More PS-BS on Prime Time Tonight...

implausible

Darragh29 wrote: »

The bottom line is that I have to take ownership of the issue

and speaking of ownership....what about personal responsibility and morality? Surely this has a role to play? Do we all simply do things because we can get away with them? Do we all accept it because "it's not my problem" or "it's none of my business if X is defrauding the state"?

If this problem, as the OP sees it, is symptomatic of a lack of responsibility in the Public Service, well surely it is merely a reflection of the whole of society.

Oafley Jones

PeakOutput wrote: »

do you understand the difference between on going costs and once off expenditure?

I wish I shared your optimism that those are going to be once off expenditures.

masteroftherealm

Excuse me I never said it was undoable. I said it would be a massivly expensive and lengthy implementation process.

A brief overview of the problems of bringing in a system into the UK,

http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/whyNot.php

http://www.cippic.ca/national-id-cards/

The laws that would have to be changed would be those on Privacy, Data Storage bya government, Data protection Act would cost a fortune to implement on the system.

Apart from that, a distribued, distaster recovery based system with multiple failsafe mechanisms on a hardware backup level, multi-tier Firewall/IDS systems. The physical cost of hardware and software. Implementation on a cross country level in ever post office. Then the cost of biometric readers and the associated software, a dedicated Biometric terminal for logging auth and access. Ongoing costs of maintence and storage, datacenter rental costs, leased lines, manpower and support staff, training.

Canada with a population of 33 million had quotes of up to 9 Billion for a similar system.
Extrapolating from that a system for Ireland could cost up to 1.2 Billion Dollars or roughly 800 million Euro.

Theres a very rough overview from someone who is tired.

Darragh29

Oafley Jones wrote: »

If there's one thing I can't stand it's strawman arguments. Masteroftherealm was just pointing out the various issues that would make this a less than simple solution, that's not to confused with an "instinctive negativity towards reform".


Genuinely curious here but, Darragh since this is your area would you mind elaborating on your proposal with a breakdown and timeframe for each implementation of each step, including any issues you'd envisage arising? The more detail the better.

It's not exactly my field of specialisation, but we have distributed IT systems in the state sector, for example the Garda PULSE system, that allows information to be uploaded and downloaded around the country and centrally stored in a secure environment.

Before I could answer your questions above in detail, I'd need to consult with the client to discuss what their requirements are and put the various options to them, for example, hardware costs, workout what front end systems they would like to use, (web based, desktop, mobile application), what back end DB and framework would be most suitable for their requirements, how many scanning devices they want to use per site, what warranties they want in respect of hardware supplied, what their budget is, do they want a cost-saving analysis done, what are their scaleability requirements for the future, what service back up they want with the proposal...

Before I could even submit a tender for such a project, I'd have to go through a shortlisting process and would probably have to prove that I'd have done something on this scale before, which I don't claim to have done...

On another matter, if I was Richard Branson or Denis O' Brien and went into the Minister for Social and family Affairs and said that I'd pay for the whole system to be designed and deployed and also pay for back up for five years, I'm sure the first words out of the minister's mouth would be, "sorry, the unions will never run with something like that, health and safety and all the rest of it"...

Sand

If there's one thing I can't stand it's strawman arguments. Masteroftherealm was just pointing out the various issues that would make this a less than simple solution, that's not to confused with an "instinctive negativity towards reform".

Give it a rest; Darragh offered an idea on how to use technology to help reduce welfare fraud. Masteroftherealsm post was just a repeated negativity on the whole thing, not some roadmap of how such a system might be developed.

Ah yes all those public sector employees refusing to use technology that's not there how dare they refuse to use the imaginary technology that doesn't exist.

You honestly think that the system that Superquinn use can be used in the Governmental realm? You have no idea what your talking about mate, none whatsoever!!!

If your answer to the above is no then you have less experience than me in this area and should believe me when I tell you, your way way off the mark and have no practical basis to make the suggestions that you are.

