I have a strong suspicion that few in the home educating community will be mourning the end of the ContactPoint system. The idea behind this database was of course that the details of every child in the country would be recorded, together with information about their education, allegations by social services and so on. The plan was that no child would be able to 'slip between the cracks' and become hidden from view. Depending upon one's point of view, this was either a very necessary tool for protecting vulnerable children from harm or a piece of the most frightful busy-bodying ever seen in this country. It has of course now been announced that ContactPoint will be going the same way as Identity Cards. I imagine that this will now leave the way open for home educating families to remain 'under the radar' as some of them call it.
I think that there is something to be said both for and against a scheme like ContactPoint. I cannot myself see any harm in various agencies knowing how many children there are in this country and where they are being educated. On the other hand, many parents feel that it is no concern at all of the state even to wonder about such a thing. I shall be curious to see what will be contained in the Education Bill which is due to be described in the Queen's Speech on Tuesday. The official Liberal view before the election was that home education needed to be looked at again via another enquiry; a kind of Graham Badman Review Mark II. Whether they feel strongly enough about this to insist on its inclusion in the new bill remains to be seen. I rather think that the Tories, having been so vociferous in their opposition to Labour's Children, Schools and Families Bill, will be a bit hesitant about tackling the subject for a little while. My guess is that there will be no mention at all of home education for at least a year or so. Unless that is, there are a few more high profile cases like the Khyra Ishaq business.
Everybody seems to have calmed down generally now that the CSF Bill has gone. This can only be a good thing. As well as being able to focus a little more on their children's education, it will give parents a chance to mull over what has happened since the publication of the Badman Report and perhaps see that there is at least some merit in a few of the suggestions which were made. On the local authority side, I think that it has been realised that home education is an area which must be approached with extreme caution. Perhaps the best that can be hoped for is that both sides will take stock and give some thought to the next stage. Because even the most optimistic of home educating parents probably realises that this is not the end of the matter; that things will be changing at some point in the future. The only real question is how will they change and what is the best possible outcome which would satisfy both parents and local authorities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Old crafty Simon Says-Because even the most optimistic of home educating parents probably realises that this is not the end of the matter; that things will be changing at some point in the future. The only real question is how will they change and what is the best possible outcome which would satisfy both parents and local authorities.
ReplyDeleteWhat crap again Simon what you mean is you want change and control over home education like Balls did? but you lost LOL i bet that hurts?
who the f cares about satisfying the local authorites? i dont! and most other people dont to!
lets have the money that is given to state school children its about 5000 a year i think lets have some of that! after all we paid in enogh over the years lets have some of it back!
I despair sometimes.
ReplyDeleteSimon thinks it's the state's business to interfere in how parents bring up their children. I can see his logic, but couldn't disagree more.
On the other hand, it seems to me that most people, other than those with a vested interest, think it's none of the state's business.
But then there is Anonymous (and others), who thinks that a) it's none of the state's business, and b) the state should give them money. This is nothing short of completely bonkers.
By all means, educate your children as you see fit, but if you want to be paid to do so out of my taxes, even I will be insisting you're inspected and monitored to make sure the money isn't being wasted.
Regarding the original topic, I can be more brief: The death of ContactPoint. Hurrah. Another tremendous waste of money and focus for busybodying bites the dust.
You know Ciaran, I was describing the situation as I saw it, not expressing any particular opinion of my own. I'm sorry that a balanced view such as that should drive you to despair! I think there is something to be said for both points of view.
ReplyDeleteCiaran says-but then there is Anonymous (and others), who thinks that a) it's none of the state's business, and b) the state should give them money. This is nothing short of completely bonkers.
ReplyDeleteits not bonkers to spend money on a child's education! lets have that money they would have wasted on my child if he had gone to a state school! we paid enough taxes in over the years now we want something back for once! the state school he could go to is crap so we should have the money it would have cost to send him they!
you dont need to be inspected over this just send in the recipts for what you brought for the child would have to add up to about 5000 per year on education i could spend that real quick! books online courses computers pens disk and much more! every one wins child get better education and LA could see what you spent it on. what a brillent idea i just had LOL
lets have tax releif for parents who send children to a private school to.
