Who owns my network?

The announcement over the Christmas break that the UK Government is considering outsourcing their ’superdatabase’ of communications traffic to a private firm provoked an appropriate and strong response from privacy experts and the general public alike.

The most common criticism focussed on the practicalities of such a scheme in the light of the apparently never ending stream of security breaches from supposedly secure sources. Then there were more technically focussed arguments (eg Doug Winters post) which argued that the majority of the packet information can be considered as the traffic data and not the content. All good stuff

However, on reflection, I believe that there is a fundamental assumption being made which needs to be challenged.  As reported by The Guardian, Senior Whitehall officials responsible for planning the new database say there is a significant difference between having access to “communications data” – names and addresses of emails or telephone numbers, for example – and the actual contents of the communications.

Is this really the case? Is there such a significant difference between a record of who I communicated with, and the contents of the communication? Does this really define the wheat, as it where,  and the chaff?

My network of friends and colleagues, as recorded and defined by my communications traffic, is precisely that -  my network. A careful analysis of that network and its structure will reveal much about me as a person – way beyond the simple facts of who I have communicated with.

If I choose to make my network data public by publishing  my friends on Facebook or a public record of sites I have visited through my blog then I should expect that at some point these facts will be examined and interpreted.

But what about instances where I choose to keep the details of my network private? The assumption being made is that whilst the network  information is ‘fair game’ the content is somehow sacrosanct. To my mind, both categories start by belonging to me.  Explicit examination of either without my permission is therefore an intrusion of privacy.

In the light of terrorist outrages, this may seem like an extreme position to take.  However, a line has been drawn in the sand that defines the current debate, and in my view it has been drawn in the wrong place.

Collaborative filtering insanity

This just in from Amazon (which needs little comment, so I won’t:

We’ve noticed that customers who have purchased or rated Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcolm Gladwell or other books in the Regular Stores > Up to 50% off selected Business, Office and Finance Books category have also purchased Microsoft Office 2007 in Depth (In Depth) by Ed Bott.

Big Blue’s big idea

Fascinating piece in this weeks New Scientist about scientists at IBMs spoken web initiative.

The article is worth reading in full. For those without a subscription the precis is as follows. Scientists at the IBM India Research Laboratory undertook a piece of research investigating levels of technological usage across India. They found that access to the traditional, text based web was severely imited for two reasons – Firstly, the penetration of internet enabled devices was minimal. Secondly, even if they did have access the information was inappropriate for them because they cannot read or write, or it was irrelevant to their needs.

The answer, says Tapan Parikh of the University of California, Berkeley, is speech. “An audio format would provide much more access and opportunity for local people to contribute,” he says. “While a farmer may not be able to write a memo, or an email, or a summary of his work, he can easily talk about it.”

So IBM have developed the concept of a VoiceSite – Which is conceptually the same as a website, but the information is recorded as short audio pieces rather than text.

Say a plumber wants new customers. First he calls a number and software called VoiGen then guides him, in his local language, through the process of setting up a VoiceSite. Relevant information, such as a welcome greeting and the plumber’s contact details are recorded. Behind the scenes, the VoiGen system then creates a VoiceSite. A phone number, analogous to a URL, is then assigned to the plumber.

Anyone who calls the plumber’s VoiceSite number is greeted with his welcome message, and then given help to navigate the information. For example, the caller can say “address” to hear the plumber’s address, or “appointment” to request a call-out with him.

These VoiceSites can be created by ordinary people using the simpleset available handsets – There are over 300 Million people in India with such handsets, so the network effects could be massive if the idea catches on.

I have always supported the MIT One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) initiative, and it is good to read reports of their recent successes in countries such as Columbia.

It does seem that the two initiatives represent very divergent ways of using technology to leverage the benefits of networks in the developing world. OLPC are seeking to introduce a new technology, whilst VoiceSites seek to leverage technology already widely distributed and understood.

It will be interesting to track the uptake and impact of both.

The serendipity of content targeting

Lovely example of how content targeting by Google can be both absolutely wrong and simultaneously bang on the button.

Reading about The Atheist Bus in The Times, a campaign launched and run over the web to place an athiest message on bussides in London.

The originator of the idea explains that it ws a response to tube advertising by religious groups in London that directed the reader to a URL that promises eternal damnation for not believing in God.

