Beverly Hughes: Computer Illiterate Liar

July 5th, 2007

Ah yes, the second use of our new category ‘Someone Stupid Said’, and a most perfect example to boot.

Beverley Hughes, Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families, and soon to be the orchestrator of the largest mass abuse of children in the history of the world, said some very stupid stuff in a letter printed in the Guardian, in response to this letter authored by Jonathan Shephard (Independent Schools Council), Ross Anderson (Foundation Information Policy Research), Simon Davies (Privacy International), Becky Hogge (Open Rights Group) and Terri Dowty (Action on Rights for Children).

Here we go…

The ContactPoint system is secure

Tuesday June 26, 2007
The Guardian

Those who claim ContactPoint is open to abuse (Letters, June 22) should look more closely at the systems.

Actually we understand PERFECTLY how databases work, which is why we are able to make the assessment that ContactPoint cannot ever be secure. It is YOU who are a computer illiterate schaufensterpuppen without a single clue about what you are talking about or allowing to be planned.

If you publish the actual specification, then everyone can make a judgement, except maybe you, since you clearly don’t know the difference between a television and a computer.

The design and operation of ContactPoint will adhere to the new international standard for information security management systems as well as conforming with relevant government security standards and will continue to be reviewed by independent security experts during the system build.

So. What you failed to do is provide a link to to or properly name (give the ISO number) for this standard. Do you even know what a link is, we ask. As for ‘conforming to the relevant govenment security standards’, we have seen how they work and they do not work at all. Those standards are actually implimented (and very probably designed) by the contractors that you use to get these revolting jobs done. No department in the government has the capacity to be able to design and run these systems, and even if they did, this does not address the issue of rogue workers releasing information.

You say that security will be reviewed ‘during the system build’. What this REALLY means is that you have no idea how it is going to be rolled out and secured in advance of doing it, and you will be making it up as you go along, fixing any problems as you build it.

This is like saying you are going to build a new model of passenger jet, and that you are going to work out the details like center of gravity, air flow, where to place the engines, seating arrangements, materials, avionics etc etc during the aircraft build. You really are, one of the stupidest people on the planet if you are going to do what you are planning to do in the way that you have described in this pathetic letter.

We are confident we are doing all we can to ensure security.

And it is this suicidal overconfidence that will be the undoing of this project.

It is true that, in some limited situations, records of children whose circumstances may mean they are at increased risk of harm may be subject to shielding.

What this means is very clear. ALL CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE PUT IN THIS DATABASE. A paedophile values ALL children. This is not a limited situation, but something that makes ALL children vulnerable. We know that the children of celebrities (and no doubt, the children of very member of Parliament) are going to be exempted from this database. The fact is that YOUR children are not more special, valuable or worthy of protection than any other child.

This admission is not only wrong, but it is a sickening demonstration of your true nature, as exposed by those hypocritical ministers who say that the state school system is good enough for everyone while they segregate their own children into private schools because their local schools are actually totally unacceptable, (Ruth Kelly, Diane Abbott, Harriet Harman). No one’s child should be put in this database by force. Every parent should have the right to opt IN to it should they want to. Opting in is the only correct and moral way to run such an abomination, and of course, you will never do this, because no one in their right mind would deliberately add their children to yet another government database.

These decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis and this approach was backed by the information commissioner. The information commissioner’s office has been consulted at every stage of the development of the procedures surrounding the use of ContactPoint.

The foxes consulted with each other about access to the chicken coop. We feel so much better now!

Access to the system will be restricted to authorised workers who need it as part of their job and who have been security-checked, trained and have the necessary authentication

You really are one disingenuous liar of the first order.

The ‘authorized worker’ you desctibe are actually an army of 330,000 people. That is not ‘restricting’ the system, that is giving it to every Tom Dick and Harry.

The ‘security checking’ will not stop anyone of this army of users from copying and compromising the security of children on the database. If you knew anything about databases and how they are used you would understand this. If you claim to understand this, then you are an evil monster for pushing ContactPoint, and a liar because you are claiming that ‘ContactPoint is Secure’ when you know that this can never be the case. If you do not know anything about this, you should, at the very least, not have written this letter, and you should not be trying to rollout this disaster on wheels. Either way, you are in the wrong.

they will be made aware of the penalties for misuse, including disciplinary and criminal proceedings.

None of these penalties will reverse the damage done by this system. Period.

ContactPoint will contain only basic administrative information about children in England – their name, date of birth, and contact details for their parents or carers, for their school, GP and other services working with the child or young person. There will be no case information and no subjective opinions about a child or parent.

This is more disingenuous garbage. The private, sensitive and personal details of human beings (who they are related to, where they live, their ages) are not ‘basic administrative information’. This is PRIVATE INFORMATION that is the property of the citizen, and you have no right to store it, abuse it, collect it, distribute it or do anything with it without the written consent of the person. Certainly you have absolutely no right to short circuit the responsibility of a parent to their children by stealing this information and using it willy nilly. You are evil for doing this, you are evil for thinking this, and there are no two ways about it.

You are demonstrating that you are anti family, by doing this, coming between the sacred relationship that exists in a family between the child and the parent. These details are private. They should remain private, and they should only be used by consent.

It’s important not to forget the reason we are bringing this system in. It implements an important recommendation made by Lord Laming and is designed to be a practical tool to support better communication between practitioners so they can see quickly and easily who else is working with the same child and how they can contact them.
Beverley Hughes
Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families

This is utter nonsense. The fact is you don’t know why this database is being proposed. You have not got a clue about the forceful vendors pushing their ‘solutions’ onto HMG and the public, the dirty deals to sell the population like sheep. You have no idea about the long term agenda to neutralize any opposition to the creation of the Quantized Human Pleb Grid. Once again, if you DO know about all of this, you are completely evil for promoting it. If you do not, then you should not be promoting it from a place of total pig ignorance.

Beverley Hughes is the anti-Family minister. She has no idea of what the word ‘Family’ means; anyone that claims they know what that word means could never propose what she is proposing. Anyone that is pro-Family is for the protection and preservation of family bonds and responsibilities and they do not, reflexively, do anything that dilutes those bonds and responsibilities.

What Beverley Hughes is proposing is not only wrong, it is very dangerous. But she doesn’t care.

Look at her record:

How Beverley Hughes voted on key issues since 2001:

From this record it is clear that Beverley Hughes is against everything decent people are for. The only reason why she is there is because 7,851 couldn’t tell night from day at the ballot box.

That she is in this particular job is astonishing and frightening….though not really surprising, all of Neu Labour are as mad as hatters, and the deeper you go the more cut off from reality they are.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.