Simon, I was despairing at the "leave me alone but give me money" comment. I'm long past despairing at your point of view on state intrusion. ;)
ReplyDeleteCiaranG says-simon, I was despairing at the "leave me alone but give me money" comment. Why Ciaran? its our money so lets have some of it! i think i write again and ask for some money from our LA hto help give a much better education for our child what wrong with that?
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't think that death of Contact Point is a bad thing; not because of the principle (one of the big complainst about most child protection reviews is the lack of communication ) but because the last Govt weren't exactly great at protecting the data they already had on everyone, and I have no confidence they would do any better with this. There must be other ways of actually getting child protection right!
ReplyDeleteHow many people actually know what ContactPoint really is? All it does is hold in one place existing information from multiple sources - and it holds no case information at all. All it holds is basic demographic information about a child (name, date of birth, address, gender) and a contact list of agencies that have had involvement with the child. If active involvement is more than 12 months ago, then that information is removed from the system. It is more secure that most of its 'feeder' systems and is much more closely monitored.
ReplyDeleteIt is already contributing to successes in securing child safety.
I have no stomach for the 'nanny state' but do think that we have to recognise and accept when the benefits of a system like this outweigh any perceptions (right or wrong) of civil liberty infringements.
it is already contributing to successes in securing child safety.
ReplyDeleteWhere and when?
All it holds is basic demographic information about a child (name, date of birth, address, gender) and a contact list of agencies that have had involvement with the child.
often this information that is held is wrong or has half truths about family! you try geting the information held on you changed! it almost inpossible. its not monitored in the right way to if something is said about family it is takeing as true no checks are made to see if it is correct!
Peter complaint about Jan Lewis is going to stage 3 Peter does not hold out much hope of geting any where with HCC but its down in writing that Jan has not contacted Peter and from Karina Large reply will never contact him yet Jan has been mandated to work with ALL home educators in Hampshire! it was a good letter by Peter dont you think Julie LOL i just checked with Peter and he agrees that home education is 2nd rate education compared to a private education at say Eton or Wellington college but better than a state education!
ReplyDeleteDear Karina Large
I have received a Letter from David Harvey dated 19 April 2010.
He says that Hampshire County Council has begun engagement with several home educating groups across the county. He goes on to say that Hampshire County Council and Jan Lewis in particular has been mandated to work with all home educating families across the county. If that is true why have they been contacting home educating groups only? Why not home educating individuals? David Harvey has not answered that question. Jan Lewis has definitely not contacted me. Jan Lewis is so far failing in her job to work with all home educating families in the county.
David Harvey also says that Hampshire County Council and Jan Lewis are open to exploring ways of opening dialogue and providing appropriate support wherever possible. What exactly does he mean by that and how has the HCC and Jan Lewis been doing this?
I would like Jan Lewis to contact me and explain what she has been doing to fulfil the requirements of her job. That is the only way my complaint will be resolved.
Yours Sincerely
Peter A Williams
A Home Educated Child
Peter and Peter,
ReplyDeleteGosh - I never know where to start when it comes to replying to your posts.
First of all ... home education v private education.... most people probably don't have a choice, so it is difficult to compare, but I do know one HE young man who did move from Eton (or a feeder prep school, he certainly got offered a scholarship for Eton) -- because he found HE better for progressing his musical education. I have had and do have children in independent schools; but although 3 of them had an excellent education, for my daughter it was not the right place (she has done much better at home) and although one of my middle boys did okay (he did GCSES and A levels) I always regretted not taking him out because he would have done better at home - he would have benefitted from more individual tuition. All schools are relatively inefficient places - the whole group teaching thingy takes up a lot of time - my daughter who is currently doing A levels at college (after HE) has much longer days than she would have had we still been solely home educated, and we have less time for the fun stuff now she has the college commute etc. Plus there is the whole group dynamic/ peer pressure bit to consider - perhaps we have been fortunate that none of my children have been unduly influenced by that at school age, but for some children that can be very harmful, however good the school.
