The DOBlog

Blog

  • Fair use/Specified purpose and the IBTS

    I am a blood donor. I am proud of it. I have provided quite a lot of sensitive personal data to the IBTS over the years that I’ve been donating.

    The specific purposes for which I believed I was providing the information was to allow the IBTS to administer communications with me as a donor (so I know when clinics are on so I can donate), to allow the IBTS to identify me and track my donation patterns, and to alert IBTS staff to any reasons why I cannot donate on a given occasion (donated too recently in the past, I’ve had an illness etc.). I accepted as implied purposes the use of my information for internal reporting and statistical purposes.

    I did not provide the information for the purposes of testing software developed by a 3rd party, particularly when that party is in a foreign country.

    The IBTS’s website (www.ibts.ie) has a privacy policy which relates to data captured through their website. It tells me that

    The IBTS does not collect any personal data about you on this website apart from information which you volunteer (for example by emailing us or by using our on line contact forms). Any information which you provide in this way is not made available to any third parties, and is used by the IBTS only for the purpose for which you provided it.

    So, if any information relating to my donor record was captured via the website, the IBTS is in breach of their own privacy policy. So if you register to be a donor… using this link… http://www.ibts.ie/register.cfm?mID=2&sID=77 then that information is covered by their Privacy policy and you would not be unreasonable in assuming that your data wouldn’t wind up on a laptop in a crackhouse in New York.

    In the IBTS’s Donor Charter, they assure potential Donors that:

    The IBTS guarantees that all personal information about donors is kept in the strictest confidence

    Hmm… so no provision here for production data to be used in testing. Quite the contrary.

    However, it gets even better… in the Donor Information Leaflet on the IBTS’s website, in the Data Protection section (scroll down… it’s right at the bottom), current and potential donors the IBTS tells us that (emphasis is mine throughout):

    The IBTS holds donor details, donation details and test results on a secure computerised database. This database is used by the IBTS to communicate with donors and to record their donation details, including all blood sample test results. It is also used for the proper and necessary administration of the IBTS. All the information held is treated with the strictest confidence.

    This information may also be used for research in order to improve our knowledge about the blood donor population, and for clinical audit, to assess and improve the quality of our service. Wherever possible, all such information will be anonymised.

    Right.. so from their policy and their statement of fair use and specified purposes we learn that:

    1. They can use it for communication with donors and for tracking donation details and results of tests (as expected)
    2. They can use it for necessary administration. Which covers internal reporting but, I would argue, not giving it to other organisations to lose on their behalf.
    3. They can use it for research about the blood donor population, auditing clinical practices. This is OK… and expected.
    4. They are also permitted to use the data to “improve the quality of [their] service”. That might cover the use of the data for testing…

    Until you read that last bit… the data would be anonymised whenever possible. That basically means the creation of dummy data as described towards the end of my last post on this topic.

    So, the IBTS did not specify at any time that they would use the information I had provided to them for the purposes of software development by 3rd parties. It did specify a purpose for using the information for the improvement of service quality. But only if it was anonymised.

    Section 2 of the Data Protection Act says that data can only be used by a Data Controller for the specific purposes for which it has been gathered. As the use of un-anonymised personal data for the purposes of software development by agencies based outside of the EU (or in the EU for that matter) was not a specified use, the IBTS is, at this point, in breach of the Data Protection Act. If the data had been anonymised (ie if ‘fictional’ test data had been used or if the identifying elements of the personal data had been muddled up before being transferred) there would likely be no issue.

    • Firstly, the data would have been provided in a manner consistent with the specified use of the data
    • Secondly, there would have been no risk to personal data security as the data on the stolen laptop would not have related to an identifiable person in the real world.

    Of course, that would have cost a few euros to do so it was probable de-scoped from the project.

    If I get a letter and my data was not anonymised I’ll be raising a specific complaint under Section 2 of the Data Protection Act. If the data was not anonymised (regardless of the security precautions applied) then the IBTS is in breach of their specified purposes for the collection of the data and are in breach of the Data Protection Act.

    Billy Hawkes, if you are reading this I’ve just saved your team 3 weeks work.

  • Irish Blood Transfusion Service loses data..

    Why is it that people never learn? Only months after the debacle of HMRC sending millions of records of live confidential data whizzing around in the post on 2 CDs (or DVDs), the Irish Blood Transfusion Service (IBTS) has had 171,000 records of blood tests and blood donors stolen.

