NO2ID

Finally...

http://www.ogc.gov.uk/freedom_of_inform ... h_2009.asp

I've just skimmed through the strategic assessment part and am totally baffled by the sheer volume of meaningless hot air generated and proudly (if not willingly) displayed. They really are a bunch of kids living on their own little cloud with absolutely no connection to the earth beneath whatsoever. It is just one big empty talking shop where they can indulge in their own peculiar form of self gratification by stringing together various words, sentences and passages that obviously relate to something positive and concrete in La La land but is simply a rather pathetic show of high school idiocy to the rest of us mortals.

Does this document say anything more than 'we all think it's a jolly good idea and a great way to create jobs for the boys whether or not it actually works? The question of whether it is even wanted and what impact public resistance will have is simply not imagined let alone addressed. It just doesn't compute in their cosy little model of the world.


Justin.

Thanks for the heads up Phil. Already some interesting info.

If you look at the January 2004 one for example:

"The Department has reached firm decisions (rightly in our view) to make the proposed Card an Identity Card rather than an Entitlement Card, to build the National Identity Register from scratch and to interview people (and collect the chosen biometrics) before populating the register. ...
We understand that the Programme Board also leans towards the development of a common, integrated service team for conducting interviews and collecting biometrics rather than dividing this task between several different agencies. This too we would strongly support."

The 'Department' has in fact moved away from these two aspects of the scheme.

I'd be interested to know what the OGC think about that.

There is also confirmation that there has been no cost-benefit analysis (although I seem to recall Tony McNulty being forthright about this in his usual fashion).

Not news to us, but doesn't that finally nail the lie that 70-80% of the costs of the ID scheme would be incurred anyway?

From June 2003:

"Another important task for the period ahead will be a fuller and more considered assessment of risks, together with means for mitigating or managing it and assignment of responsibilities for this. The risk registers and assessments we have seen seem not to identify very explicitly some of the most important risks, such as: ... [list of failures and risks that pretty much guarantee a FAIL]"

You will note as well that none of the interviewees for either PDF can be said to be independent from government with the possible exception of "<Name redacted> Independent Consultant".

Interesting definition of "self-financing" - not the scheme itself then, nor even IPS if DVLA are involved.

Not a voluntary one then.

Thus revealing the subsequent lie that the trials were not about testing the effectiveness of biometrics.

So they would like DNA but think it's too expensive. A nice illustration of just what a lovely little world of dreams they are building for themselves here. DNA is not only expensive but most inconvenient, (fancy having a hair plucked every time you want to buy booze?) but no mention of this. Didn't stop ACPO set about ensuring as much of it is obtained and recorded as possible though.

Secondly, we can now see that it is only after proposing the grand ID card scheme that is going to prevent all the evils of the world that they actually address the question of how, or even whether, biometrics are going to work or not. Again we are shown the thinking behind the whole idea. Meeting a demand is not the point, it is justification of a desire that matters above all else.

Justin.

There are two main items missing completely from these reports, the demand or need for an ID card/NIR and the ethical implications of introducing such schemes.

I'm still not convinced that it was grown ups that wrote these reviews rather than a bunch of precocious sixth formers given a project by teacher just to shut them up. If all that we have been fighting is based on such flimsy foundations as presented here then what on earth has happened to the British governing system that allows such festering horse manure to have any influence upon policy at all?

I really am gobsmacked by the puerility of it all.

Justin.

Though of course it all depends on what time-frame is being referred to when ministers etc make comments about 'voluntary' or 'compulsory'.

I've rummaged through some of the parliamentary stuff and all references to future compulsion are padded with (not least) 'subject to parliamentary approval'.
Anything else is e.g. "the scheme is not compulsory" and we are in the realm of technicality-truth concerning the scheme as a whole, not counting the exceptions, at that exact point in time.

Somewhat wishful thinking to catch someone misleading the house - or maybe I just haven't rummaged far enough yet...

Fantastic news that these have finally, grudgingly been released. I'm still reading through them, but some things occur immediately to me.

It seems to me that these Gateway reviews are written in the context of, "If you decide to proceed with this plan, here are the things you need to consider in order to make it successful."

It reads very much like the project management documents I see at work, except there's even more bureaucracy in play. It doesn't surprise me to find that public opinion doesn't feature highly, it would be just another 'challenge' to be overcome during the project lifecycle.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm playing devil's advocate.

Stiggy wrote



Unless I've misunderstand the point of these reviews, and I must admit I'm not quite clear as to whom they are addressed, it seems that they are totally and purposefully bereft of any hard facts or quantifiable information. It is all allegation and suggestion with no reference to specific research. This passage for instance sets the tone exactly-




"increasingly difficult to protect and authenticate people’s identity"

Is it? Is it really that more difficult or even necessary to protect and authenticate peoples identity and so shield them from the evils mentioned. Where are these threats? Why do they exist and what scale are they? Who's complaining? We are not told anything other than other countries are doing it so we'd better do it as well. Perhaps other countries are wrong, has the question been asked and this sheep like response been justified? We are given not a clue.




This sounds all very reasonable and cosy but there is no engagement with the further questions raised. What is a true identity? Can be be changed at all? Who decides which identity applies to which person and if this is left to the government then surely total state intrusion and ultimate control of your visible existence comes as part of the package. One can not be had without the other. But are these arguments aired or are we left with a sort of shallow article we find in the Sun only with big words?

There is not an awful lot of information in these documents that is not already in the public domain or has been fairly accurately deduced from ministerial utterances and HO propaganda, so why the reluctance to publish? Is it because the HO was aware that their proposals for the ID card and NIR are nothing but castles in the air with not an intelligent thought as to the need or their practicality or the ethics involved in implementing them? Do these documents not suggest that if the HO had given full consideration to the details then they would never have got so far with their plans as they have, therefore it's proof that the ID card is driven by government desire for such a scheme and nothing else.

I believe that the purpose of Gateway Reviews is to assess the project management of major procurements, to avoid repeating some of the more excessive fiascos of recent years. They are intended to assess whether projects can be completed to schedule and on budget. Strategic policy decisions about whether projects are worthwhile or an appropriate use of public funds are for ministers, and hence ultimately for Parliament, not questions for civil servants.

If that's the case Geraint then I think that we can all agree that in this instance the procedure is failing miserably. I certainly did not see any hint of a suggestion that perhaps it's not such a wonderful idea after all and more time or research is required before proceeding etc. It's hardly balanced, nor is there anything in their that can be held up as positive proof of an ID card's advantages. There's no meat, just gravy, would anyone go to the bank manager for the loan of a tenner with this sort of business plan, let alone demand from the taxpayers £20b. But I suppose that's the difference, the government has the power to just take the money from you anyway whereas we are a supplicant before the banks.

Justin.

I agree with Geraint's understanding of the Gateway Review process and Justin's sentiment.

I must say I find it striking (but not entirely surprising) that projects may proceed without a robust cost-benefit analysis.

That is not to say we would insist on projects breaking even or making a profit - rather that it helps inform a decision about whether or not a project is worthwhile.