Surely Peter, since you can't buy independent education for your son, you should be concentrating on getting the best home education that you can?
More later....
I do enjoy our chats Julie but of course your wrong!
ReplyDeleteSurely Peter, since you can't buy independent education for your son, you should be concentrating on getting the best home education that you can?
That cost money to have good home education compared to Eton(why did cameron parents send him they for the fun of it?) HCC should cough up and pay towards Peter private home education or pay for a private education. HCC and Jan Lewis have not done a thing for Peter and refuse to help! you think that right do you Julie? and then the lies they told you think thats right do you? what would you say if lies and tthreats where made to your family? would say oh dont worry about it?
First of all ... home education v private education.... most people probably don't have a choice,
your right Julie people dont have a choice so have to settle for a 2nd rate education for they child which is home education unless child as some sort of special.
we be writing to HCC and old crazy Kirk to ask him for some money on his wages he could dig into his pocket to pay towards Peter education i bet his children had a real good education!
that HCC council is rubbish the whole lot of them should resign! let me and Peter do the job we soon sort them out! we put that in the letter to old Kirk(why are councilors so old? and boring?) you get on well with him Simon he looks a bit like you LOL!
"its not bonkers to spend money on a child's education! lets have that money they would have wasted on my child if he had gone to a state school! we paid enough taxes in over the years now we want something back for once!"
ReplyDeleteSo do you think that those without children should have a refund of the proportion of their tax payments that went towards education? And maybe the state should be paying toward private school fees for those that use them, after all their parents probably pay more tax than we do? You say you would like something back for all the years you have paid taxes. Have you never used a GP, hospital or NHS dentist? Don't you like the idea of a fire service in case your house burns? Or do you want a refund of your taxes that have gone towards these because you've never used them?
Anon above; exactly - taxation doesn't work like that!
ReplyDeletePeter -what I find sad about what you have to say is the feeling that you admit you can't provide a good education for your son. I know money can be an issue, but I know lots of single parents on benefits who sucessfully home educate despite the fact that it is a struggle to find the money for resources or activities. Yet they do so; some (in fact quite a lot of them) have gone down the exam route and others have chosen not too; but they would all, I think, be proud of what they and their children have managed to achieve.
"All it does is hold in one place existing information from multiple sources - and it holds no case information at all. All it holds is basic demographic information about a child (name, date of birth, address, gender) and a contact list of agencies that have had involvement with the child. If active involvement is more than 12 months ago, then that information is removed from the system."
ReplyDeleteWhat an agreeable change to see a sensible and rational viewpoint being expressed!
Simon (and anon up the page)
ReplyDeleteYes, I know all that - but it isn't the nature of the info which was the problem (to me) but the inability of the Govt to keep it from being left on trains/sent in the post to others/stolen etc. After all, do I actually want my childrens name and address etc left lying around (especially for us as we are adoptive parents?)
My main objection to it was that I think it was highly unlikely to achieve what it was intended to achieve, i.e. to increase the safety of children at risk of harm. As Julie says, lack of security is likely to put additional children at risk, not only through leaving data on trains etc, but also because so many people would have access to the data, around 390,000 was the last figure I saw. Also, it was estimated that around 22,000 children would be shielded from many ContactPoint users, just over half of these being in care. It sounds like large numbers of children most likely to be at risk of harm would have their details hidden!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/02/11/110654/ContactPoint-practitioners-harbour-doubts.htm
In a Community care poll, one-third of respondents said they did not know if the ContactPoint database had improved safeguarding, while 19% said they believed it had and 49% said it had not.
Julie says-Peter -what I find sad about what you have to say is the feeling that you admit you can't provide a good education for your son.
