Offshoring UK data

[Happy Face 29]

Private data on British drivers will be stored offshore

 

Secret move by IBM, which runs London's congestion charge, will allow access to sensitive DVLA information

 

The government has secretly agreed that the "particularly sensitive" personal data of all 43 million drivers in the UK can be contracted offshore to India in a move that will allow the private firm running London's congestion zone to cut costs and make more money.

 

Data from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, including addresses and registration plate numbers, along with credit card details, will now be accessible to staff outside the UK following a review by ministers.

 

The prohibition was rescinded after IBM, which runs the congestion charge zone for Transport for London (TfL), lobbied for a change. The company has been repeatedly fined since it took over the contract from Capita in 2009, making the £60m deal less profitable than it had hoped.

 

However the move to relax the rules around the sensitive data, which has not been publicly announced, raises concerns in the build-up to the London 2012 Olympics about the increased risk of fraud.

 

It is understood that a risk assessment carried out within IBM has also identified a potential threat to London's reputation should the changes lessen the ability of staff to deal with problems in the congestion zone IT systems. It also warned of the risk to the security of sensitive data.

 

The move also appears to contradict ministers' recent insistence that they would resist any work on government contracts going abroad.

 

The transition allowing staff abroad access to the data is expected to be completed by 18 May. An internal email sent by IBM's commercial manager earlier this month, and seen by the Observer, says: "Since go live, TfL has directed that we retain within the UK certain support roles with access to data that they considered particularly sensitive… TfL has recently completed a risk assessment with the DVLA and the Department for Transport and has concluded that they no longer require this additional level of control… As a result we have commenced a transition exercise to manage the changes to our support organisation over the next three months."

 

Labour MP John McDonnell said he feared the change would cost British jobs. "Despite all past promises from the government, the decision to offshore this sensitive information database will not only cost jobs but open up vast opportunities for fraud. Offshoring the congestion charge operation just as we host the Olympics also risks making Britain the laughing stock of the world as the new system inevitably experiences teething problems."

 

The Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union said it was concerned that the decision had come just as the government was consulting over whether to close 39 DVLA offices to centralise processes in Swansea.

 

Richard Simcox, from the PCS, said: "It appears neither IBM nor DVLA were planning to tell anyone about it. The government should call an immediate halt to the DVLA's plans and ministers should explain to MPs and the public exactly what has happened and what are the implications."

 

A DVLA spokesperson said: "All IT systems must be managed to the same standard as if they were in the UK. We will ensure that all appropriate controls for data protection are in place."

 

http://www.guardian....-to-go-offshore

 

Sorry if it's a bit of a dry subject. Just want to do a straw poll. The unions are up in arms about loss of jobs and are using the data risk to put a downer on it...but it will make for big savings.

 

If it happens it'll potentially be the first step on the majority of government contracts being sent abroad for the cheapest bidder.

 

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the savings and the job lossses, do you care if someone in India is handling your sensitive information or a charver in Swansea?

Edited March 21, 2012 by Happy Face

[Happy Face 29]

interesting

[Gemmill 42666]

Aye I think you got the answer to your question though.

[Happy Face 29]

Every day, anyone who is connected to the internet leaves an ever bigger trail of data behind them. But how aware are we of who is collecting this information and of who benefits from it? I spent a day without data to to explore these questions.

 

My guide for this no-data diet is Dr George Danezis, an expert on privacy and information security at University College, London. As I sit at the breakfast table, handing over my gadgets he sets out the challenge I face:

 

"Your job today is going to be very difficult, You won't be able to use the internet, but you also won't be able to do lots of other things - in fact you won't be able to live a 21st Century life."

 

As someone who is addicted to being online, checking Twitter the moment I wake up, still reading online news last thing at night, giving up my smartphone is hard.

 

But George also makes me hand over my travel card and my BBC identity card which gets me into my office. Both record data about my location, so they have to go.

