Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Government Digital Service Design Principles

gov.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 84 posts

Re: Government Digital Service Design Principles

#41

Post by piqufoh »

anu_gupta wrote: post #29
piqufoh wrote: post #26

Great idea, lets hope it catches on. Unfortunately it seems like parts have been translated into 'trendy' - for example > Government should only do what only government can do. uh, what?

If you had continued to read the rest of that paragraph, you would have seen this: > If someone else is doing it — link to it. If we can provide resources (like APIs) that will help other people build things — do that. We should concentrate on the irreducible core.

I had continued reading it, and I maintain that single sentences must make (at least logical) sense by themselves. This is marketing jargon trash, and should not be encouraged in a web standards document!

Re: Government Digital Service Design Principles

#42

Post by Nursie »

jpswade wrote: post #38
Nursie wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it has, and the sharing of site-visitor data with google on sites all over the web is something to be concerned about IMHO. However, again IMHO, tracking casual web use is a different class of data to my interactions with my government, and I very much resent those being sent to foreign companies and (by inference) foreign powers, however benign and friendly our relationship is.

Let's not forget. Google is an international company, not "foreign". Google has servers and offices in the UK. If you read the first point, it says "Start with needs". They need to be relevant and appear in Google. Google Analytics is simply a tool that helps them do that.

>> Let's not forget. Google is an international company, not "foreign".

No, it's an American company, subject to the whims of the US government.

>> Google has servers and offices in the UK.

Sure does. I have no idea where they process the data though and I doubt the gov.uk folks have. If they did have a guarantee that the data wasn't ever going to leave the UK then maybe they could say so?

>> If you read the first point, it says "Start with needs". They need to be relevant and appear in Google. Google Analytics is simply a tool that helps them do that.

Err, no, google analytics records and transmits site interaction data.

Re: Government Digital Service Design Principles

#43

Post by sp332 »

mbesto wrote: post #37
Nursie wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry what? F*ck privacy, this way is more expedient? Is that what you're saying in effect? That's not what I want from my government. --edit-- I also didn't make any suggestions, I would have accepted a reasonable explanation of the legal and technological measures that were in place to protect my data from rampant proliferation through US corporate and government systems. Instead I got (and this is a direct quo…

This is unacceptable. Before you start the lynch mob, ask yourself this: what on earth can one do with non-person-identifiable data stored on a server? "Next on BBC - Terrorist organisation finds out too many British people forget to update their MOTs" That's not what I want from my government. Be very very fortunate you can even get a somewhat usable site, much less a very user friendly site. There are citizens of t…

Of course it's personally identifiable. AOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak and more recently Netflix http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/shmat_oak08netflix.pdf tried to anonymize datasets and failed. With a website, you can geo-locate the IP, cross-reference with timestamps, and probably ID more than half the users. Someone tested how hard it is: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/de-anonymize-cellphone-da... With 4 location datapoints + timestamps, you can differentiate 95% of people.

Re: Government Digital Service Design Principles

#44

Post by lifeisstillgood »

Nursie wrote: post #34
_mulder_ wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately it's attitudes like this that usually end up making Government projects so eye-wateringly expensive. Assuming they listen to your suggestion and act on it as you suggest, it seems the only option open to them is to design their own in-house (In UK for that matter) version of Google Analytics to do their own analysis. Regardless of the cost and time this would add to the project, it's unlikely that it wo…

I'm sorry what? F*ck privacy, this way is more expedient? Is that what you're saying in effect? That's not what I want from my government. --edit-- I also didn't make any suggestions, I would have accepted a reasonable explanation of the legal and technological measures that were in place to protect my data from rampant proliferation through US corporate and government systems. Instead I got (and this is a direct quo…

Which part is unacceptable - the fobbing off part, or the some data gets sent to a country that tortures people, spies on all its citizens indiscriminately and has not signed up to common international treaties.

I think that before Snowden most people, myself included, would have thought not using google analytics for the above reasons was paranoia.

Now, I think that all digital data should be treated as public and until we change the law to have a public / private demarcation, we need to accept it and deal.

(I see this as a pollution issue, until we get a clean air act, everyone will walk around with cloths across their mouths)

edit: little less troll like:

We have no framework for digital privacy, and until we see an emergent consensus there will not be one. Here, on this site, we have informed, reasonable people disagree on fundamental definitions of online privacy. So the first step here is to ask, "privacy in the US is based on two things, actions in ones own home are protected by default, and written communications between yourself and others are protected, and publishing is an explicit act"

What do those things now mean in a world of mobile phones, internet and metadata?