ReplyDeleteI said a 2nd rate education compared to Eton or Wellington college Julie.(if you belive Peter not geting suitable full time education phone the EWS LOL who are to scared to do anything) You never blame old Kirk or HCC for any of this but they in charge of our rubbish state schools! you blame the parents like old Kirk does? we want the money that is spent on a state school child given to us if you dont want your share we have it LOL
Anon says- do you think that those without children should have a refund of the proportion of their tax payments that went towards education? yes why not?
you go on to say Have you never used a GP, hospital or NHS dentist? Don't you like the idea of a fire service in case your house burns? Or do you want a refund of your taxes that have gone towards these because you've never used them?
used the doctor but not often have to go private for Dentist cost a lot of money to did you know that if you go private at same dentist your child has to as well new rule brought IN 2 years ago for that!
we want the money that is spent on a state schooled child for our son we use it well giving him a much better education whats wrong with that? after all every child matters LOL have you noticed that your never entilted to anything and those telling you no sorry you cant have that are often very well off!
new letter sent to HCC by Peter your love it Julie! Peter going to write to old balls say glad you lost the election! and to that D Johnson did you lose LOL
Peter said,
ReplyDelete"Anon says- do you think that those without children should have a refund of the proportion of their tax payments that went towards education? yes why not?"
So you are suggesting that people should only have to pay taxes for services they actually use? Presumably then you think all taxes should be cancelled, everyone should pay privately for the services they actually use, and it's just tough on anyone who can't afford those services. I mean, if we all get a tax refund for services we do not use, the only people left to pay for them will be those that are using them.
"we want the money that is spent on a state schooled child for our son we use it well giving him a much better education whats wrong with that?"
We have the option of using the schools provided and can move to a different area if the local schools are no good. If you are entitled to money for home educating your child, then private school using parents are too and I don't want my tax money to be used in that way.
"have you noticed that your never entilted to anything and those telling you no sorry you cant have that are often very well off!"
I'm sorry you feel so hard done by. I'm just thankful we don't live in the US because our family would have been bankrupted years ago because of medical expenses. I really hope you never really *need* to receive more from the services provided by taxes than you have to pay in but if you do, maybe then you will be thankful to all the people that pay taxes for services they never use!
Anon says-We have the option of using the schools provided and can move to a different area if the local schools are no good. If you are entitled to money for home educating your child, then private school using parents are too and I don't want my tax money to be used in that way.
ReplyDeleteyou can move to anther area for a school if you got enough money to buy house and in some of these areas houses cost to much cos school is very good! we cant move not quite enough money in bank and you got to have jon in that area paying good money to afford house so that not so easy is it? yes why not allow private school using parents to have this money to?
I needed to use services but am not entitled such as Dentist but waiting list was to long had to go private wanted a good education for my child but the schools around here are no good! so forced to home educate!
yes we are hard done by paid in enough taxes so as my wife she never been out of work! Its HCC fault and D Kirk who has done to help Peter! that anther thing the amount you pay for council tax to that rubbish council then we say i want some money for my child's education oh no sorry cant do that never mind LOL if you need to use health service in old age they rob you house to pay for it! no matter if you paid in for over 45 years! quite a lot of medical things people need like treatment for breast cancer is not allowed cost to much! they was a women needed some drug for breast cancer told sorry no but you can have it if you go private!
Dear Karina Large
ReplyDeleteI refer to your letter dated 17th of May 2010.
I have a new name for the Persistent and Vexatious Complaints Policy. The name is Do Not Respond To Awkward Questions (DNRTAQ for short).
Since I am not going to get anywhere with you (What a surprise) I would like my complaint moved onto to stage 3 as quoted on the Hampshire County Council website: If you are still dissatisfied with the outcome at Stage 2, you can request to take your complaint to Stage 3 of the Corporate Complaints Procedure. Please contact the Complaints Team for further information.
To remind you, my complaint is about Jan Lewis who has been mandated to work with all home educating families across the county but Jan Lewis has not contacted me in any way. It would appear that she is failing in her job. The only way to resolve my complaint would be for Jan Lewis to contact me.
I also have a separate complaint about you saying in your letter that any future communication of mine should be made in writing and sent to the children’s services complaints team and that they will be read but not responded to unless the nature of the content requires it.
Yours Sincerely
Peter A Williams
A Home Educated Child
it is already contributing to successes in securing child safety.
ReplyDeleteWhere and when?
If you work in the childrens services field, that infomation is readily available to you.