    The data was on a laptop (bad enough from a security point of view). The data was (apparently) secured with 256bit AES encryption (happy days if true). The laptop was taken in a mugging (unfortunate). The mugging took place in New York (WTF!?!?)

    Why was the data in New York?
    It would seem that the IBTS had contracted with the New York Blood Centre (NYBC) for the customisation of some software that the NYBC had developed to better manage information on donors and blood test results. To that end the IBTS gave a copy of ‘live’ (or what we call in the trade ‘production’) data to the NYBC for them to use in developing the customisations.

    So, personal data, which may contain ‘sensitive’ data relating to sexual activity, sexual behaviour, medicial conditions etc. was sent to the US. But it was encrypted, we are assured.

    A quick look at the Safe Harbor list of the US Dept of Commerce reveals that the NYBC is not registered as being a ‘Safe Harbor’ for personal data from within the EU. Facebook is however (and we all know how compliant Facebook is with basic rules of data protection).

    Apparently the IBTS relied on provisions of their contract with the NYBC to ensure and assure the security of the data relating to REAL people. As yet no information has come to light regarding whether any audits or checks were performed to ensure that those contractual terms were being complied with or were capable of being complied with.

    How did the data get to New York?
    From the IBTS press release it is clear that the data got to New York in a controlled manner.
    An employee of NYBC took the disc back from Ireland and placed it in secure storage.

    Which is a lot better than sticking two CDs in the post, like the UK Revenue services did not so long ago.

    What about sending the data by email? Hmmm… nope, not secure enough and the file sizes might be to big. A direct point to point FTP between two servers? that would work as well, assuming that the FTP facilities were appropriately secured by firewalls and a healthy sense of paranoia.

    Why was the data needed in New York?
    According to the Irish Times

    The records were in New York, the blood service said, “because we are upgrading the software that we use to analyse our data to provide a better service to donors, patients and the public service”.

    Cool. So the data was needed in New York to let the developers make the necessary modifications to code.

    Nice sound bite. Hangs together well. Sounds reasonable.

    Unfortunately it is total nonsense.

    For the developers to make modifications to an existing application, what was required in New York was

    • A detailed specification of what the modifications needed to be to enable the software to function for Irish datasets and meet Irish requirements. Eg. if the name/address data capture screens needed to change they should have been specified in a document. If validation routines for zip cods/postcodes needed to be turned off, that should have been specified. If base data/reference data needed to be change – specify it in a document. Are we seeing a trend here?
    • Definition of the data formats used in Ireland. by this I mean the definition of the formats of data such as “social security number”. We call it a PPSN and it has a format nnnnnnnA as opposed to the US format which has dashes in the middle. A definition of the data formats that would be used in Ireland and a mapping to/from the US formats would possibly be required… this is (wait for it) another document. NOT THE DATA ITSELF
    • Some data for testing. Ok, so this is why all 171000+ records were on a laptop in New York. ehh… NO. What was required was a sample data set that replicates the formats and patterns of data found in the IBTS production data. This does not mean a cut of production data. What this means is that the IBTS should have created dummy data that was a replica of production data (warts and all – so if there are 10% of their records that have text values in fields where numbers would be expected, then 10% of the test data should reflect this). The test data should also be tied to specific test cases (experiments to prove or disprove functionality in the software).

    At no time was production data needed for development or developer testing activities in New York. Clear project specification and requirements documentation, documents about data formatting and ‘meta-data’ (data about data), Use Cases (walk throughs of how the software would be used in a given process – like a movie script) and either a set of dummy sample data that looks and smells like you production data or a ‘recipe’ for how the developer can create that data.

    But the production data would be needed for Acceptance testing by IBTS?
    eh… nope. And even if it was it would not need to be sent to New York for the testing.

    User Acceptance testing is a stage of testing in software development AFTER the developer swears blind that the software works as it should and BEFORE the knowledge workers in your organisation bitch loudly that the software is buggered up beyond all recognition.

    As with all testing it does not require a the use of production data is not required, and indeed is often a VERY BAD IDEA (except in certain extreme circumstances such as the need for volume stress testing or testing of very complex software solutions that need data that is exactly like production to be tested effectively… eg. a complex parsing/matching/loading process on a multi-million record database – and even at that, key data not relevant to the specific process being tested ought to be ‘obscured’ to ensure data protection compliance ).