 

George explains that there are three big collectors of data: companies, governments and the police and the security services. Consumers may have grown accustomed to this data collection and in some cases see benefits.

 

But we may still be in the dark about some aspects. "It's collected for primary but also secondary purposes, you might be handing over data while you're shopping and that might be used later for marketing or working out health insurance."

 

I determine not to buy quite so many biscuits if that is going to send bad signals to my insurance company.

 

We head out with the dog for a walk, trying not to leave data as we go. George explains that we could not take the car without the risk of being tracked, either by my satnav or by number plate recognition systems.

 

And of course in London a bus is also out of the question - the drivers no longer take cash, only London's Oyster card.

 

Without my mobile phone, which constantly tells the network operator where I am, I should be safe just walking along, but then George points to the various CCTV cameras monitoring our progress along the High Street.

 

Even a trip to the shops with cash rather than cards presents difficulties. "Big notes have their serial numbers tracked by the banks. If you take one out of the cash machine and give it to the shop they will pay it straight back into the bank and then you can be tracked."

 

I ask George whether I might be better staying at home. For now, he says, that might be okay but what about when my home becomes smart?

 

"Right now you assume your kettle isn't sharing data but smart objects will be much more difficult to read. You might pick up some object that looks innocuous, like a kettle, and find out that it does actually share information."

 

We end up taking the dog for a walk in the woods. Surely here, far from CCTV cameras, mobile phones, smart cards, I am off the grid? But George points out that even Archie the dog is chipped, so in theory someone with a reader could work out where his owner is.

 

Can big data really revolutionise our world? We explore how the explosion of information and analysis will impact our lives and our privacy.

 

Power of big data

 

And, just as we dismiss that as totally far-fetched he comes up with something more unsettling.

 

"If someone like you who normally shares a lot of information suddenly goes totally dark, this in itself is quite noticeable and a lot of analytical systems out there will immediately notice that something odd is going on."

 

Once you have laid a data trail, it seems, even going off the grid does not work.

 

But having thoroughly unsettled me, George tells me not to be paranoid and gives me some tips for healthy data habits.

 

"There is a good reason to keep track of public policy around data - make sure that no more than necessary is collected. You should also make sure that the technology you have has options for being used without collecting data, which as we've seen today isn't easy."

 

Maybe we should all read those endless privacy statements from online companies instead of just pressing "Agree". Or perhaps it is time for consumers to demand more transparency and a better return for their data from all those who collect it.

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29802368

 

It's always unsettling when you buy a salt cellar online and all the ads you see become ads for pepper shakers. Never considered that buying tabs on my credit card could get back to my insurer.

[Park Life 71]

1. Not that big a deal storing data in India, rather India than America etc..

 

2. Poeple have become more aware that all their internet stuff is being logged and stored since Wikileaks and so on...What stupidity the Facebook/Twittah idiots do will only fuck them.

 

3.We've lost a lot of our freedoms cause people aren't really interested in it and are easily distracted. And they are distracted by things that the data mining reveals (to power) they would be distracted by...

Edited November 26, 2014 by Park Life

[scoobos 297]

My view is that for government information, such as this , which can be used to personally identify an individual , should NEVER be offshored, especially to economies such as India. Bribery and data theft is just too big a risk.

 

As far as personal use goes , as mentioned in the post above, the individual should take the responsibility to safeguard their data, the internet is the equivalent of a post it note board out on the street (without SSL of course). George is a bit alarmist really though when he starts banging on about smart kettles.

 

There are many methods available such as Tor browsing, or ghostery, even internet explorer's "in-private" mode helps. The biggest risk I've seen lose individuals hundreds of thousands of pounds is pure naivety, things like not putting a password on their phone and tablet, problem is, no ones educating them.

 

Bringing it into current events, I'm on the fence with Facebook (who I hate) over this current headline of them needing to take responsibility for people using it for terrorism īn personal messages. My main thought is that pre internet, the telephone was a good way to coordinate terrorist events, but it was the government security forces responsibility to police it, not BT.

