Just speculating, is it conceivable that the reason the ONS screwed up the
2001 Census was that the competent staff had largely retired while the
organisation dispensed with its 'corporate memory' by failing to recruit
and fully train new cohorts in shortsighted downsizing exercises? Or that
companies like Lockheed had poached them? My guess is that it's something
along those lines. But it would certainly be possible to rectify the
situation by poaching them back, offering competitive salaries, conditions,
and benefits. It would cost, but probably not as much as the Lockheed
bill.
"R.Thomas"
[log in to unmask]
Sent by: email list To
for Radical [log in to unmask]
Statistics cc
<[log in to unmask]
.UK> Subject
Re: More about Lockheed Martin and the census [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Protective Mark
29/10/2007 09:30 PM
Please respond to
"R.Thomas"
<[log in to unmask]>
The experience of 2001 shows that the public sector are just as capable as
the private sector in screwing up the Census. For the first time
estimates of total population are not based on census results.
So what suggestions do members have about how the Census chould be
conducted? Is the objective to get a lot of personal information or to
make a count?
These objectives seem to conflict. The statistical community seems to
favour getting detail and that favours firms like Lockheed who have
developed expertise in getting information from forms into computer system.
What suggestions do members have as to finding public or non-profit bodies
that might handle both of these objectives? Or should these objectives be
separated?
Ray Thomas, Faculty of Social Sciences, Open University
And at 35 Passmore, Tinkers Bridge, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY
Tel 01908 679081
-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of ScienceSources
Sent: 29 October 2007 09:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: More about Lockheed Martin and the census [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Dear RadStats members
I've been out the of office these past few days and have come back to read
Harry and Paul's responses to the question of Lockheed Martin being given
the contract for the next UK census. They have really provided a pretty
fair response to what I think was really a rhetorical question from John
Whittington. The history of over-runs on military contracts in the UK and
USA gives the answer to what cost savings 'might' come from handing the
Census over to a large military corporation from a foreign country. Given
the BAE saga and the many question marks over contracts to military
corporations which have arisen in the USA - it is not only unethical but
economically unsound to go for the 'expertise' supposedly offered buy these
outfits. Sad to say Lockheed Martin already have a large say in many
spheres of life in the UK, not least the management of the Aldermaston
complex which raises serious questions of confidentiality too. If we wish
to have public services - you remember them, they were financed by our
taxes
for the benefit of all - then the answer to who should operate the Census
is
ONS with perhaps input from a survey specialist or sound business which
knows what it is doing. This should be coupled with project management
which is better than the sham currently on view in the NHS (which again has
commercial 'expertise' and it costs the Earth). The mantra of cost
efficiency coming from farming out public services to profit-makers should
be challenged with a demand for data to support the contention that PPI is
an efficient way to use tax payers money.
All the best
Chris Langley
Scientists for Global Responsibility
www.sgr.org.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Feldman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: More about Lockheed Martin and the census [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
> If the ONS is outsourcing the Census to the private sphere, presumably
> the contracting company will expect to be paid. If previous rounds of
> outsourcing are any guide, the cost in shillings and pence is likely
> to exceed the cost of keeping it in house. If I'm right about
> Lockheed demanding some remuneration for their services, cost is not
> really the issue. So the question about whether to abandon the Census
> rather than hand it over to a disreputable foreign company would be
> moot. The history of outsourcing also suggests that quality will
> suffer in the process.
>
> But money is not the only cost to consider. Whether the contractor is
> British or not, they will have access to a dataset of great value,
> including identified personal details on just about every one in the
> country on Census night. I would suspect any profit making company to
> succumb to the temptation to turnt he information into at least an
> unfair business advantage, if not just sold off to the highest bidder.
> The company may not be constrained by any restrictions on data sharing
> and data matching among government departments. I suspect many
> Britons will have similar concerns. Under the circumstances, rthey
> are less likely to answer
> questions as fully and honestly as they otherwise might. The real rulers
> of society need statistical data they can trust. While outsourcing the
> Census may provide some short term advantage to someone, it's unlikely to
> meet their needs, much less our need for robust data for our own social
> and
> economic analyses.
>
> In solidarity,
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ursula
> ursulahuws@ANALYTICARESE
> ARCH.CO.UK
> To
> Sent by: email list for [log in to unmask]
> Radical Statistics
> cc
> <[log in to unmask]
> >
> Subject
> Re: More about Lockheed
> Martin and the census
>
> Protective Mark
> 27/10/2007 03:48 AM
>
>
> Please respond to
> Ursula
> <ursulahuws@ANALYTICARES
> EARCH.CO.UK>
>
>
>
>
>
> sorry to butt into this discussion rather late in the day & not having
> read
> all the previous contributions (I am travelling and checking my email on
a
> mobile phone) but shouldn't someone be challenging the legality of this?