    What is required is that your test environment is as close a copy to the reality you are testing for as possible. So, from a test data point of view, creating test data that looks like your production data is the ideal. One way is to do data profiling, develop an understanding of the ‘patterns’ and statistical trends in your data and then hand carve a set of test data that looks and smells like your production data but is totally fake and fraudulent and safe. Another approach is to take a copy of your production data and bugger around with it to mix names and addresses up, replace certain words in address data with different words (e.g. “Park” with “Grove” or “Leitrim” with “Carialmeg” or “@obriend.info” with “obriend.fakedatapeople” – whatever works). So long as the test data is representative of the structure and content of your production data set and can support the test scenarios you wish to perform then you are good to go.

    So, was the production data needed in New York – Nope. Would it be needed for testing in a test event for User Acceptance testing? Nope.

    And who does the ‘User Acceptance testing’? Here’s a hint… whats the first word? User Acceptance testing is done by representatives of the people who will be using the software. They usually follow test scripts to make sure that specific functionality is tested for, but importantly they can also highlight were things are just wrong.

    So, were there any IBTS ‘users’ (knowledge workers/clerical staff) in New York to support testing? We don’t know. But it sounds like the project was at the software development stage so it is unlikely. So why the heck was production data being used for development tasks?

    So… in conclusion
    The data was stolen in New York. It may or may not have been encrypted (the IBTS has assured the public that the data was encrypted on the laptop… perhaps I am cynical but someone who takes data from a client in another nation home for the weekend might possibly have decrypted the data to make life easier during development). We’re not clear (at this point) how the data got to New York – we’re assuming that an IBTS employee accompanied it to NY stored on physical media (the data, not the employee).

    However, there is no clear reason why PRODUCTION data needed to be in New York. Details of how the IBTS’s current data formats might map to the new system, details of requirements for changes to the NYBC’s current system to meet the needs of the IBTS, details of the data formats in the IBTS’s current data sets (both field structues and, ideally, a ‘profile’ of the structure of the data and any common errors that occur) and DUMMY data might be required for design, development and developer testing are all understandable. Production data is not.

    There is no evidence, other than the existence of a contractual arrangement, that the NYBC had sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the safety of personal data from Ireland. The fact that an NYBC employee decided to take the data out of the office into an unsecure environment (down town New York) and bring it home with them would evidence that, perhaps, there is a cultural and procedural gap in NYBC’s processes that might have meant they either couldn’t comply or didnt’ understand what the expectation of the clauses in those contracts actually meant.

    For testing, what is required is a model of production. A model. A fake. A facsimile NOT PRODUCTION. The more accurate your fake is the better. But it doesn’t need to be a carbon copy of your production data with exactly the same ‘data DNA’… indeed it can be a bad idea to test with ‘live’ data. Just like it is often dangerous to play with ‘live’ grenades or grab a ‘live’ power line to see what will happen.

    The loss of our IBTS data in New York evidences a failure of governance and a ‘happy path’ approach to risk planning, and a lack of appreciation of the governance and control of software development projects to ensure the protection of live data.

    As this was a project for the development of a software solution there was no compelling reason that I can identify for production data to have been sent from Ireland to New York when dummy data and project documentation would have sufficed.

    The press release from the IBTS about this incident can be found here..

    [Update – Simon over at Tuppenceworth has noted my affiliation to the IAIDQ. Just to clarify, 99% of this post is about basic common sense. 1% is about Information Management/Information Quality Management. And as this post is appearing here and not on the IAIDQ’s website it goes without saying that my comments here may not match exactly the position of the IAIDQ on this issue. I’m also a member of the ICS, who offer a Data Protection certification course which I suspect will be quite heavily subscribed the next time it runs.]

    [Update 2: This evening RTE News interviewed Dr David Gray from DCU who is somewhat of an expert on IT security. The gist of Dr Gray’s comments were that software controls to encrypt data are all well and good, but you would have to question the wisdom of letting the information wander around a busy city and not having it under tight physical control… which is pretty much the gist of some of my comments below. No one has (as yet) asked why the hell production data rather than ‘dummy’ data was being used during the development phase of a project.]

