I received this mail on 31 January:
There was just one problem, as my response pointed out:
I have since received this response:
I consider this to be inadequate: asking someone intent on committing an identity theft to confirm that they understand that this is what they are doing is not going to deter anyone.
At the very least it is beholden on parliament to seek email verification in a two stage process of submission, test response and confirmation that the real owner of the email has approved the submission made before any comment is accepted by a committee for publication. This is, after all, required to sign an on line petition on a government web site and has to be the minimum standard acceptable.
Better still, a more formal verification process should be created to prevent such fraud taking place or the whole parliamentary consultation process will be at risk of abuse, and will be discredited as a result.
It seems to me that there is real risk here.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
There appears to be little chance of the govt doing anything to remedy this or increase security given that your correspondent has openly stated that it has been happening across all committees for the last few years! Complacent, or what?!
Given the example you cite and the recent reports of ID theft to support fraudulent tax refund claims what level of security can we expect from any Westminster or Whitehall technology systems? The plans for a paperless NHS (2nd attempt) have more to do with the political goals of privatisation and data sales than they do with clinical efficiency. Multiple system developers chasing a specification that changes with the wind in pursuit of a political goal will inevitably lead to a leaky system.
Inevitably
Worth noting that the Houses of Parliament information systems are not run by the government and are studiedly independent of political interests for obvious constitutional reasons. That said they have historically had very limited resources, certainly a tiny fraction of what they spend on buildings. The Clerks and parliamentary committees responsible for setting budgets on such things are probably not the most technically sophisticated people
This could be the tip of a nasty iceberg if people have been submitting to committees under assumed identities. As suggested, it should not be too difficult to validate and confirm identity.
(I had the Houses of Parliament as a client some years back and so have seen some of this from the inside…)
Interesting
And I really do not think checks beyond the balance of possibility
Could check this person out:
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/commons/executive-committee/d-pict/
Now responsible for digital services across both Houses
Glad to see they are still using “lessons will be learned” to draw a line under any
government mess up whether large or small.
Hang on: comrpared to the average private sector mess up this is tiny
Indeed. However the Government use the same line when kids die after social services shortcomings or when there is industrial sexual abuse in Rotherham. It’s the Government Line to show they’ve messed up but they promise it won’t happen again.
Jim
I really think your time here is running out
Lying is unappealing and your comments are deeply insulting
Richard
That’s what happens, Jim, when local and national Government allows itself to be a human shield for the cost cutting to the bone practices masquerading as “efficiency” that the public sector has adopted from the private corporate sector.
The words “Lessons will be learned” or similar are regularly trotted out when private sector banks are caught laundering drug money or fixing the Libor rate; when privatised utilities cannot cope with the damage from a bit of robust weather; when IT projects run over budget and so on.
But as with tax freeloading there is an obvious pattern here where there is an over eagerness in your posts to present a public sector ethos as bad. Constantly bleating on about the mote in the public sector ethos whilst either pointedly ignoring or defending the beam in the practices of the corporate private sector.
Despite this I would ask Richard not to bar you on the grounds that those who adopt such approaches should be allowed sufficient rope with which to hang themselves.
I have not actually banned him
I posted his comment
Are you serious? Ban me by all means but how dare you say I am lying.
A simple exercise for you
Google:
“Baby p statement, lessons will be learned”
“Lessons will be learned, Rotherham, Cameron”
I shall not post again but I hope you are not a coward and post this so others can make their minds up.
Do you know how we learn?
Clearly not
Which is why your comments are not worth noting
You are missing the point Jim.
Re read and digest my previous post.
Bottom line, your contributions deliberately lack balance. Terminological inexactitudes by omission are still terminological inexactitudes.
A nonsense argument – as I tried to explain before, this is not a government issue. I’m more than happy to blame the government for their failings but someone is not understanding the difference between the Houses Of Parliament and their administration, and the government of the day. The Government is absolutely not responsible for the HofP – for what should be obvious constitutional reasons.
As an aside I’ve done more than enough project rescues and management in both large public and private sector organisations to know that there are plenty of major project failings in the private sector. Without the excuse of the scale and complexity that the public sector has to deal with. In banks alone I’ve watched £100ms be written off. And despite HMRC’s failings, when they were a client 6-7 years ago, they were operationally way more efficient than the many dozy and complacent banks and insurance companies I’ve dealt with over the years. I mean the big ones.
Funny how people allow their entrenched ideology to over-ride any balanced assessment…
I agree
Having seen both
Private sector waste is called risk taking
But that’s crap: most is incompetence on a grand scale
I was about to say ‘Hear, Hear” (but I’m not very good at donkey impressions) but that post deserves a round of applause for its final sentence alone.