Slashdot Mirror
UK Switches Off £235M Child Database
wdef writes "The UK's controversial ContactPoint database has actually been switched off! It's rare that we hear anything this sensible from government about an expensive, privacy-destroying, 'think of the children' solution: 'The government argued the system was disproportionate to the problem, so is looking at developing other solutions.' Perhaps the UK coalition government really is winding back Big Brother, as they had promised to do? Does seem unlikely."
The coalition is unpopular with a lot of Liberal Democrat voters (not sure what they'd prefer - probably for the LibDems to continue to be completely ineffectual, rather than to get at least some of their policies passed) and is in danger of a back-bench rebellion by the LibDem MPs who'd rather pander to popular opinion than get on with running the country. They need to do some things about civil liberties to keep these people on side, and cancelling existing programs is one of the few things that won't alienate Conservative back benchers, who are typically against government spending of any kind.
So far, the coalition seems to be the best government the UK has had while I've been alive (although, to be fair, that's not exactly hard). Unfortunately, it's not clear how long it will manage to stay together.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The incident that spawned this database of children:
- Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contactpoint
I can guarantee you that if this child was not physically abused, but instead had a picture taken of her with her clothes off (like in a bathtub) then those guardians would have ended up being arrested immediately and the child taken into protective services.
Because in this day and age violence is acceptable (to a degree) and excusable (for "punishment"), but nudity and sexuality are considered threatening and abusive. It is a perverted society that we live in.
A big brother society is expensive, so the Conservatives don't like it. It's an infringement on civil liberties so the Lib Dems don't like it (nor to a lot of the more socially liberal conservatives), and it was introduced by Nu-Labour so neither party likes it.
Bizarre though it may seem, some people get into politics to improve society.
Its not exactly like they have cameras in their bedrooms.
I think they'e already started exactly that.... "CCTV cameras were installed, including in their bedroom. Social workers explained that the cameras were there to observe them performing their parental duties and for the protection of their baby." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3507238/Social-services-set-up-CCTV-camera-in-couples-bedroom.html
Perhaps the UK coalition government really is winding back Big Brother, as they had promised to do? Does seem unlikely
Yeah, right. Not that Cameron and Clegg are particularly bad for the country; but the situation right now is what dictates what the government does - Labour would have done exactly the same, give or take a few details. It makes no real difference.
But in my experience, when they talk about cutting back "big government" or "curbing the nanny state", what they mean is that they want to take power away from elected bodies who are in principle directly responsible to the people, and transfer it to some that are neither elected nor accountable. So we have less "nanny state" (ie. governmental bodies open to scrutiny under the FOIA) and more "private initiative" (ie. companies, which are not covered by the FOIA, and are governed by an impenetrable network of financial interests - who knows, perhaps they are people like Rupert Murdoch and Mohamed al Fayed, both of whom enjoy a certain notoriety in UK)
Being a democratically minded person myself, I don't really understand those that keep repeating the mantra about "Nanny State" and "Big Government". I suspect they are either the ones that would benefit directly from no being subjected to too much scrutiny, or just very, very naive.
Big brother toys are expensive. That is our only saving grace. At some point the stuff breaks down and needs repair and consequently gets scrapped. Even if cameras are dirt cheap, the salaries of the people required to look at them are not cheap. So at some point a budget gets slashed, the toys gather dust and rust out.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Indeed.
Think of the children who can no longer play outside and be kids because of overprotective parents.
Think of the children who are denied access to the science of chemistry because anything more interesting than vinegar and baking soda is deemed 'too dangerous' for them, or is denied to them by their parents who are afraid of getting on a terrorist watch list.
Think of the children who can't throw snowballs at each other because 'somebody might get hurt!1!!1'.
Think of the children who will have no idea how to survive in the real world the moment they turn 18 and have to leave their parents (who have not even slightly prepared them for this) and will probably just end up turning to crime.