  • Managing MANs

    I live just outside Wexford town where I have a relatively expensive, relatively slow and occasionally downright awful fixed wireless/wifi broadband service. It struggles to top 1mb download and yesterday I clocked it at 16kbps upload. I’d have been faster training a pigeon to sing the email to the intended recipient and act out the powerpoint presentation through the medium of interprative dance. It (the broadband, not the pigeon) usually finds mist, fog, rain and leaves on trees to be a total embuggerance.

    Wexford is a hub town on the National Development Plan. Wexford has a grown up fiber-optic MAN that is, at present, woefully underutilised. What could be done to improve things to bring top notch fibre speeds to the door (or the last mile) and open up the use of the MAN to people who are just outside its loop?

    The map of the Wexford MAN can be found on the e-net.ie website. On the eastern side of the Slaney it terminates in an industrial estate (with lots of relatively tall buildings) in Knottown, Ardcavan (follow the blue line out). There are not that many houses out this part of the road as most of the land is agricultural or industrial uses.

    About a 3kms (approx 1.8 miles) north of Ardcavan is Castlebridge, which is a very rapidly growing village unserved by fixed line broadband and patchily served by FWA providers.

    Might the use of technology like this support the extension of that leg of the MAN out to Castlebridge and surrounding areas with a massive increase in available bandwidth for customers in those areas, with reduced attenuation due to distance etc. as instead of having to pick up anntenae in Rosslare or in Wexford town? The industrial estate where the MAN terminates is at the high point of a shallow hill (not that shallow on the bicycle though) and a reasonably tall mast on one of those buildings (such as the one that the Dept of the Environment are using and which Wexford VEC also use) would provide possible base for such a piece of infrastructure. ComReg recently approved the roll out of this type of technology.

    Would this not help convert the Wexford MAN from a virtual white elephant investment (which the Mayor of Wexford has previously complained about the cost of connection to) into something that actually could help make Wexford a ‘knowledge economy hub? Personally, if I could get even 5MB at a reasonable price I would be happy to reduce my commuting and work from home (hey, Minister Ryan… see how broadband can help reduce our carbon emissions? Have you joined those dots yet? Particularly as your colleague Micheal Martin is telling the world how much in demand our skills at hoiking bb into remote areas is.). If the marketing blurb is to be believed, this service would provide a 99.99% availability connecting Castlebridge to the MAN for backhaul. 99.99% availability for >1mb broadband on this platform versus 0% availability for >1mb broadband currently.

    Or have I (as usual) missed something obvious with either the technology or the politics.?

    Perhaps the solution to our broadband joke is the punchline to another joke…

    English archaeologists have dug down in Surrey and found long strands of copper bound together in pairs. This has lead them to deduce that the primitive Britons had an advanced copper based DSL network with speeds of up to 12mb. French archaeologists, not to be out done, have dug down and found long strands of glass laid in leather bindings. This has led them to deduce that the ancient Gauls had fiber to the hut and speeds in excess of 20mb.

    A team of archaeologists from UCD have also done excavations in the South East of Ireland and found absolutely nothing. The only conclusion they can draw from this is that the ancient Celts had a highly advanced totally wireless broadband network with speeds of up to 1GB to the hut.

  • The script is in development…

    It seems that there is a deal imminent in the US Writers Strike.

    Lawyers are due to present the final draft to the writers and studios tomorrow. But already Joe Esterhaz has been lined up to ‘sex it up’ for the masses and Jerry Bruckheimer will produce the mammoth deal, with Paul Verhoven lined up to direct.

    “Esterhaz has a strong track record of taking limp material and making it something people would want to be a part of over and over again.”, says Bruckheimer, “so he was the natural choice to polish the lawyer’s draft. And Verhoven was the best choice to direct because of his gritty vision, strong production values and, with a Paul Verhoven movie, you know someone’s going to get screwed royally at some stage in the action”.

    Commenting on the choice of Bruckheimer to produce, William Shatner was quoted as saying

    ” Well. JerryBruckheimer. Is. thelogicalchoice. to. produce. something. on. the. scale. of. the. impendingend. of. worldasweknowit. Which this was. Yes.”

    Shatner has denied rumours that he is to release an a cappela album of the terms of the agreement put to the music of the Artic Monkeys.

