Talk:Loss of United Kingdom child benefit data (2007)

message: There is no reason for this on the front page and it is not important to the world.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukaribe (talk • contribs) 13:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Such examples of massive security failures should be valuable to anyone, worldwide, who cares about the privacy and confidentiality of their own personal information. National ID agendas are being pushed by governments worldwide, and the continual barrage of such reckless and massive information security failures should underscore why even our governments are wholly incapable of sufficiently securing sensitive data, and hence why such agendas should be permanently shelved. At least shelved until simple information security practices, such as prolific usage of effective data encryption, effective application of SoD principals, and sufficient continual logging and subsequent auditing of information access, becomes commonplace. Erth64net (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not News

message: Can someone supply an image of the HMRC building at Washington, as that was the location of the original foul up, not Nottingham? Yorkshiresky (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a browse through the Geograph entries for the area, see if you get lucky. Those images are all under a cc-by-sa-2.0 licence, so feel free to upload an image to Commons if you can find one. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Even if there are not references for this at the moment - what is the potential scale of this? What could the effects be? I'd like to get an idea of the magnitude of this from someone who knows more about this kind of thing than I do, whilst equally observing WP:NOT#FORUM, so that it could be added to the article later if proven true.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 06:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be just linking to news articles in the external links, which isn't the best MoS. Because the event was so recent it is difficult to select what is important and what is not. General practice seems to be to include a lot, and when time passes and that which is significant presents itself in the real world, then we can be selective in what we include in the article. Better too much than too little at this stage, I feel. SGGH speak! 10:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would caution against putting MoS concerns above neutrality though - I happen to disagree with a lot of MoS as much of the decision making there is for the editor rather than the reader but I do understand the value of direct quotes so long as a particular political spin is not the main thrust of the article. MLA (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Without going into original research, what could this potentially mean? 

message: While the politics do not interest me, the sheer stupidity and incompetence of the personnel and system revealed by this incident do - another example of Occidental "dumbing down"! And lest anyone take umbrage, consider this: how long has the UK been in the business of administrating? Is it conceivable that an SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) by any name does NOT exist for such data transfers? So unless this was an outright theft with inside help/information, this incident is  disgraceful. Shir-El too (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: an sop exists and it was broken, hence the resignation. but i agree with you. when managers talk about mission statements and visions and forget to manage people then things mess up. i blame the trend in management schools that began in the 70s Mongreilf (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another benefit of the Global Village: Global education for mediocrity and slogan writing! I'm just afraid the resignee may actually have had nothing to do with the incident; and in any case I was taught the only way to atone for a mess was to stay on and clean it up. Shir-El too (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's remarkable isn't that the "junior official" broke the rules and did what he did, but that he could break the rules! AJKGORDON«» 07:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would depend on what kind of work ethos/culture was in use. Where the emphasis is on results no matter the method, then rules are annoying, impractical details meant to be ignored... until someone is caught doing it. Shir-El too (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid, incompetent and disgraceful... 

message: ...is whether the data in the disks was strongly encrypted or not. If it was, with the relevant keys being sent later or using public-key crypto, then there is actually nothing to worry about, and i think it even shows proper procedure on their part: Sending the data itself in a inexpensive way, while still guarateeing total security.
On the other hand, if they use weak crypto (which is the standard in many office applications) or no crypto at all, then i still think that most of the public indignation is being misdirected: Data theft might have occurred not only now, but many times before, with thieves easily intercepting the disks in the mail (or even the government staff responsible for mailing), copying them, and sending them along unscathed to their intended recipients, raising no suspicions. If they send the disks in regular mail packages without any special precautions, as they apparently do, then this might not be too difficult. It just so happens that this time the thieves themselves might have goofed up and failed to restore the chain after intercepting the data.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.232.124 (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information on the discs was, apparently, not encrypted at all - only password-protected. Needless to say, that's very bad news. Terraxos (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What really matters... 

