Why use new ID card data on old, badly run
systems?
Karen Challinor, Partner, Box Technic IT Solutions
With regard to Bill Goodwin's article,
"U-turn cuts risks of ID card scheme"
(Computer Weekly, 23 January), I would ask why, if the
government's new approach of data sharing and using existing
database systems is so sensible, why wasn't it adopted from day
one?
Why was the original plan defended with such vigour and not
allowed to be subjected to the same scrutiny in parliament as every
other motion put before it?
But James Hall, chief executive of the Identity and Passport
Service, "stressed that there were no plans to use existing, often
inaccurate, data on government systems, but to gather the ID cards
data anew".
So, on the one hand, the government admits that the existing
systems are so badly managed, so overstretched and so insecure that
the data held on them has become so corrupt and inaccurate as to be
useless for any practical purpose. And on the other, it announces
plans to use those very same overstretched, insecure and badly
managed existing systems to hold the freshly gathered data from the
enrolment of people in the ID card scheme.
This will allow greater security of the data according to Hall.
How exactly does he intend to guarantee this security and also
prevent the degradation of the new data?
The article also states, "The business case for ID cards has
also been updated, and it will be subject to independent scrutiny
through the Office of Government Commerce Gateway review process in
the early part of this year."
The last time I looked, the results of two of the four Gateway
reviews of the project so far had been requested by parliament. The
data protection registrar had found no reason to deny this request.
The Labour Party, on the other hand, was - and still is - fighting
tooth and nail to prevent the release of the reviews by any legal
means at its disposal - apparently to prevent people forming the
misconception that the ID card scheme is anywhere but on track.
My question is, what is the use of a Gateway review if no one,
including parliament, is allowed to see the report?
Don't overlook copyright issue of file
swapping
Nick Cockayne, UK IT support manager, WSP Management
Services
Thank you for the interesting article
"Working with the iPod generation" (Computer
Weekly, 23 January). However, I think you have missed a major
issue - aside from that of security - which is the storage and
sharing by staff of copyrighted material. This will become a
major risk to companies.
At my company we are trawling through reports of MP3, WMA files
etc, which we have found stored on PCs and even file servers.
End-users can easily transfer these from an iPod to the desktop, or
copy CDs to the desktop.
We are devising a policy based on advice from the recording
industry group IFPI and will be looking for buy-in from our
colleagues in the business to eradicate this problem.
Asset management is key to software licence
clarity
Chris Minchin, Techam
I am writing following Stephen Glathe's letter
(Computer Weekly, 23 January) regarding the
headache of software licensing.
I agree that the area of software licensing seems to have been
weighted in favour of the publisher, with long and complicated
licence agreements and little assistance in understanding them,
coupled with perceived heavy-handedness in the event of a licence
breach.
There is much that can be done to improve the relationship
between publishers and customers. In essence, the publisher wants
the correct payment for its product and we want to be able to align
our software with our business goals in a compliant manner.
I have worked with many organisations in this area over the
years and there is an obvious pattern emerging. The publisher
contacts the company and carries out a sample audit. It then
suggests that the organisation is using x number of its products
based on the findings and that the business needs to prove
otherwise.
The business will often have poor or no software asset
management in place and will end up writing a cheque for the
shortfall. Everyone walks away happy. The publisher has his correct
fees for perceived product usage and the organisation has removed
the perceived wolf from the door for another 12 months.
Organisations rarely allocate enough budget to making sure that
they do not overpay, but hopefully initiatives such as the new
ISO19770 software asset management standard will help to raise
awareness.
Answer back
Do you have a fresh take on someone's opinion on this page, or
something to say about a Computer Weekly article? E-mail
computer.weekly@rbi.co.uk.
Please include a daytime phone number.