Was going to pull you up on the apparent logical leap in the first few paragraphs but, if correct about the private sector doing the anonymising, that's no logical leap at all and actually pretty scary.
The Tories were big fans - in opposition - of labelling the then-Labour government a "database state" as it lumbered from one ID card disaster to another. But now that the Conservative Party is heading towards the mid-term point of its coalition with the Lib Dems, the notion of hoarding ever-more information about British …
Thursday 8th November 2012 07:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
From my perspective, as a School Governor I am concerned that children can be uniquely identified by this, maybe not a name but definitely by a unique number that could lead back to them.
At secondary school it is quite amazing the stats and size of file that follows a pupil around. Did you misbehave a little in year 7? Well the records are there when you leave the sixth form.
There is a slippery slope argument that eventually prospective employers can have access to your records.
While it is important to have tracking from a safeguarding and welfare point of view I question who should have access to this data. If they do have access how do they police it?
Thursday 8th November 2012 19:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
Anonymise data... Phhhaaaa
Small class of 12 children, 7 boys, 5 girls.....
From this it is possible to narrow down and identify gender of anonymised data quite easily.
From this point on, say by female gender it is possible to dig into the data and identify a particular female as there are only five to choose from.
Of the five females 2 have free school meals. One has poor attendance......
Data is never anonymised.
Thursday 8th November 2012 08:04 GMT LarsG
There have been a number of complaints recently where a school introduced fingerprint readers for the diner queue. Rather than using money or a card to pay for you meal, you use a fingerprint.
Of course the machine 'does not' record finger prints, though it must contain a database of them many parents are concerned about data protection issues. The system was introduced without a consultation. It would be quite easy for the police or local authority to get access to it simply by requesting it through a court order.
The danger is that like the DNA data base many innocent young people can find themselves on the system simply because the police have been having a trawl.
But hey if you have nothing to hide? As they say.
Thursday 8th November 2012 09:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
My school used fingerprint readers to take out books from the library. Numerous times I asked staff there "are you recording fingerprints?" Which they replied "no we are just generating a unique number for you"
E.G A serialised fingerprint...
We live in a scary world now and out kids don't understand the implications
Thursday 8th November 2012 07:30 GMT Beanzy
We are obliged by law to send our children to school and there is no opt-out from the collection of data on our children. We are now expected to allow this to be harvested with no opt-out for the child at any stage in the process. The current practices of data gathering in education are a mockery of the Data Protection Act. Now the government want to commercialise this with no attempt to allow opt-outs or protection those coerced by the system.
Thursday 8th November 2012 08:28 GMT Mark 65
Also, I'm interested in knowing whether the Government only holds this data for state schools or independents etc as well and what data is actually held?
I believe there is a country out there that has a law stating that such data about you belongs to you and hence this sort of thing is not possible.
How does this square with the European data laws, specifically:
"Any state interference with a person's privacy is only acceptable for the Court if three conditions are fulfilled:
The interference is in accordance with the law
The interference pursues a legitimate goal
The interference is necessary in a democratic society"
"The directive contains a number of key principles with which member states must comply. Anyone processing personal data must comply with the eight enforceable principles of good practice. They state that the data must be:
Fairly and lawfully processed.
Processed for limited purposes.
Adequate, relevant and not excessive.
Kept no longer than necessary.
Processed in accordance with the data subject's rights.
Transferred only to countries with adequate protection."
Tuesday 13th November 2012 20:49 GMT Nick Gisburne
Thursday 8th November 2012 08:18 GMT ed2020
Thursday 8th November 2012 08:33 GMT James Gosling
In my experience...
I once found a USB stick lying on the floor that contained a schools entire database system, student and staff records, the lot. Schools do not have a culture used to handling sensitive data in a digital age. I also seriously worry about the motives behind some of these ideas. The absolute icing on the cake is Michael Gove himself, an arrogant man who listens to no one, accepts no criticism and has such an air of self importance its frankly unbelievable.
Thursday 8th November 2012 10:13 GMT Data Mangler
Thursday 8th November 2012 10:16 GMT wobbly1
Friday 9th November 2012 02:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: In my experience...
"The problem is once the data is out of your control , it's protection is as good as the weakest or most corrupt link."
Indeed, and as our esteemed parliamentarians have adequately demonstrated over recent years, corruption is top down.
Irrespective of anonymisation all I can think to say is, 'What an absolute fucking disgrace. Is this country so financially bankrupt that it must monetise state held child specific data, and in doing so equally demonstrate that it is also ethically - if not morally - bankrupt?' </rant>
Michael Gove wins 'Wanker of the Week', hands down.
Thursday 8th November 2012 08:40 GMT John Smith 19
Once information *is* collected its use and storage are *only* down a question of policy.
And policies can *change*.