    The Director General of RTE was quick to highlight the role of the Irish national broadcaster in resolving the dispute.

    “Given how much of our evening schedules are based around US syndicated dramas and comedies, we had a strong motivation to help resolve this long running dispute. For feck’s sake, we had been reduced to running documentaries produced by the BBC, which half our viewers had already avoided watching when they were on the BBC. To that end we dispatched our most experienced facilitator and chair person, John Bowman, to the States to help get people in a room and bash heads together until there was a deal. It was either that or go cap in hand to the History Channel for a few series of documentaries on the Nazis. And we all know that those things are like home movies to that shower of…”

    The Irish national broadcaster later retracted the above statement when it was revealed that the chair of the negotiations committee in the writers strike was actually a totally different John Bowman and it appeared that the Irish John Bowman might actually have liked the addition of documentary programming to the Irish national broadcaster’s schedules.

    While the successful completion of a draft script is a key milestone, there is still a risk that the developmental project will be held up by the studios until the money is right, the cast is right or the ground temperature in Hell falls below zero. One Hollywood insider has told us that:

    “If the studios don’t feel the market is ready for an epic cinematic journey through the intracies of intellectual property ownership in a post Web2.0 landscape then they may keep the whole production in development for years. Unless their sense of the market is that the money will be there to make the investment pay off they just won’t do it. Too many people were burned by Heaven’s Gate… big production values, lots of investment, but a very long road to payback.

    All of the above is a work of fiction and any similarity to real people living or dead is entirely co-incidental, if a little amusing.

  • Stuck on the train – go on line? WTF

    The Dublin Chamber of Commerce has called for the roll-out of wireless broadband access on public transport including Dart, buses and commuter trains to support the development of Dublin as a ‘knowledge city’.

    Frankly, speaking as a regular long haul commuter (Wexford to Dublin by train or bus, hail rain or shine), this is just nuts.

    The investment necessary to achieve this would be far better spent developing some form of ‘knowledge worker hubs’ in what are currently satellite dormer towns and villages within the East coast commuter belt (which stretches now to Wexford Town). This would reduce the need for people to commute, support development of local communities, support the nuturing of relationships and families etc.

    Sticking wifi on the Wexford to Dublin train would not work (and I suspect similar reasons would apply on other commuter routes).

    Firstly, there are quite large stretches of the line where there is no mobile access (and I’m not talking spanky 3g here, I’m talking ‘hello, I’m on the train’ phone call territory). So that creates a technical challenge to create a network that will actually work and let people do things on the train. Secondly the train in the morning is pretty much full from Gorey up (people were standing from Wicklow this past Monday).

    So the social impact of fishing out a laptop is not to be underestimated as you would inevitably have to smack the person next to you in the head with it (I’ve taken to using my pda to make notes on the train using my spanky bluetooth keyboard to avoid such faux pas). Also, the tables on current commuter trains are tiny and are actually too small to use a laptop on without taking up ALL of the table (again, PDA and small foldy keyboard work OK). For those times when I absolutely have to use my laptop to send/receive email or such like I have a mobile broadband dongley thing from vodafone which meets my needs (until I hit ‘dark territory’ on the route when all bets are off and I just read a book).

    There is of course some spanky technology about that, to an extent, solves the problems of maintaining connectivity when on/in a moving target (actually, the mobile broadband stuff does this reasonably well in my experience using it on the 002 bus to/from Dublin or the aforementioned train). But the issues of network black spots, managing contention, and the physical challenges of actually working on a overcrowded train would take a lot of investment in infrastructure to overcome.

    What is the cost/benefit analysis for this? Is there a better mix that would deliver greater benefit overall?

    As a commuter, I’d much rather have the investment that this would require spent on developing and promoting knowledge economy industries in areas such as the South East, promoting broadband availability to regions (through telcos or local providers), developing integrated ticketing for public transport, increasing capacity, frequency and comfort on commuter rail and generally raising public transport to a point where it is actually possible to work on the train. Reducing the cost of public transport to the passengers would also be a good investment. I already have the level of wireless broadband connectivity I need for working as I travel to Dublin.

    And let’s not forget the terrorist risks, as highlighted by the Steven Seagal movie Under Seige 2, where a terrorist uses a train as a mobile platform to wreak havoc and destruction – using a wireless network connection (where did I put that mobile broadband dongle?).
    Come to think of it, there was a network blackspot as a major plot point in that movie as well.