Look Im not going into this any further suffice it to say that introducing a national identity managment system for social welfare is NOT the same as doing it in superquinn. Read up on it.

Ok so your 5 minutes online is better than my 6 years experience. Grand I bow to your immense and vague knowledge that you have gathered in 5 minutes I must be wrong if you say so.

Know if I had to summarise the above: instinctive knee jerk negativity. "Thatll never work!"

Genuinely curious here but, Darragh since this is your area would you mind elaborating on your proposal with a breakdown and timeframe for implementation of each step, including any issues you'd envisage arising? The more detail the better.

Sure, hell put together a detailed IT specs document, and then you'll got and study it, and then implement it...oh wait, no you wont implement it because youre not the IT contractors. Why waste his time?

gandalf

deemark wrote: »

and speaking of ownership....what about personal responsibility and morality? Surely this has a role to play? Do we all simply do things because we can get away with them? Do we all accept it because "it's not my problem" or "it's none of my business if X is defrauding the state"?

If this problem, as the OP sees it, is symptomatic of a lack of responsibility in the Public Service, well surely it is merely a reflection of the whole of society.

Without a doubt yes if you are aware of someone defrauding the state then you should turn them in.

However if the PS Management, the PS Unions and the PS staff are aware how widespread this problem is then they should be working as fast as they can to address it and not use it as a bargaining chip to get MORE! The more money that is wasted like demonstrated tonight the more jobs in the long run will have to be sacrificed and the more of the vulnerable that the beards love to talk about will be affected.

I would like to think that the days of holding up necessary efficiencies in the running of the public service because some want to use them as bargain chips will be addressed once and for all as a matter of urgency.

Also why are people who have been caught and convicted still being paid monies from the state coffers and why aren't they being perused for the full value of the monies they defrauded from us? Just looking at the Northern figures for court cases it seems that this is not being seen as a major problem by our powers that be. Ah well sure the tax paying patsies will cough up more cash so we can keep the status quo.

masteroftherealm

Im an IT contractor.
Ill gladly take the contract if he writes the proposal.

imme

Sand wrote: »

@masteroftherealm

@imme

I can only take my pointers from the public sectors representitives. According to the trade unions, reforms and improvements to increase efficiency are a bargaining chip to be traded for. Refer to their comments on the breakup of the last talks. For me, its part of my job to find new and better ways of doing things and getting them implemented.

I get what you mean Sand.
For a lot of the PS sections I'm familiar with new technologies/systems/processes are accepted as a part of the job. They are accepted as a way of improving services to customers.
The unions don't speak for all PS workers you know. Not all PS workers are union members.
Here's a bit from www.eurofound.europa.eu that quotes CSO figures relating to union densities among PS workers: "Therefore, 51.9% of all union members are now employed in the public sector."

masteroftherealm

Darragh29 wrote: »

It's not exactly my field of specialisation, but we have distributed IT systems in the state sector, for example the Garda PULSE system, that allows information to be uploaded and downloaded around the country and centrally stored in a secure environment.

Before I could answer your questions above in detail, I'd need to consult with the client to discuss what their requirements are and put the various options to them, for example, hardware costs, workout what front end systems they would like to use, (web based, desktop, mobile application), what back end DB and framework would be most suitable for their requirements, how many scanning devices they want to use per site, what warranties they want in respect of hardware supplied, what their budget is, do they want a cost-saving analysis done, what are their scaleability requirements for the future, what service back up they want with the proposal...

Before I could even submit a tender for such a project, I'd have to go through a shortlisting process and would probably have to prove that I'd have done something on this scale before, which I don't claim to have done...

On another matter, if I was Richard Branson or Denis O' Brien and went into the Minister for Social and family Affairs and said that I'd pay for the whole system to be designed and deployed and also pay for back up for five years, I'm sure the first words out of the minister's mouth would be, "sorry, the unions will never run with something like that, health and safety and all the rest of it"...