Schools keep files on pupils but how many *knew* this is structured as a *national* student database?
Thumbs down for this. I think Michael Gove is now in the running for my (unofficial) "Data Pimp of the Year" award.
Thursday 8th November 2012 09:01 GMT Citizen Kaned
if this is so the tories can groom our children more effectively? characteristics such as uncaring parents maybe that mean the kids are an easy target and won't be believed when more tory MPs touch them up?
i hate the idea that my kids info can be sold on, obviously leaked as usual and end up all over the internet.
gov keeps on proving they can't be trusted with our information! i wouldn't trust government to run my lovefilm movie list let alone information on my child!
Thursday 8th November 2012 09:48 GMT John Smith 19
Re: i wonder...
"if this is so the tories can groom our children more effectively?"
Don't be silly. As the North Wales scandal demonstrated why waste time on grooming whey you outsource the work and have them "to go."
"gov keeps on proving they can't be trusted with our information! i wouldn't trust government to run my lovefilm movie list let alone information on my child!"
No need to ask, no need to know still sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Both provide quite a lot of information about you and (outside of their *specific* uses) neither should be anyone else's business.
Thursday 8th November 2012 23:28 GMT LarsG
Re: i wonder...
Yes it looks like the Tories are masters of deviant behaviours, stemming from their Public Schools no doubt.
However Labour are catching up not so much with deviant behaviours but fraudulent, stemming from the 'loophole' of being able to buy a house on expenses and then renting it out to a fellow MP who them claims housing expenses for renting, while at the same time renting his house out to the first MP for the same purpose.
If they had used their brains like this while in power the UK would be the richest country in the world.
So at the next election we have a choice between deviants and the devious.
Thursday 8th November 2012 09:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
"Minister hopes to 'maximise the value' of kiddie data 'resource'"
Those words, bearing in mind the current still-hot story, just make me shiver.
If protection of children is paramount then it makes no sense whatsoever to even collect this data in a central place, let alone to relax the rules on who can gain access to it.
If there's one thing that the MPs should have learned from the Savile experience it is that predators are everywhere, including amongst them.
My children have grown beyond this threat, but I'll still give my two-pennorth to the consultation.
Thursday 8th November 2012 09:53 GMT John Smith 19
Re: "Minister hopes to 'maximise the value' of kiddie data 'resource'"
"My children have grown beyond this threat,"
Unless they've left school (lets see the computerised social work database NuLabor wanted was going to retain "children" till they turned 25 and be accessible to the police) I would not be too sure about that.
There's a predator for every age group.
"but I'll still give my two-pennorth to the consultation."
Possibly the *most* constructive thing you can do. But keep it focused and reasoned.
Thursday 8th November 2012 10:39 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: "Minister hopes to 'maximise the value' of kiddie data 'resource'"
My children are adults now, so certain threats are no longer an issue, but of course they may have children, so it is still an issue - either for me or for them.
I agree about the consultation. I don't see any point in ranting/insulting submissions - I try to provide a reasoned logical argument when I contribute.
Mind you, I now realise that this applies to England only. I've tried to see what's happened to the Welsh equivalent of the pupil database, but the WAG site is particularly unhelpful.
Thursday 8th November 2012 11:01 GMT Daggersedge
Re: "Minister hopes to 'maximise the value' of kiddie data 'resource'"
No, predators are NOT everywhere. If you believe the scare stories put out by the tabloid press and the child abuse industry, then you are part of the problem.
Why do you think this collection of data exists in the first place? Because too many people believe that 'predators are everywhere', that's why. They call for something to be done. If only data had been collected and the right people had looked at it then (name the latest scare story) could have been prevented.
The solution is not to collect more data. The solution is not to prevent the data, once collected, from falling into the hands of commercial interests, nor to prevent it from being held centrally. The solution is to STOP collecting data.
The solution, as well, is to stop funding dysfunctional families, because that's where most abuse takes place. Stop giving benefits to 'single' mothers.
Stop seeding distrust between adults and children. Most adults wouldn't dream of doing anything to a child, but everyone in Britain is now treated as if they were paedophiles unless they are cleared by some check. Stop all checks like this. They are a useless bit of security theatre; they prevent nothing.
Stop trawling the past for people who want to 'come forward' about 'abuse' that happened, twenty, thirty, fifty, a hundred years ago that has left them 'traumatised for life'. There should be a statute of limitations. No-one ever should be put in the situation where he has to defend himself against charges of things that happened years in the past, where it is just one person's word against another. Before anyone says it, what, you are going to disbelieve the victims? I'll point out here that they are not 'victims', but accusers and that is all they are. They should have no more rights than any other accuser. It should be for the prosecution to prove that anything happened, not for some stupid attention-seeking idiot to open his, or more likely, her mouth and scream 'abuse'. This isn't justice. This isn't the rule of law.
