Computer Weekly readers have their say
On the road to state blackmail with ID
cards?
Ever since the home secretary started to voice a case for ID
cards in the UK, I have been against them. But with so much spin
going on, I am finding it hard to find a valid reason why.
The technology, unreliable as it is, can only get better. The
potential high cost is just a smoke screen to get us talking about
money instead of the moral implications of denying UK citizens the
right to just be.
And that 1984-esque saying, "If you have nothing to hide then
you have nothing to worry about," is hard to find a valid comeback
to. So, after great consideration, I have come up with two reasons
why I do not like the idea.
First, to paraphrase Murphy's Law, if you have a set-up where
there is even the slightest possibility of abuse, then abuse will
more than likely occur.
This principle has been demonstrated recently with The Sun's
claims that it managed to gain confidential customer information
from an Indian call centre, including bank details.
Second, there is the possibility that in the future DNA
information will form part of the card. We could end up with the
government targeting specific individuals with surveillance as they
fall into a particular group of people sharing similar genetic
traits.
Now I for one feel slightly apprehensive about this idea, which
is within the capabilities of modern science. I would not submit my
personal copyrighted bio-information willingly to the government.
What would they have to resort to then? Petty blackmail, prison
sentences, Gestapo tactics? I can just imagine it, "If you don't
get a card then you do not have an automatic right to NHS
treatment."
It does not sound like a very good idea to me.
Robert Collinson, Humber Sea Terminal
Police want nationwide intelligence system
Your news item "Police report slams UK police forces' IT as
dysfunctional and poor value" (Computer Weekly, 28 June) painted
too bleak and pessimistic a view of the state of police IT in the
UK.
Over the past few years it has been very encouraging to see a
lot more understanding in the police industry about information
sharing, and the majority of police are in agreement that a
national intelligence system is a good idea.
But with 43 police forces all having set their own IT agendas,
we have ended up with a chaotic mix of disparate systems, although
everyone seems in agreement that a standard system is needed. There
are already many different local and regional initiatives ongoing
within UK law enforcement to find the best way to do this.
The technology is available to create one national information
repository and by using a web-based search interface officers could
search any police force, third party or partner system with
ease.
We must ensure we learn from systems already in use and not
reinvent the wheel. There are many examples of information sharing
systems both in the UK and on an international level, including the
British Transport Police and New Jersey State Police in the US.
Agreeing the need for a national system is a major step forward.
The next challenge is to agree how that system should be
implemented.
David Carrick, managing director, Memex Technology
Outsourcing relies on good supplier
relations
I read with interest your article on outsourcing based on
research by Harvey Nash (Computer Weekly, 28 June) and was saddened
to hear that CIOs who have had a disappointing outsourcing
experience are withdrawing from the outsourcing arena.
It is unfortunate, given the maturity of the IT outsourcing
market, that these situations can still occur.
From my experience, many organisations fall at the first hurdle
because they do not agree the outsourcing priorities at the outset
and they do not put enough emphasis on the relationship between the
internal team and the supplier.
Chemistry and personal interaction between these two teams is a
key priority and I believe relationship management should be built
into the service agreement.
In addition, getting the contract right is an absolutely
critical element to the success or failure of an outsourcing
project. All too often companies are sleepwalking into trouble
because they assume the supplier is overseeing the delivery of the
whole IT project.
Although this may be true in principle, we must remember that
the supplier's project manager will always have a different set of
priorities to the customer. By definition, they will always be
looking after the supplier's interests first.
In essence, successful outsourcing is about three things:
people, processes and organisation, in that order.
David Craig, managing director, DAV Management
Transparency is key to trustworthy SLAs
In my view, the most compelling point to come from The Harvey
Nash CIO Market Survey 2005/6 (Computer Weekly, 28 June) was the
fact that many CIOs said that, in retrospect, they would rather
have spent more time ensuring that the service level agreement with
their suppliers was "foolproof".
This is the root cause of all tensions in outsourcing
relationships. Why? Lack of transparency can result in situations
where some service providers doctor outsourcing service level
agreements, "oversell" an outsourcing agreement and can simply
bumble through without fear of retribution.
Increased transparency would allow both parties to structure an
open, clear and trustworthy outsourcing agreement.
Until recently, this was a very difficult thing to ensure but
with the plethora of business service management solutions
available, transparency has become increasingly easy and can open
the door to industry best practice.
Sean Larner, managing director, Managed Objects