 

Scary thought on data protection went largely unmissed last year when Facebook performed a large scale psychological experiment on it's users, to see if they could effect a users mood, and subsequently their wall posts. This is totally unethical and angers me greatly, worse still they refuse to divulge the users affected, if a psychology institution did this it would face litigation. (its supposed to be more than half a million british and us citizens)

 

My 2 cents, and for once not entirely based on just opīnion, a rarity here!

Edited November 27, 2014 by scoobos

[Happy Face 29]

The US/UK Campaign to Demonize Social Media Companies as Terrorist Allies

 

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/26/campaign-shame-social-media-companies-acting-spy-agents-national-security-state/

[scoobos 297]

cheers for the link, seems in line with my thoughts also. One thing is inaccurate though, which is that ghcq cannot use the information they gather because it is too large, wikileaks exposed that, they have a absolutely massive farm that performs automated searches of raw captured packets. This stuff bothers me, they should only be able to inspect someones packets with a warrant, its like opening and reading every single item of post that goes to every house in the country. Back on with my tinfoil hat now.

[Happy Face 29]

Of course they can perform automated searches. But that's not the intelligent investigative work that stops attacks. They're looking for a needle in a haystack, looking at the needle after its identified itself and then claiming the way to improve the search in future is to add more hay.

 

Artificial intelligence is the next step in data filtering. Getting a computer to join the dots.

[Happy Face 29]

Skynet by 2020s?

 

Perhaps the most disturbing dimension among the NDU study’s insights is the prospect that within the next decade, artificial intelligence (AI) research could spawn “strong AI”—or at least a form of “weak AI” that approximates some features of the former.

 

Strong AI should be able to simulate a wide range of human cognition, and include traits like consciousness, sentience, sapience, or self-awareness. Many now believe, Kadtke and Wells, observe, that “strong AI may be achieved sometime in the 2020s.”

 

They report that a range of technological advances support “this optimism,” especially that “computer processors will likely reach the computational power of the human brain sometime in the 2020s”—Intel aims to reach this milestone by 201​8. Other relevant advances in development include “full brain simulations, neuro-synaptic computers, and general knowledge representation systems such as IBM Watson.”

 

As the costs of robotics manufacturing and cloud computing plummet, the NDU paper says, AI advances could even allow for automation of high-level military functions like “problem solving,” “strategy development” or “operational planning.”

https://www.mintpressnews.com/pentagons-skynet-automate-war/199249/

[scoobos 297]

Ok, I'm not so sure about that one to be honest, we dont understand enough about the human brain to be able to code it. Sure we can have intelligent robots but self awareness is a bit silly I reckon, these two blokes have spent too long working with the us department of defence. 100 years maybe.

 

As far as the ghcq stuff goes, according to the info on wikileaks they have the computational power to search packets in real time and the storage to keep 7 days of data, if that's true, and I doubt it isnt if its on wikileaks, then they could well search whatever they like.

 

It's getting a bit out of hand if you ask me, internet technology has exploded at a rate that is unmanageable and it's becoming increasingly difficult to defend our right to privacy, when our children are being conditioned to share everything with anyone. Very dangerous in my opinion.

 

Back on topic, offshoring data to India might be a worry, but what about selling our telecommunications backbone and nuclear power to the chinese, that's pure stupidity.

[Happy Face 29]

I don't think anyone denies the search power or the volume available to be searched by the intelligence agencies. It's joining the dots that can't be done yet, by man (too slow) or machine (not cognitive). The latter of those is the only one that can conceivably be solved.

 

Government putting the emphasis on Facebook to do that despite it currently being an impossible task is just a scam to push through more anti-privacy legislation. No-one is going to find out who is looking to commit a crime until computers can understand the meaning of an entire sentence, accounting for sarcasm and pinpoint intent. They can then do that on an unimaginable scale.