And the contextual advertising that Google has placed around this noble cause?  Yup, its a entitled ‘Jesus Said Follow this link’ and takes the user to a site that proclaims

‘You may have arrived at this site because you have read a Scripture displayed on a London bus or on an Underground train card.’

You’ve got to admire a medium that can automatically place two diametrically opposed views side by side!

Desperately seeking healthcare information

What follows is an intemperate rant.

The Bassett Family recently moved from London (population 7.3 million) to Lymington, a small market town in Hampshire (population 14,000). As we have two children and a trampoline, part of settling in was to go online and recon the local health facilities. In particular, I wanted to know where to go in the event of an emergency.

We are not entirely new to the area, and know that Lymington has a small hospital situated on its outskirts. I started my search with the intent of finding out where exactly the hospital was located, whether it has an A&E department, and what the opening hours are.

So I went to Google, and searched for ‘Lymington Hospital’. Top of the list was a site for the New Forest Primary Care Trust (NFPCT), and the link took me to a page about the hospital. Next to a photograph of the old hospital, the text informed me about the wide range of treatments available at the new hospital and informed me of the address. No details though – no opening times, or details of A&E. So I started to browse the site, seeking the specific information I needed.

In the following ten minutes I discovered the following. The NFPCT runs several community hospitals including Lymington, New Milton, and Fenwick. They welcome my comments and feedback. The PCT is a ‘busy, thriving organisation and as such has a lot to say’. The PCT adheres to the Freedom Of Information Act (2000). Fascinating. But no sign whatsoever of the simple snippets of information I needed.

So I navigate back to the homepage, where I find this simple statement

New Forest Primary Care Trust is now part of Hampshire Primary Care Trust and no longer exists in its own right.

‘This website is not live.

You can still access pages for reference purposes (e.g. to find documents that were stored on this website as part of our commitment to Freedom of Information) but this website will not be updated and should not be regarded as current.’

So lets get this straight. The NHS deliberately keeps a website available, providing out of date information about health services as a part of their commitment to the Freedom Of Information Act. Sure, the site contains some accounting and other information that may be of interest to local politicians, but is it not possible to archive these somewhere else, thereby avoiding the maintenance of a site for an organisation that no longer exists? Rattled, but not yet completely disheartened I opted to click through to the Hampshire Primary Care Trust website who now run Lymingtom Hospital.

The Hampshire PCT website homepage is encouraging

This is the website of the largest PCT in the country, Hampshire Primary Care Trust. Here you’ll find information on how we’re changing and improving healthcare in your area; advice on how to get the best from local health services and what you can do to improve your own health.

So they are big, and on the site I can get advice on how to get the best from local health services. Magnificent. So I navigate to the services page where I take heed of their instructions and go to the ‘Get The Right Treatment‘ page where I can ‘get information about emergency and out of hours help’

Here, at last there is some partially useful information - There is a full A&E department in Southampton (but no statement of opening hours), and there is a minor injuries unit and urgent care centre at Lymington Hospital which is open between 8.30am and 9pm. Mission nearly accomplished, I ask myself a reasonable question - under what circumstances should I go to the MIU in Lymington, and when should I head immediately for the full A&E in Southampton?

The Hampshire PCT website was ambiguous on this point, so I headed back to Google. Ignoring the first four indexed pages because they pointed to the defunct NFPCT site I selected the rather promising nhs.uk/servicedirectories link. This took me to the NHS Choices website and their entry for Lymington Hospital. This entry is truly atrocious.

The ‘Overview’ page informs me that

Lymington Hospital is a consultant-led hospital with medical beds including assessment beds, surgical beds and day case beds. There is also an operating theatre, endoscopy suite, outpatients department and a Minor Injuries Unit

Yet it does not tell me when the MIU is open. Navigating to the ‘Treatments‘ page does not help, as it only has five treatments listed, four of them beginning with the letter ‘A’. Is this a complete list? Or did someone just run out of time and fail to complete the rest of the entry? The fifth entry is the MIU, but there is no link for further information – just a statement of what I already know, which is that it exists.

The Facilities & Patient Support page is an astonishing mixture of incomplete and confusing information. ‘What Should You Bring To Your Appointment’ is apparently not important enough to have been completed whilst ‘Lead information’ (whatever that might be) is ‘not available’ anyway. So are opening times, and an actual description of the circumstances under which the MIU would be appropriate.