Re: Government Digital Service Design Principles

#45

Post by lifeisstillgood »

Nursie wrote: post #40
mbesto wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is unacceptable. Before you start the lynch mob, ask yourself this: what on earth can one do with non-person-identifiable data stored on a server? "Next on BBC - Terrorist organisation finds out too many British people forget to update their MOTs" That's not what I want from my government. Be very very fortunate you can even get a somewhat usable site, much less a very user friendly site. There are citizens of t…

>> Before you start the lynch mob, ask yourself this: what on earth can one do with non-person-identifiable data stored on a server? How do we know it's non-person-identifiable? It's certainly clear that the analytics data comes from a set IP address, and when correlated with all the other data that big G collect from all over the web, who knows what can come out of it. >> Be very very fortunate you can even get a so…

Why should one part of the UK government be informed about your interactions with another part?

We have no framework for digital privacy, and until we see an emergent consensus there will not be one.

Here, on this site, we have informed, reasonable people disagree on fundamental definitions of online privacy.

I am unsure where to begin.

Re: Government Digital Service Design Principles

#47

Post by Nursie »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #44
Nursie wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry what? F*ck privacy, this way is more expedient? Is that what you're saying in effect? That's not what I want from my government. --edit-- I also didn't make any suggestions, I would have accepted a reasonable explanation of the legal and technological measures that were in place to protect my data from rampant proliferation through US corporate and government systems. Instead I got (and this is a direct quo…

Which part is unacceptable - the fobbing off part, or the some data gets sent to a country that tortures people, spies on all its citizens indiscriminately and has not signed up to common international treaties. I think that before Snowden most people, myself included, would have thought not using google analytics for the above reasons was paranoia. Now, I think that all digital data should be treated as public and u…

>> Which part is unacceptable

Pretending it's a non-issue and not addressing concerns AND then using an overseas helpdesk service, such that now not only are analytics being sent to the US, but actual communication between a UK citizen and the UK government.

But particularly the latter half.

>> I think that before Snowden most people, myself included, would have thought not using google analytics for the above reasons was paranoia.

Most people haven't been paying much attention then.

>>Now, I think that all digital data should be treated as public and until we change the law to have a public / private demarcation, we need to accept it and deal.

Cool, if that's your attitude to this. Some of us would prefer to prevent our government being complicit wherever possible. They may already be in breech of various regulations and I do intend to be in contact with the ICO soon.

Re: Government Digital Service Design Principles

#48

Post by Nursie »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #45
Nursie wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Before you start the lynch mob, ask yourself this: what on earth can one do with non-person-identifiable data stored on a server? How do we know it's non-person-identifiable? It's certainly clear that the analytics data comes from a set IP address, and when correlated with all the other data that big G collect from all over the web, who knows what can come out of it. >> Be very very fortunate you can even get a so…

Why should one part of the UK government be informed about your interactions with another part? We have no framework for digital privacy, and until we see an emergent consensus there will not be one. Here, on this site, we have informed, reasonable people disagree on fundamental definitions of online privacy. I am unsure where to begin.

Right, so because we haven't got a full and complete legal framework and associated consensus driven moral framework in this area, we should just relax and give up on the whole idea?

We already have data protection frameworks in the UK and at the EU level. I would like to see them adhered to in spirit, and I would also like to know that someone involved in the gov.uk has at least given this a moment's thought.

Re: Government Digital Service Design Principles

#50

Post by Nursie »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #35
_mulder_ wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately it's attitudes like this that usually end up making Government projects so eye-wateringly expensive. Assuming they listen to your suggestion and act on it as you suggest, it seems the only option open to them is to design their own in-house (In UK for that matter) version of Google Analytics to do their own analysis. Regardless of the cost and time this would add to the project, it's unlikely that it wo…

I cannot upvote you as much as I want. Yes, yes, yes. The only time we should consider these attitudes is when real keep it from everyone security matters (you know MI5 style security, not pentest security) And frankly my view on that is now: want to keep a secret? Keep it away from computers.

What if I don't want everyone in the world to know everything about what I do with a computer?

They're more and more part of everyone's life and not everyone is of the mindset that it doesn't matter if corporations and governments get to look at every little detail of their online interaction. Car tax, criminal law, the weekly shop at tesco.com ... all going to the profilers.

I know this is happening. I know how to stop some of it. But everyone else?

Post reply on HN