Not that it's any of my business, but I. for one, would like to see non
discretionary penalty clauses for any departure from the termsof the
contract. In rpinciple, these should be sufficiently severe to put the
company out of business, just as an incentive to play by the rules. Just
dreaming.
John Bibby
[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
01/11/2007 11:49 PM
Please respond to
John Bibby
<[log in to unmask]>
Has anyone given an 'official' answer to this?
The key question seems to be whether the contract will have the necessary
safeguarding clauses in it - and whether they will be enforced.
What are the necessary safeguarding clauses?
I guess they include the following:
* LM should use census data ONLY for specified purposes, and at the end of
the contract shd hand it all over to ??ONS, and delete all other copies.
(Clauses like this are fairly standard in my experience - ONS cannot be
naïve on this.)
* quality and cost conditions
Perhaps we shd add to this list and then seek an official response?
Similar considerations apply to other public data collections.
JOHN BIBBY
-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Jeff Evans
Sent: 29 October 2007 22:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: More about Lockheed Martin and the census [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
The issues raised in Paul Bivand's message are important. Especially that
in
the penultimate para, as to whether the 'normal' non-disclosure clauses in
the contract "are enforceable against a US-owned defence contractor which
derives most of its profits from the Pentagon". If they are not, then
surely
the co. should not be allowed to bid, and should not be granted the
contract.
Can we clarify this, e.g. by questions to our MPs, etc. This seems like
just
the sort of thing that some ministers might seek to obscure.
Re. the final para, there is surely a lot of evidence that the US
government
and many other institutions in that country are able to convince themselves
that all manner of things are "relevant" to the "War on Terror" - in a way
that might not be agreed by a sample of UK people.
On Alison's very important question as to whether we have evidence that the
2001 census was better because of privatisation, was the "missing men /
people" problem any worse than in 1991? On the other hand, I had the sense
that many LAs were more clued up on the importance of the Census results,
and took various steps to have the counts relevant to their jurisdiction
re-evaluated.
Jeff Evans
*****
Dr. Jeff Evans
Reader in Adults' Mathematical Learning
Mathematics & Statistics Group
Middlesex University Business School
London NW4 4BT, UK
Tel.: +44 (0)20 8411 5490
Fax: +44 (0)20 8202 1539
Website: http://mubs.mdx.ac.uk/staff/
*****
-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Paul Bivand
Sent: 29 October 2007 12:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: More about Lockheed Martin and the census [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
I think we should recognise that ONS will specify a contract that does not
permit any contractor to use census data for any purpose other than giving
back a clean dataset to ONS, and that the 100-year confidentiality rule
applies to contractors as well as to public servants.
Equally, the contract is likely to go to a UK entity which may be a
100%-owned subsidiary but is legally a UK company, and subject to UK law.
In formal terms, any contracts are likely to include all data protection
rules in force in the UK and the draconian penalties for disclosure of
census information.
The question is whether such contracts are enforceable against a US-owned
defence contractor which derives most of its profits from the Pentagon.
Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that Lockheed Martin would sell UK
census records to commercial entities as that would be too obvious and
transparent as a breach of contract. US government entities (or contractors
to same) might be less likely to cause ONS to sue for breach of contract if
there was some anti-terrorism justification.
---------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
*******************************************************
******************************************************
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.
*******************************************************
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1098 - Release Date:
29/10/2007
09:28
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1098 - Release Date:
29/10/2007
09:28
******************************************************
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.
*******************************************************