=====
All it holds is basic demographic information about a child (name, date of birth, address, gender) and a contact list of agencies that have had involvement with the child.
often this information that is held is wrong or has half truths about family! you try geting the information held on you changed! it almost inpossible. its not monitored in the right way to if something is said about family it is takeing as true no checks are made to see if it is correct!
To reiterate - ContactPoint doesn't hold any case information so cannot hold either truths or untruths about a family.
=====
My main objection to it was that I think it was highly unlikely to achieve what it was intended to achieve, i.e. to increase the safety of children at risk of harm.
But it can achieve this - take the following simple example :
A child is being injured through physical abuse and is taken to different health 'drop in' centres for attention, to hide the fact the fact that the injuries were a regular occurrence. If this is only recorded on local systems, then any practitioner with cause for concern would never be aware of these multiple involvements - but if there is a central source which records all these involvements (but NOT the details of them) then alarm bells will start to ring straight away.
As I said in my first post, there are a lot of success stories - not reported in the media because they're not good press, are they?
=====
Also, it was estimated that around 22,000 children would be shielded from many ContactPoint users, just over half of these being in care. It sounds like large numbers of children most likely to be at risk of harm would have their details hidden!
If a practitioner needs to see a shielded record, then there is already a process in place to 'broker' their access to the details - the person who requested the shield is approached by the broker to ask if they are prepared to have contact with the original practitioner.
=====
Thank you, anonymous. More myths and half truths dispelled.
ReplyDeleteThank you, anonymous. More myths and half truths dispelled.
ReplyDeletedont think so Simon!
All it holds is basic demographic information about a child (name, date of birth, address, gender) and a contact list of agencies that have had involvement with the child.
you try geting the information held on you changed not easy? including the bits about list of agencies involed with child/parents it could be a letter from soical services and others would think soical service were worried about your family!
Anonymous wrote,
ReplyDelete""My main objection to it was that I think it was highly unlikely to achieve what it was intended to achieve, i.e. to increase the safety of children at risk of harm."
But it can achieve this - take the following simple example :
A child is being injured through physical abuse and is taken to different health 'drop in' centres for attention, to hide the fact the fact that the injuries were a regular occurrence."
==================================
Great, but what about those children harmed by misuse of the system? Can you be sure that the good achieved by the system would not have been outweighed by the harms (I can't believe you are naive enough to believe it would never cause harm)? Leeds NHS Trust found that during one month alone, 14,000 staff logged 70,000 incidents of inappropriate access. If ContactPoint had experienced the same level of abuse of the system the number of incidents could have been as high as 1,650,000 a month. Do you really think they could have policed that many incidents? In all likelihood particular incidents would only come to light during an investigation after the harm is done, the estranged, abusive father finds and harms a family, for instance.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/jun/22/childrensservices.comment
you try geting the information held on you changed not easy? including the bits about list of agencies involed with child/parents it could be a letter from soical services and others would think soical service were worried about your family!
ReplyDeleteI'm not too sure what point you are trying to make here - but will say again that involvements that are registered are for the child only - nothing to do with any parental involvement.
=====
Great, but what about those children harmed by misuse of the system? Can you be sure that the good achieved by the system would not have been outweighed by the harms (I can't believe you are naive enough to believe it would never cause harm)? Leeds NHS Trust found that during one month alone, 14,000 staff logged 70,000 incidents of inappropriate access. If ContactPoint had experienced the same level of abuse of the system the number of incidents could have been as high as 1,650,000 a month. Do you really think they could have policed that many incidents? In all likelihood particular incidents would only come to light during an investigation after the harm is done, the estranged, abusive father finds and harms a family, for instance.
Any system is open to abuse - the important thing is how secure the system design is and how well it is monitored. Just to login requires the usual login/password details, plus use of a 'token' (a password protected physical device 'synched' to the CP access software, which randomly generates an access code) - whilst not impossible, it would be difficult even for an experienced hacker to get all this info. together). I've worked on many private and public computer-based systems in my (too!) long career and ContactPoint is one of the most heavily regulated and monitored that I've experienced. System usage has to be monitored on a regular basis at local level and that activity is itself monitored at a central level, so there's little chance of a 'can't be bothered' attitude happening. I'm not naive enough to believe that harm couldn't be done but even if ContactPoint didn't exist, the information (and far more detail) is already available on other computer systems, which themselves are open to abuse and are far less stringently policed.