We really are declaring a war on children these days.
one way to save £41m/year
How can it cost GBP 41 million per annum to operate a database? ...never mind spending GBP 235 million just to to set it up. Judging from the Wikipedia article this thing is a pretty normal database. I'm sure there's an awfully good reason for the price tag, training personnel etc. but even then I'm having a hard time seeing how that GBP 235 million price tag came into being, so what am I missing here?
As I recall, this database was supposedly super secure, comprehensive, etc. and a great way to aggregate all sorts of very sensitive information in one spot so all sorts of unrelated government agencies could access it. Yup, so secure that the politicians put in a specific provision allowing the families of politicians, celebrities, etc. to opt out of it, while the rest of the public were required to participate. Allegedly an audit trail would be kept re: accesses records, records but considering the somewhat less-than-stellar performance of most governments re: privacy protection, internal auditing, etc. it's probably for the best for this system to be scrapped and for CapGemini to go home.
Consultants.
No, that's not quite how the government works in the UK. It's more like this: Labour party gets power, tries to undo what it sees as excessive cuts made by the Conservatives in previous government, and spends more than it should. Or like now, the Conservatives get into power and cut the country to oblivion, because the previous Labour government spent beyond its means.
If you actually look at voting records, I'm quite sure you'll see that both parties are in favour of Big Brother, so don't be fooled. The treasury are just looking to make as many cuts as possible it seems, regardless of whether they're important (front-line services like the police, or cutting protection for sufferers of domestic violence) or not, as is the case with ContactPoint.
cat:
Dont worry, the world will sort itself out once the baby boomers start dying.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
It was Thatcher who began the process of disenfranching not only voters but MPs by governing by Statutory Instrument, but New Labour were enthusiastic adopters of it (along with PFI, which transferred public projests to private management and made them more profitable for construction and services companies.) The new Government will, I think, actually find it quite hard to be worse.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
It's called "government efficiency".
All governments run at this level of efficiency, or worse. If the private sector can do something for a $1,000,000 then government can do the same thing for $10,000,000+. You have to work for a governmental organization to see and understand how it's possible. I didn't really understand how this possible until I worked for a US government agency for a while, and then it became very clear. The waste built into the system was incredible. If someone didn't do their job they hired someone else to do it and kept both people on the payroll rather than firing the incompetent/lazy employee and then replacing them. The same went for parts/machinery. If they ordered something custom-built and it didn't come in built to specifications then they had another one built and paid for both.
Any private enterprise run the same way the government agency I worked for was would have gone out of business in a very short time. It would have bankrupted itself, just like both of our governments are, and have been, doing for years. You think it's chance that deficit spending is the norm? Corruption and incompetence rule.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
They are actually proposing mutualisation/co-operatives, which is rather different. The John Lewis group has been amply demonstrating over the declining years of the banking bubble just how resilient and effective mutuals can be (strictly it's a partnership), and the organisation of PCTs should be a prime case for mutualisation. On the other hand, the PCTs have become stuffed with Labour apparatchiks and have been busily empire building. People I know in the area, both on the left and the right, are appalled at how top-heavy they have become, with nurses reclassified as "managers" and ceasing to do useful jobs, while some PCTs are claimed to have been employing statisticians and IT staff specifically to game the McKinseyite target system. It needs sorting out. Mutualisation, giving the actual nursing and medical staff the power to vote on the running of the business, would seem to be a considerable step forward.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Oh, and by the way, the early 70s mining strikes could have been resolved if Harold Wilson hadn't deliberately sabotaged negotiations because it was more important to him to defeat the Conservatives than to protect the economy. When Wilson resigned, a colleague watching the news on television, a Welsh miner's son of impeccable left-wing credentials, actually shouted at the set that the "evil little bastard shouldn't be allowed to just walk away like that". With inside knowledge, he blamed Wilson, not Heath, for the miners' strike and their consequent impoverishment.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
There's nothing specific to government about this, it happens just as much in private enterprise.
All governments run at this level of efficiency, or worse. If the private sector can do something for a $1,000,000 then government can do the same thing for $10,000,000+.
FWIW, The UK government pays about twice as much in subsidies to various private rail companies as it paid to the single state owned, centralized British Rail before the miracle of efficiency called privatisation.