  • Facebook & Data Protection

    The Younger McGarr (Simon that is) has a very detailed and well written post on the data protection issues that arise (and seemingly are ignored) by Facebook. It can be found over at the McGarr Solicitors website. He has already picked up some complimentary comments, including one from Thomas Otter (who has written on these issues previously). (Surely a reply from Robert Scoble is only a mouse-click away?)

    I’ve been scratching away on some notes for a post on Facebook myself (never one to miss a rolling bandwagon me). Expect more on this soon. (ie as soon as I’ve written the buggering thing).

  • Getting back to my Information Quality agenda

    One or two of the comments (and emails) I received after the previous post here were enquiring about some stuff I’d written previously (2006 into 2007) about the state of the Irish Electoral Register.

    It is timely that some people visited those posts as our Local Elections are coming up in less than 18 months (June 2009) and frankly, unless there is some immense effort going on behind the scenes that I haven’t heard of, the Register is still in a poor state.

    The issue isn’t the Register per se but the processes that surround it, the apparent lack of a culture where the leadership take the quality of this information seriously enough to make the necessary changes to address the cultural, political and process problems that have resulted in it being buggered.

    There are a few consolidating posts knocking around on this blog as I’ve pulled things together before. However a quick search for “Electoral Register” will pull all the posts I’ve done on this together. (If you’ve clicked the link all the articles are presented below).

    I’ve also got a presentation on the subject over at the IQNetwork website, and I did a report (which did go to John Gormely’s predecessor) which can be found here, and I wrote Scrap and Rework articlethat I submitted to various Irish newspapers at the time to no avail but which has been published internationally (in print and on-line).

    At this stage, I sense that as it doesn’t involve mercury filled CFLs or Carbon taxes, the state of the electoral register and the legislative framework that surrounds it (a lot of the process issues require legislative changes to address them) has slipped down the list of priorities our Minister has.

    However, with Local Elections looming it is important that this issue be addressed.

  • No child of John Waters will ever marry a… blogger…

    So there I was, in that horrid hypnogogic state between wakefulness and dreams, when I heard John Waters’ voice booming in my ears like the baritone chimes of God himself (or maybe that was Charlton Heston).

    “Ahh”, thought I hypnogogically, “this will be one of those pontifical nightmares I get after too much cheese and it will be gone in a moment.”

    Then, to my horror, I realised that I was wide awake and the Voice of Waters was coming from my alarm clock radio. He was on Newstalk and he was bitching about bloggers again. So I snapped awake and listened a bit.

    The gist of his argument basically boils down to “All bloggers are [insert prejudice here]”. He proudly informed the nation that he doesn’t engage with blogs or read them but he is adamant that they are full of nonsense. Effectively his argument is that “All Bloggers are [insert prejudice here], but I’ve never actually met one”.

    And the Internet is full of porn. Let’s not forget that. (but so is the top shelf in my newsagents, let’s not forget that either).

    Lovely. Those are firm arguments that one can engage with on so many levels. Oh, hang on, they aren’t.

    Let’s play the ‘parse the argument game’ where we take the structure of an argument and swap the context around a bit to see if the underlying premise is either

    a) a seriously thought through and evidenced argument based on sound reasoning or,
    b) a tenuously cobbled together series of “neo-luddite” prejudices and half-arguments motivated by fear, mistrust, ignorance or the desire to join Kevin Myers in the Independent.

    So here we go…

    1. “All unmarried mothers are [insert negative comment/prejudice here], but I’ve never actually met one”
    2. “All immigrants are [insert negative comment/prejudice here], but I’ve never actually met one”
    3. “All [insert ethnic group of choice] are [insert negative comment/prejudice here], but I’ve never actually met one”
    4. “Women priests are [insert negative comment/prejudice here], but I’ve never actually met one
    5. “People who write songs for Eurovision are [insert negative comment/prejudice here], but I’ve never actually met one”

    Hmm…, I’m not 100% sure but I don’t think that the logic John Waters is applying to his position is keeping particularly good company. I could go on with further examples, but that would be labouring the point.