The fact that your suggesting web/mobile based delivery platforms shows how little experience you have with hardened secure delivery systems.
This is not a frigging website/CMS, in fact I know for a fact that SAP/Oracle have both turned down tenders for systems such as this due to their complexity.

thebman

I'd like to know why it is not a feasible system. Are finger prints not unique?

All you need is a scanner with a higher resolution than Superquinns. I don't see how the data protection act figures into it at all. Just look at the data ISP's have to store about your online activities.

The state has shown time and time again they don't give a crap about our privacy but its wrong when it might help detect fraud for some reason.

Sand

Im an IT contractor.
Ill gladly take the contract if he writes the proposal.

Thats great. He's not the Department of Social Welfare. Theyre the ones who need the system. You should contact them for the proposal. Of course, youd probably have to *sell* the system as opposed to coming up with reasons why it would never work.

Darragh29

masteroftherealm wrote: »

The fact that your suggesting web/mobile based delivery platforms shows how little experience you have with hardened secure delivery systems.
This is not a frigging website/CMS, in fact I know for a fact that SAP/Oracle have both turned down tenders for systems such as this due to their complexity.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45157000/jpg/_45157153_scanner203.jpg

Tell us what is in the Policeman's hand in the pic above???

Oafley Jones

Darragh29 wrote: »

It's not exactly my field of specialisation, but we have distributed IT systems in the state sector, for example the Garda PULSE system, that allows information to be uploaded and downloaded around the country and centrally stored in a secure environment.

Before I could answer your questions above in detail, I'd need to consult with the client to discuss what their requirements are and put the various options to them, for example, hardware costs, workout what front end systems they would like to use, (web based, desktop, mobile application), what back end DB and framework would be most suitable for their requirements, how many scanning devices they want to use per site, what warranties they want in respect of hardware supplied, what their budget is, do they want a cost-saving analysis done, what are their scaleability requirements for the future, what service back up they want with the proposal...

Before I could even submit a tender for such a project, I'd have to go through a shortlisting process and would probably have to prove that I'd have done something on this scale before, which I don't claim to have done...

On another matter, if I was Richard Branson or Denis O' Brien and went into the Minister for Social and family Affairs and said that I'd pay for the whole system to be designed and deployed and also pay for back up for five years, I'm sure the first words out of the minister's mouth would be, "sorry, the unions will never run with something like that, health and safety and all the rest of it"...

Denis O'Brien won't even pay his taxes in this country so good luck getting him to pay for that.

Darragh, I'd like to know how you come up with the idea that a system could be in place in months because the above to me comes off like a load of waffle.

masteroftherealm

Darragh29 wrote: »

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45157000/jpg/_45157153_scanner203.jpg

Tell us what is in the Policeman's hand in the pic above???

And where is the biometric data its scanning?
Edit: thats things for check car reg's in the DVLA. Bloddy different system, apple and koala bears.

Sand

I get what you mean Sand.
For a lot of the PS sections I'm familiar with new technologies/systems/processes are accepted as a part of the job. They are accepted as a way of improving services to customers.
The unions don't speak for all PS workers you know. Not all PS workers are union members

I dont doubt there are people in the public sector who are open to reforms - but institutionally it seems to view them as something to be traded for. From what I've seen it would be a very cold place for anyone with bright ideas on how to save money.

We were supposed to get a reform minded PS for benchmarking. We didnt. The unions are telling us now that they wont co-operate with reforms: its just on the radio there that the teachers union has decided it wont co-operate with government programs to improve and reform the education system.

That to me is utterly shocking. If implementing reforms in the education system is not part of their BAU, if they can simply decide - no I wont do that part of my job...I would sack them all. Anyone who refused to do their job - sack them with no pensions or golden handshakes. I dont accept that its okay to refuse to do your job, and in any proper workplace your job includes implementing reforms as a matter of course.

Darragh29

masteroftherealm wrote: »

And where is the biometric data its scanning?
Edit: thats things for check car reg's in the DVLA. Bloddy different system, apple and koala bears.