> Under EU data protection directives (integrated into national law in most
> member states albeit with some national variation) it is explicitly
> prohibited to export personal data about EU citizens to states that do
not
> adhere to the rather rigorous EU standards. the last time i looked (about
> 3
> years ago) the only non EU states that conformed to this were Switzerland
> &
> Norway but more may be included by now. Admittedly this regulation has
> been
> breached on a daily basis since 2001/2 by European airlines passing
> information on their passengers to the US department of homeland security
> but still it would seem to me that there is a legal case to be made. I am
> away from my PC so cannot give you a direct link but there is a lot of
> information on this on http://www.respectproject.org (you would have to
> follow the links to the sections on data protection law...
> best wishes
> Ursula Huws
>
> _____ Original message _____
> Subject: Re: More about Lockheed Martin and the census
> Author: "Paul Bivand" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 26th October 2007 4:0:16 PM
>
> Of course the Government used to do this itself, and a sample census
> mid-term.
>
> That was in the days before electronic processing and therefore was
> presumably far more costly in terms of temporary and permanent
> staff...
>
> Equally of course many researchers would like the census to be more
> frequent so the issue of doing it once every 10 years would not apply.
> The cost implications of so doing would be large.
>
> I think the issue is more of handing over a complete population
> register
> to
> a company that operates under foreign legislation (and in this case it
> matters not whether the company is US, Russian, Chinese or a Dubai
> company)
> and therefore whether UK citizens have confidence that their information,
> however minimal, would not be handed to foreign organisations with
> interests that cannot be controlled by IK democratic institutions.
Suppose
> this was 1937 and the company in question was a IG Farben subsidiary...
> And
> we had the religion question in...
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Bivand
> Head of Analysis and Statistics
> Direct Line: 020 7840 8335
>
> Inclusion
> 3rd floor, 89 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TP
> Tel: 020 7582 7221
> Fax: 020 7582 6391
> Inclusion website: www.cesi.org.uk
> The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are intended solely
> for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient
> please return the e-mail to the sender and delete from your mailbox.
> The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are intended solely
> for the use of the addressee.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email list for Radical Statistics
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On
> Behalf Of John Whittington
> Sent: 26 October 2007 13:36
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: More about Lockheed Martin and the census
>
> At 09:16 25/10/07 +0100, ScienceSources wrote:
>
>>Many thanks for bringing this situation to the attention of the
>>RadStats list - I for one greatly appreciate the information. Despite
>>the views of a minority on the list, it does matter a great deal just
>>who is involved with confidential and sensitive information for
>>profit. For those who are happy with having the military corporations
>>and their apologists and lobbyists involved with ordinary people's
>>lives a glimpse at the publications from Scientists for Global
>>Responsibility
> might open their eyes.
>>Let's be vigilant on this aspect of the creeping militarisation of our
> lives.
> It unfortunately is an imperfect world, in which pragmatic compromises
> and trade-offs which would not be needed in an ideal world seem
> only-too-often to be the 'least of the evils'.
>
> As has already been pointed out, any organisation large and good
> enough to be able to deal with the UK Census well will probably have
> (if one looks hard enough) military and/or governmental associations
> which some might reasonably regard as undesirable.
>
> That leads to a question. Given that it would probably be
> inappropriate (and quite probably doomed to failure!) for the
> government to attempt to acquire its own resources for this
> essentially once-per-decade task, if the only organisations willing
> and able to do the job competently proved to be those with
> 'undesirable connections' would those who are very concerned about
> this prefer to see us abandon the UK Census, rather tahn involve one
> of the 'undesirable' organisations ?
>
> Kind Regards,
>
>
> John
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
> Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
> Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask] Buckingham
> MK18 4EL, UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go
> only to the sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole
> list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message
> automatically to [log in to unmask]
> Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender
> and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held
> by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about
> Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and
> past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site
> www.radstats.org.uk.
> *******************************************************
>
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to
> [log in to unmask]
> Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender
> and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held
> by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about
> Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and
> past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site
> www.radstats.org.uk.
> *******************************************************
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------
> Free publications and statistics available on www.abs.gov.au
>
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to
> [log in to unmask]
> Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender
> and
> cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by
> subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about
> Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past
> issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site
> www.radstats.org.uk.
> *******************************************************
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All'
button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and
cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by
subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical
Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of
our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
--
Я использую бесплатную версию SPAMfighter для частных пользователей.
Программа удалила 186 эл. письма спама, полученные до настоящего времени.
Пользователи платной версии не имеют этого сообщения в их электронных
письмах.
Попробовать:http://www.spamfighter.com/lru
****************************************************** Please note that if
you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of
this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to
[log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the
views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range
of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out
more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current
and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site
www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free publications and statistics available on www.abs.gov.au
|