    Yes, there are some appallingly poor bloggers out there. There are people who think that their opinion is worth listening to, no matter how bizarre, poorly founded or just plain crazy. But then there are people like that in the Op-Ed and letters pages of national papers every day. Yes there are bloggers who can’t write legible, comprehensible or intelligible English and whose posts I wouldn’t print out to hang on a nail in the outside loo in case the toilet paper runs out. But then there are a good number of journalists that I have the same opinion about.

    But just like there are good journalists whose writing and research is good, there are good bloggers who through passion, special expertise or insight, or just plain hard work produce interesting and thought provoking pieces, or give us things that make us laugh and lighten our days a bit. I don’t shout out that all journalists are idiots just because there are journalists who I can’t stand to read.

    However, all bloggers look alike to John Waters (who doesn’t read blogs apparently).

    Waters challenged the Newstalk Breakfast show to find him “a blogger who can string three sentences together”. This abruptly, superficially and prejudicially dismisses some excellent people who blog intelligently about subjects that they are passionate about or have a particular specialist expertise in. Some of these people (dare I say it) are also print journalists.

    Immediately I think of Edward McGarr in McGarr Solicitors, Simon and the punters over on Tuppenceworth, the unstoppable Damien Mulley, Steve Tuck’s Data Quality blog, the Freaknomics blog on the Wall Street Journal, or some of Mr Water’s colleagues in the Irish Times, the investigative insights of Maman Poulet (why can’t mainstream press get scoops like this?). And let’s not forget the irrepressible Twenty Major.

    Using the same prejudiced thinking (in a different context) Waters might equally have challenged Newstalk to find him a black man or a woman who would have the ability to be credible candidates for the Presidency of the US. Oh… what’s that Internet?

    I do hope that Newstalk consider rising to John Waters’ challenge. Get Mulley, either (or both) of the McGarrs, and a few of the Irish Times bloggers into a room.

    Of course it is fundamentally unfair for those of us who blog to take task with the arguments put forward by John Waters. As he claims not to read blogs or to engage with blogs he has opted out of his right to reply in this medium. So I’d ask anyone commenting to:

    1. Refrain from playing the man… play the ball. Address the logic, comment on the fear or philosophy that might be motivating it, but do not play the man. I’ll red card anyone who plays the man and they’ll be put in the sin bin (ie I’ll won’t approve your comment and the world will never see your wit and erudition.)
    2. Each commenter should say one nice thing about John Waters in their comments. The nice thing should be really nice, not sarcastic. I’ll suggest a template for the nice thing… “John Waters is [insert nice thing about John Waters here], but I’ve never met him“. If you have met him, please share the most pleasant thing you can recall about the experience (did he tell a funny joke, pull a funny face, rescue a small child from a burning building, that kind of thing.)

      [Update: As some people seem to find this challenging, I’ll extend it to allow for surreal or illogical compliments to JW. However they should still be nice things and not outrageously sarcastic. Think Satire not Sarcasm.]

    3. If you want, please include in your comment a link to a particularly well written, informative and reliable blog (ie one that is not prone to publishing lies and that quickly corrects errors in their posts – that kind of thing).

    My starter – John Waters looks like he takes good care of his hair, but I’ve never met him.

    Of course the blogging community could just decide to ignore the issue all together.

    But I have a dream. I dream that one day the children of bloggers and ‘traditional media’ journalists will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that the children of bloggers will not be judged by the medium they choose write in but by the quality of their content. I have a dream that one day, John Waters might actually go on-line and read some good blogs (he could start with some of the Irish times ones, particularly Shane Hegarty’s) and realise that sweeping arguments built on sand have been overturned many times in the past.

    [Update: The podcast of this morning’s John Waters’ bit on Newstalk this morning is up on the Newstalk site, a little over 8 minutes 50 seconds in.. My views here are based on his comments this AM and on his previous comments, which I’d like to link to but the link to the podcast seems broken.]

    [Update – I’ve decided to close comments on this as I’m bored of it now – I can’t quite rouse Damien’s passion about JW. Pings are still allowed however. Thanks to everyone who contributed.]

    [Update: Wikipedia have picked up on this whole bruhaha and John Water’s profile includes reference to the ‘Blogging Controversy’. Twenty Major and this site are cited as references.]

  • Why do a law degree?

