By Will Sturgeon, 26 September 2006 14:40
NEWS
John Suffolk, UK government CIO, has told attendees at the silicon.com CIO Forum that many of the concerns surrounding ID cards are unfounded.
While he admitted "the whole matter of whether it is right or wrong is a matter for ministers", he said there is nothing in the technical specifications of the project that have given him any sleepless nights since taking the job over the summer.
He said: "There is nothing new or cutting edge. I'm not sitting here worrying about the base technology." He added that biometrics is well established, and said there are larger databases and systems processing more transactions than the UK ID cards system will once live.
The London Stock Exchange, he said, will process more transactions every day than the ID cards database ever will and he added people should give public sector IT projects the same chances as they do in the private sector.
Addressing fears about personal data being shared, he said: "Look at the situation in the private sector. You can't get credit unless you agree to your data being shared."
Suffolk added that the UK is too quick to criticise government IT projects. "It's a British cultural thing to only look at what's gone wrong," he said.
"Look at the situation in the private sector. You can't get credit unless you agree to your data being shared," John Suffolk, UK government CIO.
However, on the issue of cost and whether it will run on time, Suffolk admitted there is much about the project that defies accurate projections or guarantees.
He said any large project with the inherent complexities of a public sector project runs the risk of being delivered late. "I can't tell you what the money's going to be at this stage," he added, noting that as the bill went through Parliament, requirements for ID cards were changed and this is currently being reflected in the revised design.
Comments
There are 14 comments. Join the discussion
1. Robert Findlay
Government ID is much more dangerous to the individual than private ID. The two are not comparable.
If you give data to a private sector company, and they are too expensive, nosey, or careless with your data, then you can terminate your contract. If they've shared your data too widely, you can get them under the Data Protection Act.
But you have no such protections when it comes to the government. If you don't do exactly what they say, they send some burly men round and fine you or jail you. If they want to extend their powers they make a new regulation. If an administrative mistake puts you under suspicion, the nightmare may never be over.
2. Graham Coles
It's true, there may be larger database systems working out there.
However that doesn't explain the problems government IT projects seem to have in getting anything to work, even when the databases are a hundredth the size.
It's also true that biometrics are well established -- it's well established they don't work very well. Retinal scanners are very expensive and have a percentage failure rate which could render them useless for maybe 10% of the population; facial recognition has proven almost useless (don't smile, the system can't cope with it!)
Perhaps we will give public sector IT projects the same chance as private sector ones, at least when the government itself does.
It hasn't exactly passed my attention that the government have always had to compare the ID card project to ... what? The chip and pin system by banks, now the stock market? If they're up to the task, how come they don't have a single successful IT project of their own to compare it to? How about the CSA system? No, I thought not; there's a little more to it than handing over 20 billion of taxpayers money to contributors and saying 'Other people can do it, so we should be able to.'
3. Simon
"the whole matter of whether it is right or wrong is a matter for ministers"
Hmm, the same 'trustworthy' ministers who tried to sneak through the means to avoid having to trouble parliament with the bother of passing laws ? The same ones that keep getting told by the courts that their imprisonment without trial policies are illegal ? The same ones that still claim speed cameras are a good thing even though official figures now prove that they actually cost lives ?
Personally, I would like a say on what is right and wrong - and I know I'm not alone in that.
4. Radical Meldrew
When a government spokesperson says "no need to worry" its time to go into full panic mode.
As spin and duplicity are much more important than content these days, I personally don't believe a word of it.
5. anonymous
Stage One: Identify your your target scapegoats, in public preferably.
Stage Two: Round up scapegoat group and send to "holding" locations.
Stage Three: Exterminate them.
Glad to see our gov CIO not worrying about being a part of stage one of the process.
6. Jeremy Robinson
Requirements change and the processes are unknown.
Given an ID datbase is created, who can access it, with what data and under what conditions?
Given that biometric readers are expensive, just how many will there be and where, because without a biometric reader to scan my face or iris, the card is useless.
And how slow will all the mass security checks be? Will I have to spend hours queuing at Dover to get into the country?
Will the Government ever publish this sort of information?
7. Tim Jackson
Suffolk needn't lose any sleep because he presumably won't be in post when the chickens come home to roost.
Civil liberties and IT capability we can argue till we are blue on the face but the real solid worries are cost and security.
These go hand in hand. It will cost a lot to implement, but the costs won't really hit the taxpayer until ten years or so down the line. And the cost will go on rising as the cost of securing this valuable prize in the face of increasingly sophisticated and expensive attempts to hack it spiral up. What we do now, if it survives, will be a millstone around the necks of the next generation.
But no worries, Suffolk will have retired, so that's all right.
8. anonymous
If John Suffolk is as ignorant as he appears to be, he shouldn’t work for the government at all. The issue of the ID card is not so much about being able to process data but the security of the data and the level of data that is stored. My bank doesn’t have any biometric or medical information whatsoever. With a bank I have a certain level of security of who has access to the data. I cannot say that the same applies to government officials and probably any airline that wants the data for security reasons.
Also, claiming that biometric technology is matured enough is rich. How many biometric technologies are in use on a mass producing and end user basis? None!
And let’s be honest, the British government doesn’t exactly have a long history of successful IT projects. His statement that he only provides the technology is equivalent to any person related to torture that claims he only does what he was told to do and cannot be held responsible.
9. Christine Hogg
Another Government follly which they will not admit to because they wish to save face. Please Mr Blair spend the money on improving our Police and Armed Forces.
10. Karen Challinor
you know all those little changes in the political process we've been promised over the years, you know ideas like proportional representation, making government more accountable to the people, things like that
well here's an idea for all those dissillusioned with politics
lets form our own party, the party will be dedicated solely to political reform such as open government, e-government, proportional representation, national votes on national issues and so on. once it's aims are achieved it will stand down. so the playpen will be tidy and some ground rules will have been laid and we can let the children ... sorry politicians back in and have the kind of government we actually wanted every time we voted in the past
just think all those little things they promised us in their manifesto's which made us vote for them, but they never quite got round to implementing could be in place within a couple of weeks of the next general election, admittedly there would be another general election almost immediately and we would have to put safeguards in place to stop the politicians undoing everything but it's doable
and while we are at it we could find out exactly what costs and risks the government has been told about and not passed on to us for the id card bill
11. Johnny Mnemonic
Of course he's not worried. They've put another Accenture person in charge. With all the experience we gained from the NHS IT project, Sainsbury's etc, the chances of this card ever working are nil. Civil libertarians should be rejoicing.
12. Adrian Tawse
Neither am I worried that the base technology would fail to work, I am worried that there has been no convincing justification for the considerable expense, a business case, unless you consider ID cards to be just a means of Government Surveilance. They will be of no use against terrorism, or crime, petty or serious, or fraud, on-line or otherwise. They may be useful for a small minority who seem to find it difficult esablishing their identity, but that is no argument for making them compulsory, or for the scope of the ID database.
13. anonymous
This guy's comments sound like the stance that should be taken by an implementation engineer: Only thinking about the actual technology, and none of the human, security, civil liberties, cost etc issues. Someone in his position should definitely be debating what exactly is right and wrong about implementing such a huge system that will store such personal information about every one of us. Is he trying to narrow the number of things he can be made a scapegoat for??
14. Ken Hall
"the whole matter of whether it is right or wrong is a matter for ministers"
Not in a democracy! That is what elections are for, and Cameron has just gained a new voter.
How arrogant can the government and its paid shills and shysters get?
Just because this 'man' says these card will work, doesn't mean that they will. He is paid by the government to say that they will. Truth be damned!