message: "Misplacement" is classic PR-speak, almost like it's deliberately worded to make it sound less bad.  Wikipedia is no the UK's PR wing.  The title should be data loss and on the main page, it should say it loses the data instead of misplaces it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrVoluntarist (talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "child benefit" probably means nothing to people outside of the UK, and "misplacement" is just silly. I propose "2007 UK Government data loss". No objections in 30 mins and I'll change it. Abc30 (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a different term from misplacement should be used and that the article should probably be renamed, but a problem with the proposed title is that it suggests the news article is about all UK Government Data loss in 2007. So I say rename it to Data loss, but keep 'Child Benefit' in the title. Man from the Ministry (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Loss implies the data has gone completely.  Misplacement does sound a little PR-ey, but it's accurate. Thedarxide (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "2007 Child Benefit Data Security Breach"? Or is that too wordy? AJKGORDON«» 10:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Data Protection rather than data security.  That's the crux of the matter. Thedarxide (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... "2007 UK Child Benefit Data Protection Breach". Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, does it? :) But that's probably what it is. AJKGORDON«» 11:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: When you lose something, it is a "loss".  After you find it, you can refer back to the event (and subsequent search) as a "misplacement".  The term can also refer to the expectation of finding the object during the search.  Breach suggests an act of malfeasance on the part of some other third party.  If someone comes into my home by breaking down the front door, it's physical security has been "breached".  However, if I just leave the door open, this is plain incompetence.  As with almost all mainstream references, spin is the order of the day.  I urge Wikipedia to avoid white-wash, and stick with plain English.  Even if the BBC refuses!  mdf (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that simple. They've still got the data. They lost a copy of the data but just using the word "lost" implies that they no longer have the data full stop. However, I'm inclined to agree with you. Lost is still lost, copy or not, and other words like "misplacement" smack of spin. And you're right about "breach" - that is the wrong word. My preference would now be for "failure". "2007 UK Child Benefit Data Protection Failure" Still wordy but... AJKGORDON«» 11:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with that. Thedarxide (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the somewhat hysterical connotations - I'd go with 2007 UK child benefit data scandal.  Failure doesn't seem to hit the mark to me and the current title sounds like a weasel world.  MLA (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: When I originally was going to start the article (having not found an existing one by that time) I was going for 2007 UK Child Benefits data loss or perhaps data leak but MLAs suggestion makes the best sense to me. SGGH speak! 17:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Or is it thirded? AJKGORDON«» 18:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that is a bit better.  Either one of these suggestions is good for me.  It's been 12 hours soon, someone change it! Thedarxide (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I hope I did it right. There was a note about checking for double re-directs but I'm not show how :| AJKGORDON«» 20:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new name is much better.  You can check  list of double-redirects;  apparently none in this case.  The only after-shock I can spot is that we need a High Priest to bestow a sacrament upon the reference here in the ITN section of the main-page.  mdf (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orwellian title? 

message: Is it worth mentioning that a significant number the British public seem pretty furious about this? There's vast numbers of comments and letters being sent to news websites and papers condemning the Government over this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Froggity-Frog (talk • contribs) 10:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, it affects a huge number of people but if only 1% are writing letters then that's still a lot of people but not very significant as 99% might not be worried. And remember we're all more likely to put pen to paper to complain. Am sure there will be a way of proving that a significant number of people are very upset and worried, but this isn't proof of that. Halsteadk (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: For every person who actually gets around to writing a letter/e-mail/blog or whatever, there are probably another 50 who strongly agree with hiim. Those who actually make a recordable protest are a extreme tip of the iceberg among those who are angry about the affair. It's like saying that since only 1 million people went on the Stop the War march, that's all that oppose it and the other 59 million are indifferent. --Oscar Bravo (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The People 

message: The article currently says "TNT stated that, as the delivery was not recorded, it would not be possible to even ascertain if it had actually been sent, let alone where it went. They also stated that they would not accept any responsibility for the loss of the discs.", and proceeds to cite a BBC source.  Can anyone find a TNT disclaimer at that source?  I'm asking because I removed that reference yesterday for a citation request, and now see the reference has been added back.  mdf (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in a cached version of a BBC article on the subject. The current article on the BBC site has been changed since then. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not again (see last paragraph).  More and more I think (a) current events are not encyclopedic and/or (b) all media sources are fundamentally unreliable re: constructing an encyclopedia.  Ah well!  mdf (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TNT disclaims responsibility for loss 

message: How do we incorporate the latest on this: that apparently the loss is not due to a low-level functionary acting outside his authority or contrary to procedure, but that senior management was consulted and acquiesced in the decision to send 2 discs by regular post?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7109103.stm
WikiReaderer (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added something similar at the end of "The loss", but maybe it should be moved down to a new section/para near the end of the article. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates 

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7111056.stm 86.21.74.40 (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  6 more discs lost 

message: Sorry to be a spoilsport but I am a bit concerned that the title of this article is POV; in particular the use of the word "scandal". I am not saying that it is not a scandal - I am a UK resident and it is clearly a really, really bad screw up that someone has made - but for Wikipedia should we not try to be a bit more neutral? The full impact of it has yet to be felt, so I am not sure how we could know whether or not it is scandalous yet. I would suggest a move to 2007 UK child benefit data loss or something. Any thoughts? Batmanand | Talk 10:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do think it is a scandal, we should be guided by consensus of sources.  A quick google search for scandal in this context does suggest it's a reasonable descriptor. MLA (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original proposer of the word scandal did comment on its possible shrillness but actually it is what it is. It's not POV - it is a scandal and I think it is perfectly neutral to title it as such. Loss, misplacement and other words discussed didn't seem to cut it because it is more than the physical loss of the discs. AJKGORDON«» 19:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title - POV? 

message: Didn't a very senior civil servant tender his resignation since he had overall responsibility for the department?AleXd (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response and Resignation 

message: Did the disks ever turn up? --Richardrj talk email 12:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update?