It's a mobile application, something you said above wasn't secure enough to be used as part of a solution such as could be used here.

I never claimed to be a fully fledged expert on such a system, the point I made is that it is ENTIRELY possible to design and deploy a system if we could just get over people like yourself who are inherently negative and allergic to change and improvement in this country...

In the US they take your fingerprint electronically once you step off the airplane. No big deal, entirely possible and do-able...

PeakOutput

so you reckon it could cost 800million? lets say you have underestimated to 20%

i still think it sounds worth it hands up who dosnt?

whatnext

masteroftherealm wrote: »

Im an IT contractor.
Ill gladly take the contract if he writes the proposal.

you never responded to me - post 14 1st page :rolleyes:

P. Breathnach

PeakOutput wrote: »

so you reckon it could cost 800million? lets say you have underestimated to 20%

i still think it sounds worth it hands up who dosnt?

I'm not putting my hand up: you might scan my fingertips.

ressem

I'd have to side with masteroftherealm on that one. The data protection authorities frown on throwing such information into a database.
The more easily accepted approach is, as with our passports, to have the biometrics stored only on the card held by the owner. This makes the bar a bit tougher to jump, but is useless if someone can as shown apply for a duplicate pps in a week without checks.

Most people seem to think that you could just look for duplicate fingerprints/photos in a master database containing all social welfare claimants. Even with careful recording standards it doesn't really work like that. The effort put into recording such info would I guess be more productive spent doing interviews.

As for the PS-BS header... 'the system' decided that handing out PPS numbers with minimal inconvenience to new applicants was the way to go during the boom. There's going to be all sorts of excuses for this, some justifiable. (Not wanting to bloat the social welfare staff to carry out interviews and check more extensive paperwork akin to the procedure outlined in the program for Northern Ireland. More people are honest than not.)

So now we've to decide whether we're going to start interviewing people collecting social welfare on a staged basis, to get rid of the rented and duplicate PPS etc demonstrated.
Btw, since I'm likely to be accused of being public sector or on welfare, neither is the case, and I'm in favour of sending in debt collectors to recover fraudulent gains faster than the ridiculous tenner a week.

PeakOutput

mary hanaffin wants to save 500million this year up until ocotober according to her she has saved 255million up until ocotber from catching fraudsters.

imagine how many they are not detecting? imagine how many a robust biometric system could detect? the system would pay for itself very very quickly

Darragh29

PeakOutput wrote: »

so you reckon it could cost 800million? lets say you have underestimated to 20%

i still think it sounds worth it hands up who dosnt?

If we are spending 22 billion Euro a year on welfare and lets say for argument's sake a fairly conservative 5% of this is lost to fraud, then 1.1 Billion a Euro a year is the figure on the loss to the state, based on 5% fraud...

The garda PULSE System was put in place for 319 Garda stations, for 61.3 million Euro with running costs between 2001 and 2006 coming in at €12.88 million. It could be argued that PULSE is a much larger system than what is required here, which is a simple enough validation system to scan in a fingerprint and pull a list of records for the image record matching that print.

That's all the system would have to do, once the applicant has been validated beyond question, the current system could be used as it stands to process whatever has to be done and hold transactional data...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PULSE_(Police_Using_Leading_Systems_Effectively)

imme

ressem wrote: »

Btw, since I'm likely to be accused of being public sector or on welfare, neither is the case,

Would you not be entitled to an opinion if you worked in the PS, or we on welfare.
Why do you feel the need to state that?

gnxx

To be fair, the effort required to implement such a system to avoid fraud was probably not worth the cost during the boom years.

However, I'd generally agree with Darragh and his comments on this thread.