As well, stop redefining 'paedophilia'. A paedophile is someone attracted to pre-pubescent children, that is, NOT to someone attracted to those who have passed through puberty. It is NOT someone who may, even by accident, looked at a picture that someone else deems to be 'sexual' of something, even a cartoon, that may look to be below the age of 18. It Is NOT someone who may have a camera and have pointed it vaguely in the direction of a place where children might be. It is NOT whatever the latest scare story wants it to be.
Above all, kill off the tabloid press. It wouldn't be that hard: hit them where it hurts, that is, hit their advertising. Refuse to do business with companies that advertise in these rags. If the government had any backbone, it would refuse to give out contracts to any company that has advertised, say, in the last 6 months in these rags, and make it part of the contract that they keep their advertising money away from them.
All these are things that Britain, as a society should do. It won't happen, though. The clowns that pass leaders are too much in thrall to the tabloid press. They are too afraid of the headlines. They are too stupid to see that viewing all adults and potential paedophiles DECREASES, not increases, the protection of children. The people of Britain, as well, are too stupid to stand up against it. They would rather believe scare stories than use their brains. Bah. Britain gets the databases - and their misuse - that it deserves.
Thursday 8th November 2012 11:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Daggersedge - Re: "Minister hopes to 'maximise the value' of kiddie data 'resource'"
Well, I guess I sympathise with most of your points. Certainly it is true that we are being bounced into stupid solutions to problems that aren't as great as they are portrayed, and I definitely agree that the result where all adults could be seen as potential paedophiles is very damaging.
When I say that these people are 'everywhere' I don't mean to say that the country is full of them - I just mean that such people can be found in all walks of life. The fact that someone has a high social position, be it as a priest, MP, Doctor, Rock Star, DJ or whatever does not mean that they can be trusted any more than anyone else.
And that means that any move to allow information held on pupils (and I agree that there shouldn't be much anyway) to be seen by a wider audience will inevitably make it available to the wrong sort of people.
Thursday 8th November 2012 09:15 GMT Magister
Welcome to the world of 1984
I'm convinced that it's not the actually politicans; most of them are just too insular to even consider most of the stupid ideas that they seem to come up with.
For some time, I have been of the opinion that all of these ideas are actually being pimped by a group of the senior mandarins in Whitehall. I'm still not sure if they are originating these plans or if lobbying groups are persuading them to put the plans before the political masters. Because the civil servants don't change when the politiicans change, they just wait a bit and then put forward the same bloody stupid ideas.
Perhaps it is time for a root and branch clear out of the whole damn system; clearly, we can no longer trust any of them any longer.
I think that we need to have a pitchfork and flaming branch icon. Big Brother will have to do for now
Thursday 8th November 2012 09:46 GMT Velv
Just because the MPs change doesn't mean the people who make the policies change.
The Civil Service carries on regardless on most of the business of running the country, and the politicians are really just voiceboxes that give vague indications of how the country should be run - a general direction as opposed to the nitty gritty.
Anyone who thinks the Tories, Labour, LibDems, Greens, UKIP, etc actually have any real say in how the country is run are clearly misguided.
Thursday 8th November 2012 09:52 GMT Anonymous Coward
Thursday 8th November 2012 10:15 GMT dephormation.org.uk
That would be the same DfE
....that splurged the personal details of people responding to a consultation on Parental Internet Controls for the world+dog to see?
Resulting in nothing more than a mild ticking off from the lazy incompetents at the ICO Data Protection Racket.
Note; that's how seriously DfE + ICO take protection of personal information....
"ICO: Education ministry BROKE the Data Protection Act"
Posted in Government, 19th October 2012 06:29 GMT
Thursday 8th November 2012 11:12 GMT Richard IV
Legitimate and fruitful areas for further research
"For example, we have had to reject requests to use the data for analysis on sexual exploitation, the impact on the environment of school transport, and demographic modelling, all of which seem to be legitimate and fruitful areas for further research."
And which needed the pupil database how, exactly? Granted, they are legitimate areas of research, but is the full on albeit anonymised dataset really the appropriate level at which access should be given? Certainly the latter two examples of rejections sound as though they could be done entirely through school-level aggregations.
The creepiness in our version of the database state is not so much in the amount of data, but in the breadth of people given unfiltered access to it. Pretty much all of the unencrypted data lost away from the office stories seem to have involved inappropriately granular information being analysed in the likes of Excel in the hope that something "useful" will be found. I'd be a lot happier if the government put some work into a standard framework for data querying at the appropriate granularity and scope (ie exactly the information required and no more) rather than keep extending nigh on unfettered access to people who don't really need it.
Thursday 8th November 2012 11:22 GMT Anonymous Coward
No such thing as anonymised data...
... or at least, no such thing as anonymised data for any meaningfully rich data set.