Finally, I navigate to the ‘Patient Feedback’ page, where I can read heart-warming tales of the dedication of the staff at the hospital, but cannot find out when it is open.

Exasperated by the paucity of useful information, I navigate to the ‘about’ page, which informs me that:

NHS Choices puts you in control of your healthcare.
This website has been developed to help you make choices about your health, from lifestyle decisions about things like smoking, drinking and exercise, through to the practical aspects of finding and using NHS services when you need them.

Really. Lets go over that again. My basic questions are ‘does Lymington Hospital have an A&E or equivalent, and when does it open’. The response from the NHS Choices website is to give me an obviously incomplete list of services, no definition of what an minor injuries unit covers, no hint of an opening time, and confusing information about patient services. I do, however, know that someone called Peter benefited from his visit.

This entire experience is extremely dispiriting. It is typical of organisations who are keen to embrace ‘web 2.0′, but forget that delivering a service online can be as simple as providing the information users require in an intuitive manner. Instead of investing time and effort understanding those basic needs and delivering against them, they leapfrog to complex, community based solutions which satisfy the higher level requirements of a small subset of users. The notion of the Choices website is excellent – It allows providers and users of healthcare services to interact online in an open and transparent manner. The problem here is that the basic information I need as a user of the healthcare system has been deprioritised during the head long rush to embrace complex interactive feedback mechanisms.

Please can someone take an objective look at this? All it would need is a systematic understanding of what users seek, and how best to deliver that information. Surely this is not beyond the NHS?

 

Stephen Fry celebrates free software

Bizarre, but true. Wandering around the web this morning I came across a video featuring Stephen Fry explaining free software and celebrating 25 years of the GNU operating system.

Celebrity endorsement? Whatever next!

Bad science makes great reading

A blog entry from Mark Earls reminded me to head on over to Ben Goodacre’s ‘Bad Science’ blog.

It is here that Ben debunks bad science – from alternative medicine to poor statistical analysis. The most chilling entry, at least for me, was the analysis of the media coverage of Andrew Wakefield and the MMR scare. Bens analysis of the way in which the media selectively assessed the evidence to create a ten year scare is crucial reading for anyone involved in the public understanding (or, in this case, misunderstanding) of science.

Shift Happens (again)

Thanks to Jon for reminding me that the remarkable video ‘Shift Happens’ was updated last year. How I missed it at the time, I have no idea!

For those who have not seen this, it is a stunning 8 minute journey through the demographic, economic and technological changes underway. It is concise and thought provoking.

The video is on You Tube, and there is a lively wiki associated with the project as well.

It is good to see dramatic shifts in power and status of countries like China and India being presented as facts to be embraced, and not aberrations to be feared.

Talking cash

Just read an entertaining rant from Ivanka Majic that unpicks the dismal user experience provided by most cashpoints…

“When I walk up to the cash point I am thinking about getting some cash. Some money. Moolah. Readies. Wonga. I have never uttered the line “I am just going to the cash machine to get a withdrawal” and I doubt that I ever will. “

Its good to see the self styled Balkan Witch and information architect on eloquent form!

Keeping preferences personal

Ages ago, STS started musing about the separation of preference information from the applications that utilise it. The theory is that individuals will increasingly want to keep their preference information personal. What and who I like and how much is information that I should control and only share when I want to.

The flipside of this is that organisations are keen to know more and more, with the result that they are continually asking for preference information (or guessing at it by analysing my clickstream).

As an individual I have a choice. Either I limit the information I divulge and accept that organisations will be less able to match my requirements as a result. The alternative is that I spend time and effort updating numerous profiles, giving away personal information in the process. In this day and age, neither seems ideal.

In this regard, Matchmine.com is a fascinating proposition. The claim is that I can update my profile information in one place, and that matchmine will share that profile anonymously with participating sites. Its only setup for media right now, but that can surely be extended if the idea takes off.

Commercially this is interesting. The battle to deliver relevance amongst the likes of Google, Yahoo, and increasingly Facebook demands that they acquire more and more information. Meanwhile, individuals are becoming more aware of the dangers of giving that information away. If Matchmine.com threatens to become a serious intermediary then that would be a powerful position.

The drawback right now is that there are not that many participating sites. It is the beginning, however, so I for one intend to adopt a watching brief on this one.