We generally focus on the screw-ups such as e-voting, but we've obviously got some decent brains running some of the IT projects in the public sector. The ROS system, is robust and has pretty much eliminated all my dealings with tax paperwork and calls to revenue officials. I just love the simplicity of the motor tax system. Certainly these guys can deliver complex systems.

imme

Sand wrote: »

I dont doubt there are people in the public sector who are open to reforms - (1) but institutionally it seems to view them as something to be traded for. From what I've seen (2) it would be a very cold place for anyone with bright ideas on how to save money.

We were supposed to get a reform minded PS for (3) benchmarking. We didnt. The unions are telling us now that they wont co-operate with reforms: its just on the radio there that the teachers union has decided it wont co-operate with government programs to improve and reform the education system(4).

That to me is utterly shocking. If implementing reforms in the education system is not part of their BAU, if they can simply decide - no I wont do that part of my job...I would sack them all. Anyone who refused to do their job - sack them with no pensions or golden handshakes(5). I dont accept that its okay to refuse to do your job, and in any proper workplace your job includes implementing reforms as a matter of course.

(1) are you mixing up the institution with the unions who represent some of the workers in it?
(2) have you worked in the PS, or where does this view come from?
(3) what was benchmarking meant to achieve? Is it written down anywhere what it was to achieve. I'm merely asking the question, not trying to be smart or not answer the question myself.
(4) what were the reforms, why did the teachers object?, do you know, again I'm not trying to be smart.
(5) what's a goldenhandshake, is this not reserved for bankers and heads of FÁS?

TCP/IP_King

Darragh29 wrote: »

...
On another matter, if I was Richard Branson or Denis O' Brien and went into the Minister for Social and family Affairs and said that I'd pay for the whole system to be designed and deployed and also pay for back up for five years, I'm sure the first words out of the minister's mouth would be, "sorry, the unions will never run with something like that, health and safety and all the rest of it"...

I don't recall any union reaction to the M50 toll fiasco !!

PeakOutput

TCP/IP_King wrote: »

I don't recall any union reaction to the M50 toll fiasco !!

what has that to do with the public service?

K-9

I love how the Public Service are moaning about the lack of charging SW fraudsters on this thread.

TCP/IP_King

PeakOutput wrote: »

what has that to do with the public service?

A road was built from the north side to the Liffey with EU money
A road was built from the south side to the Liffey with EU money
The government gave away the rights to charge extortinate amounts to cross a bridge to a private company.
SIPTU et al didn't have any opinion on that
And Darragh assumed that the unions would have an opinion on a public/private partnership project
QED

Darragh29

gnxx wrote: »

To be fair, the effort required to implement such a system to avoid fraud was probably not worth the cost during the boom years.

However, I'd generally agree with Darragh and his comments on this thread.

We generally focus on the screw-ups such as e-voting, but we've obviously got some decent brains running some of the IT projects in the public sector. The ROS system, is robust and has pretty much eliminated all my dealings with tax paperwork and calls to revenue officials. I just love the simplicity of the motor tax system. Certainly these guys can deliver complex systems.

+1, and I'd have no issue with the folks behind the sucessful implementation of these kind of improvements getting very well renumerated for the effort they have put in and the results that have been delivered and are there for everyone to see and are clearly beyond criticism.

The digitisation of the 1911 census records is an example of what could only be called the absolutely flawless execution of a plan to improvement public access to state resources via the internet, same for car tax online and Revenue/ROS.

I have no issue with these people being given substantial bonuses and higher salares post delivery of these projects.

What I have a major issue with is a senior civil servant coming on national media tonight and telling the nation that she hasn't a clue what the degree of fraud is in relation to welfare payments made, then she hasn't a single positive contribution to make with regard to curtailing/eliminating fraud, not that she would be in any position to make any contributon whatsoever because she has told us she hasn't the first clue as to the size of the problem, and this woman no doubt being on a very substantial state salary, and somewhere along the line, being responsible for the distribution of around 22 billion Euro of taxpayers money to those that need it as per the legislation that deals with who can get it and who cannot.

Again, where are the results, where is the basic cop on when it comes to solving a problem, where is the care for taxpayers money that is paying their salaries???