The example quoted of an estranged, abusive parent is a perfect example of a reason for a record to be shielded - this is done as soon as any threat is identified.
ContactPoint is not a perfect system - nothing is - but I really believe that the enormous benefits outweigh any real or perceived constraints.
"whilst not impossible, it would be difficult even for an experienced hacker to get all this info. "
ReplyDeleteI wasn't thinking of hackers, it's the authorised uses I'm concerned about!
"System usage has to be monitored on a regular basis at local level and that activity is itself monitored at a central level, so there's little chance of a 'can't be bothered' attitude happening."
I'm sure there was security on the Leeds computers.
"the information (and far more detail) is already available on other computer systems, which themselves are open to abuse and are far less stringently policed."
But they do not give access to children throughout the country.
"The example quoted of an estranged, abusive parent is a perfect example of a reason for a record to be shielded - this is done as soon as any threat is identified."
Did you see any adverts telling people how to request their child's records be shielded? I didn't.
"I've worked on many private and public computer-based systems in my (too!) long career and ContactPoint is one of the most heavily regulated and monitored that I've experienced."
Did you see these articles?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6836911/ContactPoint-database-of-11-million-children-suffers-security-breaches-in-trials.html
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5962974.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5966278/ContactPoint-database-could-put-11-million-children-at-risk.html
If ContactPoint is one of the most heavily regulated, then god help us! How can they possibly adequately police 400,000 users and with serious concerns as recently as August 2009 and January 2010, I doubt it was secure as you seem to think.
"ContactPoint is not a perfect system - nothing is - but I really believe that the enormous benefits outweigh any real or perceived constraints. "
I'm just glad that people who can do something about it disagree with you. You are free to add your children to as many databases as you want but I'd rather not. Hopefully any available money will be better spent of front line workers.
Anon said-'m just glad that people who can do something about it disagree with you. You are free to add your children to as many databases as you want but I'd rather not. Hopefully any available money will be better spent of front line workers.
ReplyDeleteyes you are right we agree with you any money should be spent on front line workers not silly databases which in truth are like tick boxes!
anon- it does hold half truths on child say you get reported for something to welfare education officer your clearned you done nothing wrong but it will go down on form that your knew to EWS it wont say on form you had done nothing wrong will it?
ReplyDeleteI wasn't thinking of hackers, it's the authorised uses I'm concerned about!
ReplyDeleteBut that concern should be valid for any system
=====
I'm sure there was security on the Leeds computers.
Again – the same comment can apply for any system (although I doubt that there was the same level of security on the Leeds NHS system in 2007)
=====
But they do not give access to children throughout the country.
True – but that’s one of the reasons for ContactPoint – to facilitate cross-border tracking to ensure that children don’t ‘slip through the net’
=====
Did you see any adverts telling people how to request their child's records be shielded? I didn't.
Whenever local councils and voluntary bodies electronically record sensitive information about a child, they and their parents/carers are informed of the ‘fair processing’ policy with regard to the information – which includes the right to dispute or request shielding of information.
Requests for shielding are invariably made by the practitioners involved in the case – and there has to be just cause for the request (which does not include celebrity status).
=====
You’ve quoted several newspaper articles which have been critical of the system – isn’t it rather naive to trust the media to give unbiased and comprehensive reports of anything? For every reference you give, I could give one with the opposite view.
=====
If ContactPoint is one of the most heavily regulated, then god help us! How can they possibly adequately police 400,000 users and with serious concerns as recently as August 2009 and January 2010, I doubt it was secure as you seem to think.
As far as policing the users is concerned, each responsible area (local authorities, police, voluntary bodies) etc is responsible for(and audited on) regular production and review of system useage.
Again, you seem to be relying on media coverage to inform your viewpoint.