    My sister-in-law is currently deciding what she wants to do when she leaves school. She will be sitting the Leaving Certificate this year. She has decided she wants to pursue a career in law. The advice to her from friends of mine who are lawyers was “don’t study law in university if you want to be a solicitor or barrister – do something else that interests you and will give you extra skills”.

    As there are no longer any exemptions for law degree graduates on the professional qualifications for solicitor or barrister there is no advantage there.

    However, one might suspect that if you have studied Tort, Criminal law, Legal Systems and a raft of other subjects that are part of the core exams for professional qualification you would have some sort of advantage or ‘head start’ (I suspect this is the thinking behind my sister-in-law’s persistence at wanting to do a law degree first). This would seem to make sense and would be, as JK Galbraith put it, “Conventional Wisdom”.

    But interestingly, some research has been done on just this question (admittedly in the US) and the results were interesting enough for the Freaknomics guys to write about it on their blog on the New York Times.

    To quote from the article:

    no relationship existed between law school courseloads and the passage rate of students ranked in the first, second or fourth quarters of their law school class, while only a weak relationship existed for students who ranked in the third quarter.

    In other words, smart people with work ethics (the top 2 quarters of the class) passed the Bar exams regardless of the courses they studied in law school. The bottom tier failed regardless of what courses they took. The middle ground people… well for them it might have helped a little bit – but only a bit.

    My legal friends view was that given that you have to study for the professional exams anyway, it would be better to become a more rounded person with perspectives from other disciplines before embarking on the legal route. Many of the solicitors I know from college either didn’t study law or, for those that did, went into another career for a few years before returning to the law with a wider skillset.

    One of the most thoughtful and insightful legal minds I know doesn’t have a law degree from University. He studied classics and was a civil servant for a while. He took the professional qualification route to solicitor (as everyone has to). As a result he is an interesting fellow to talk to about things ranging from politics and social ethics to the campaigns of Philip of Macedon and the merits of the Kaiser Chiefs. He has been known to give pretty good legal advice too.

    That’s not to say that people with law degrees are dull and boring. Many of them are not. I must categorically state this… law degree holders are not boring (on average). (Disclosure… in my misspent youth I spent 4 years studying in UCD’s Law faculty to get my BBLS)

    So, the anecdotes from my lawyer friends are that if you want to be a lawyer you should spend three to four years studying something else that interests you before you embark on your professional qualification. That learning will round you out as a person, give you different perspectives on the law, it might give you contacts you can call on in the future (expert witnesses, plumbers, whatever) and at the very least it gives you time to be certain you want to be a lawyer.

    The scientific evidence is that what you study in law school doesn’t affect your ability to pass professional qualifications (and I know that the study relates to the US and Bar exams and similar studies might have different results here… but I doubt it). Add to that the fact that you can enter the legal profession here through a variety of routes and don’t need to have completed a law degree first and I am left with the question…

    Why study law if you want to be a lawyer?

    I’m not sure if anyone has done a similar study in Ireland but it would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between pass grades in Solicitor FE1s or Kings Inns exams for people actually having completed a law degree versus those without.

  • Oh for the love of all that is holy…

    Last week the Government was telling us that they had no choice about the imposition of water charges on schools that it was being imposed on us by the ‘evil’ EU (cue pantomime boos and hisses). Then various opposition TDs and MEPs pointed out that that wasn’t actually correct to the point of pretty much being a blatant and unmitaged lie.

    So now the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) has announced that schools should hold off on paying the bills that they have at the moment because there may be some alternative to the thing that they were only just saying that they had no control over.

    For frak’s sake (thank you Battlestar Galatica for giving me safe profanities), what are these muppets playing at? In the struggle to retain some veneer of actually being in control of things and working for the good of the people who elected them they are executing more flip flops than a footwear firing squad on an Australian surfing beach.

    In true pantomime tradition, why don’t all the children look around the stage and see where their credibility and believability have gone? Oh yes indeed, it’s behind them… waaaaayyyyyy back there. Dying like an old man on a dirty hospital trolley in a plague ridden hospital.

    The row back on the “b*starding EU has tied our hands” obviously has nothing to do with Ireland being the only country in the EU that requires a Consitutional referendum to ratify the new EU Consitution-Lite Treaty. No. Not a bit of it. Not that, and nothing either with them being found out as being as economical with the truth about this issue as our Taoiseach is about what money he got from where and why when he was Minister for Finance.