Sharpe's Opinion
Monday, 23rd Mar, 2009
Database State is Flawed, Insecure, Overpriced and Needs Scrapping
From Liberal Conspiracy:
The first ever comprehensive map of Britain’s database state today reveals how the database obsession of government has left officials struggling to control billions of records of our most personal details and almost every contact we have with the agencies set up to serve and protect us.
‘Database State’ examines every major public sector database in the UK and demonstrates how many multi-million pound IT projects either don’t work, or have such serious safety or privacy problems that they are alienating the public and harming the vulnerable groups they are meant to support. Some of the government’s flagship databases, such as the DNA database and ContactPoint, are so flawed they should be scrapped immediately.
My views on government databases are complicated – I’m not with the crowd who believe any information sharing is an invasion of privacy, and I understand the impetus to keep data centrally. The fact is, though, that our Government is fundamentally unable to deliver IT systems, and would be better off defining standard formats for sharing data and leaving database implementations to lower level organisations.
Whatever happens, something needs to change.
Comments
I don’t know, I quite like the idea of an insecure computer – think of Johnny 5! 
It’s in the dictionary, too – insecure as in ‘not firm or fixed’ – in the same sense as your job might be insecure or your house might be insecure. Not to get too diostracted, but I also believe that words are our slaves not our masters, and as long as you understand the intended meaning (which you do) it doesn’t specifically matter what word I use. 
Agreed on your other points. Government should be involved in setting standards and in formats. Everything else can be Somebody Else’s Problem™.
True, we need standards. Open, published standards that are not tied to any single vendor and which do not make use of any proprietary technology. Standards that anybody is free to implement without payment of royalties to any third party.
And if adopting such standards requires the annulment of one or more patents and/or copyrights, so be it. The alternative is privatisation of the law.
My usual response to whatever new Government database is announced that day is to ask
(a) why is it wanted
(b) will it achieve that
(c) will it have side effects.
There are some that (a) have a necesssary aim and (b) achieve it© without any worrying side effects.
There are plenty, though, that fail For example, an ID card database that will not make it any easier for me to “access” government services, will not stop terrorism, and will be a pain in the neck to comply with…
First of all I would like to say that I laugh every time the word “insecure” is used with respect to computers. Computers are not insecure. They might be not secure or even unsecure…
Central government should not be getting involved in the business of building the databases. Each organisation which thinks it needs a database and data sharing should sort itself out on its own. Parliament should be setting the ground rules only. We could have a statute called the Data Protection Act or something.
Any organisation that breaches those rules should be taken to the cleaners. There is a line somewhere between data sharing and privacy which can only be determined by our legislators – that is what they are there for.
Blue Eyes
March 23, 2009 at 10:54 am