rounded to the nearest six decimals or so.) Simply because there are 390,000 of them.
390,000 are too many even if they could keep the secret. Because it is almost certain that in such a large group there are some people the information should be secret from.
C - the footgun of programming languages
http://lpuk.org/
I stumbled across this website last year. It is a very small (at present) political party. As far as I know, the only one who actively states they will scrap this state monitoring nonsense.
Hopefully, some of the other parties will realise that people don't want to be monitored, and there are votes to be had out of it.
Carpe Daemon
Melchett: Now, I've compiled a list of those with security clearance, have you got it Darling?
Darling: Yes sir.
Melchett: Read it please.
Darling: It's top security sir, I think that's all the Captain needs to know.
Melchett: Nonsense! Let's hear the list in full!
Darling: Very well sir. "List of personnel cleared for mission Gainsborough, as dictated by General C. H. Melchett: You and me, Darling, obviously. Field Marshal Haig, Field Marshal Haig's wife, all Field Marshal Haig's wife's friends, their families, their families' servants, their families' servants' tennis partners, and some chap I bumped into the mess the other day called Bernard."
Melchett: So, it's maximum security, is that clear?
Blackadder: Quite so sir, only myself and the rest of the English speaking world is to know.
shhh, ya great jessie, ye'll gee the gam awa'
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Invalid entry
Syntax error
Test ignore
Null value
And my personal favorite:
rm -rf
You can't link to the daily mail and expect to be taken seriously.
This Database Is Useless Without Pictures.
I didn't see any mention of 390,000 secure tokens being handed out or anything on the amount of detail being kept in the access logs.
They did implement that ... right?
390,000 is about 1 person in 150. To me that seems far too many. And why would the records of politician's children need special "shielding" if this is secure?
No sig today...
A database is worth little unless you implant a small tracking device in all you wish to track, and monitor constantly.
Finally, someone offering a workable solution.
Announced to the media when the government are being hammered in the news over some other scandal. They do this all the time, the Torries before them did it too. Often they announce shit they KNOW is controversial and have no intention of actually doing just to make the press write about something else and forget the scandal they were writing about. It's the equivalent of waving a new flashy toy at a toddler to distract him so you can grab her blanky to get it washed as she won't knowingly let it go.
As far as the cost is concerned, the government just got an influx of unexpected cash from ministers in the form of repayments, so they can afford to splurge a little on some untendered, no doubt proprietary solution provided by an IT company who spend more on lobbying than their solutions, no doubt running on Windows. They will also keep the details hidden behind a commercial confidentiality NDA excuse too.
Labour do seem hell bent on kicked out at the next election with the added bonus of becoming unelectable, good luck to the bastards.
And why would the records of politician's children need special "shielding" if this is secure?
Bingo! Surely if this is so secure, MP's brats should be the seed data for the list.
Good idea. Every government database should start out with only politicians' data in it for six months.
No sig today...
No, seriously, why?
Are children like some sort of disease that need to be tracked? Of what use is it to these "childcare professionals" to know the name of every child in the UK?
Over time this is going to be a 1:1 census.
What are the benefits of this that outweigh the severe risk of having all of that data in one place? It seems like once a week there's an article on here about some huge privacy violation that the UK is already finished with. And this...I don't know anymore. It's just absurd at this point.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6047514.stm
Good enough?
390,000 people will have access to the database, but will have gone through stringent security training.
Let's try being a little optimistic.
Let's say that all 390,000 people take their duties and responsibilities as public servants very seriously. They attend the security training and try to remember everything they're taught.
Fast forward two weeks. They all integrate the security training into their work, and form new habits: "when I open the database, I have to $SECURITY_CONSIDERATION, then click on $SAFE_OPTION and always ask IT if something smells fishy". They form habits.
Fast forward four months. An unexpected situation pops up. They have now forgotten what they learned in security training, relying solely on their new habits which have worked perfectly well so far. They try their best to judge the security implications of their choices in an unknown situation, but they're not computer techies, so they get the answer wrong.
As a result, security is breached.
Anyone wants to defend a more optimistic prediction?
Some drunken bureacrat left it in a taxi.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Watch how this plan fails spectacularly...and then they will ask to put a chip in our children...and then the adults will follow...
Not directly, but I work daily with the ContactPoint project and a number of others that coincide with it.
First: there is no opt-in or opt-out. The database is populated from a number of existing databases at a Local Authority level, and in most cases the primary source is the central Education database, which is in turn populated by schools' information systems and such. All schools, private schooling parents and similar, have a legal duty to submit this information annually in the Schools Census. It's not 100% accurate or up-to-date, but it's as comprehensive a framework as you'll find. "Refusing" or giving "bogus details" would be both very difficult and illegal.
Second: I hate the database, its supporting systems and the gung-ho approach the DCSF (central govt dept) have employed in its implementation. It is causing more work, problems and morale-breaking long-term consequences than most of the people on this site could conceive, to front-line workers and back-office support staff alike, and I would love nothing more than to see this project and many like it (see "Integrated Children's System") abandoned in favour of implementing some of the more relevant and critical recommendations of the Lord Laming report, which is what triggered the whole debacle, but I don't expect that to happen.
I have suspected for a long time that this was a back-door approach to a national person database, which is why I don't believe the govt will let go in spite of its inevitable breach of the Data Protection Act once the children reach the age of majority.
My biggest criticism of the entire suite of projects is that it completely fails to address - and in fact may exacerbate - the central problem with the Victoria Climbie case that it is supposed to solve. Specifically, she was recorded multiple times on multiple databases due to poorly trained users. Even then, there were several contacts with the child that should have led directly to intervention or at least in-depth investigation, with or without additional case background, but the workers involved failed to act.
Fundamentally, the DCSF does not seem willing or able to accept a simple truth, fundamentally understood by all IT professionals and most of the people on this site: You cannot introduce software to prevent people from making mistakes. At best you can only change the type of mistake they make.
Most social workers are actually insulted by the systems being introduced, because they increase the administrative workload (in spite of DCSF claims to the contrary) while removing the responsibility and flexibility for workers to make qualitative assessments and trained, experienced decisions.
Even if central government are to be taken at their word, this system is a poor implementation of a poor solution to a serious problem, and will hinder as much as it helps. If not, this is - as you suggest - an insidious approach to a wider Big Brother agenda.
Meta will eat itself
Some drunken bureacrat left it in a taxi.
They left it on a train, but claimed the money for a taxi when they did their expenses.