Here’s an article which, in my view, gives a balanced view on ContactPoint http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/02/11/110654/ContactPoint-practitioners-harbour-doubts.htm
and this quote from the article is very telling (particularly the part I’ve highlighted) :
…the Children's Inter-Agency Group - whose members include the Local Government Association, NSPCC, the British Association of Social Workers and Youth Justice Board - along with most groups who actually work with children, have backed the database…
=====
I'm just glad that people who can do something about it disagree with you. You are free to add your children to as many databases as you want but I'd rather not. Hopefully any available money will be better spent of front line workers.
It has been assessed that when ContactPoint is fully operational, it will save millions of man hours of practitioner time, which will then free them up for more ‘front line’ work.
=====
We live in a democracy and we’ll never all agree with each other – and long may that reign. We could debate until the cows come home and never change each others opinion – so I’ll stop after this post.
I just feel very sad that something which could have a real impact on child safeguarding is to be stopped because of political posturing, lack of informed opinion and media frenzy.
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/02/11/110654/ContactPoint-practitioners-harbour-doubts.htm
ReplyDeleteand this quote from the article is very telling (particularly the part I’ve highlighted) :
…the Children's Inter-Agency Group - whose members include the Local Government Association, NSPCC, the British Association of Social Workers and Youth Justice Board - along with most groups who actually work with children, have backed the database…
Sorry - the highlighting didn't come through - the words I intended to highlight are ..."along with most groups who actually work with children"...
"Whenever local councils and voluntary bodies electronically record sensitive information about a child, they and their parents/carers are informed of the ‘fair processing’ policy with regard to the information – which includes the right to dispute or request shielding of information."
ReplyDeleteI've never been asked and it was intended that ContactPoint would gain information about my children from at least my children's GP and child benefit records and possible the passport department. As far as I know they are not required to ask me for permission or even inform me that they are passing the information on. I believe the law required them to supply the information. My children's details may already be on the ContactPoint system. I'm not particularly concerned about sensitive information about my child, I'm concerned about any information. If I can avoid their details appearing on any more databases, then so much the better.
"You’ve quoted several newspaper articles which have been critical of the system – isn’t it rather naive to trust the media to give unbiased and comprehensive reports of anything? For every reference you give, I could give one with the opposite view."
We have not exactly been overwhelmed with unbiased information from any other legitimate source so how else are the public to reach conclusions about database security? Unless you are suggesting the media have made up all the stories about computer disks and laptops being left all over the place?
"As far as policing the users is concerned, each responsible area (local authorities, police, voluntary bodies) etc is responsible for(and audited on) regular production and review of system useage."
And what if the person doing the monitoring is involved in the abuse of the system?
"Children's Inter-Agency Group - whose members include the Local Government Association, NSPCC, the British Association of Social Workers and Youth Justice Board - along with most groups who actually work with children, have backed the database… "
So? Are they all unbiased well informed security experts with full access to and understanding of the ContactPoint system?
Just seen you point about agreeing to disagree and I'm sure you're right. I'm just glad there isn't going to be an opportunity for you to be proved wrong!
Just read this http://www.parliament.uk/deposits/depositedpapers/2008/DEP2008-0502.pdf and am surprised that some of the recommendations were necessary, especially the one that they should use existing methods outlined in government manuals on protective security to update the risk assessment carried out at the start of the ContactPoint project. Updating a risk assessment as a system develops seems such a basic expectation.
ReplyDeleteThey also talk of enhancing roles, increasing training, increasing technical and procedural controls, increasing the responsibilities of database administrators and report programmers, increased assessments of user organisations, etc. How long before that supposed saving in man hours is swallowed up by staff training and checking up on other staff, who are staff training and checking up on other staff, who are staff training and checking up on other staff...
They also point out that though the ContactPoint team can design strong controls into the system and provide advice to connecting organisations there is a limit to their ability to enforce good practice or to monitor incidents and control breakdowns. They also mention that risk cannot be eliminated.
Sorry, I'll shut up now!
Heya i am for the first time here. I found this board and I find
ReplyDeleteIt truly useful & it helped me out much. I hope to give
something back and help others like you aided me.
My webpage ultrasound tech schools in georgia
My web page :: ultrasound tech prerequisites