For instance, sure you can strip out people's names. But much of the (perceived) value from such data sets relates to geography, so you want a postcode, or at least a partial postcode. But some partial postcodes don't cover sufficiently large numbers of people - so if I've got a data set with a partial postcode and information about someone's date-of-birth (simple age in years is of little use to someone analysing the data), gender and school, I will be able to identify many, many people.
If the data set is rich enough, it's is usually easy enough to identify particular individuals from relatively unique 'events' (e.g. reported in one's local newspaper for instance) and from there you get all the data about that individual.
It is all too easy to question whether given a particular record in a supposedly anonymised data set, one can identify the actual individual. But that's the wrong question and the wrong way around. One should be asking that given an actual individual (and with sufficient but limited knowledge of that individual) whether one can find them in the data set - and repeat that question for multiple actual individuals. If you can find a single actual individual who you can identify in the data set, then it's not sufficiently anonymised.
That brings me back to where I started... a sufficiently anonymised data set is typically of no use to anyone unless it's purely statistical in nature, containing for instance, summarised counts at a sufficient high enough level and without any ability to cross-reference from one summarised data set to another.
Thursday 8th November 2012 11:39 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: No such thing as anonymised data...
... or at least, no such thing as anonymised data for any meaningfully rich data set.
Exactly. Like when AOL published a whole raft of "anonymised" data on their users. It didn't take long at all for clever people to trawl that data and link it to specific users. There were a lot of red faces around after that debacle.
Thursday 8th November 2012 12:40 GMT Christoph
Third party anonymising
If the complete data is handed out to various third parties for anonymising then there WILL be leaks.
Some of them will make mistakes in the anonymising. Some will leak the original data.
Any politician who doesn't realise this but still tries to release the data should be sacked on the spot for incompetency.
Thursday 8th November 2012 13:18 GMT David Pollard
Leave those kids alone
A decade or more ago there had been academic studies setting out to predict which children were most likely to become criminals as they grew older. A range of factors was analysed, with records of truancy etc., but also included were such details as whether they had been late for a doctor's or dentist's appointment.
The RYOGENS project (Reducing Youth Offending Generic National Solution) turned the rationale around somewhat, in the face of obvious criticism, to argue that a private sector variant of the programme was actually being established to protect children and was in their own interest.
This blog above has some details. A search will easily show up more aspects of the Child Database. Some of the people creating these systems really do seem to think they will benefit children, without realising that it's the human resources that are crucial. And if the human resources are available to help children when help is needed then there isn't much need for the database.
Thursday 8th November 2012 13:56 GMT Jay Zelos
I used to work in this area for Norfolk County Council. From memory, we had very strict rules on what could and could not be used and (in theory) water tight contracts with suppliers of educational resources. However, I can recall from my time that education are considered a special case under UK data protection law and are exempt from most of the normal rules. Giving that data to third parties for non-educational use would be somewhat different though and ought to require parental consent.
Thursday 8th November 2012 14:16 GMT gkroog
Hopefully they're serious about protecting this data properly...
...But I do think this is quite a serious concern. Not just about the data falling into the wrong hands, but about the hands that currently holding it. They seem very eager to make money out of it. Hopefully the Pound symbols in their vision aren't large enough to cloud their view of their stated commitment to safeguard this information. They will need to hold the applicants for such data to very high standards of security, under pain of very severe penalties. We are talking about CHILDREN, and Britain will be in a sadder state than some think if they let ill come to them trying to make money off of data collected about them.
Thursday 8th November 2012 14:58 GMT Nigel 11
Thursday 8th November 2012 18:07 GMT Brian Morrison
Don't know about anyone else....
....but I have already written an email objecting to this proposal to my MP (junior minister, so he's not allowed to actually respond with anything useful) and I will be completing a response to the consultation in the most excoriating terms as well.
I have a pair of late-teenagers who are still in this system and I don't want any of it leaked to anyone who wants to do anything with it, let alone profit from it.
Thursday 8th November 2012 20:17 GMT Karhea
Yes, it will be safe
Safe... As were the "posture" pictures of a number of American students.
I find it very hard to comprehend why so few people understand that any collected data sets will be used in negative contexts later. Later might be minutes or decades, but the end result would always be the same.
Hail to the the free countries of the world: Uganda, Russia, Chile... Because they can't even if they wanted. Even in Russia it would be very easy to stay below the e-intel radar for any normal person.
Thursday 15th November 2012 16:28 GMT JohnMurray
the private sector already has access
But then I thought about Capita.......
"The acquisition will enhance Capita’s vision to deliver an integrated database for children’s services departments which will hold a single record for each child from birth to adulthood"
"The combined solution will mean that data can be entered on a child once and then viewed by all authorised personnel in any service, saving a great deal of time and eliminating the duplication of data entry"