Privacy is likely to be one of the defining challenges of the digital era, a problem that has to be solved before the internet takes its place as the engine of post-recessionary economic growth. Yet the UK authorities seem to be increasingly doing whatever they can to convince people they will have no privacy rights online at all.

The Sunday Times last weekend picked up on a story that Computing ran late last year about European Union plans to allow police to remotely hack into home computers without a warrant – with the Brussels edict now being adopted in the UK.

Not surprisingly, civil liberties groups are outraged. I’ve been critical in the past of privacy campaigners for what I’d often perceived as knee-jerk over-reactions to anything technology or database related. But in this case, they are absolutely right to protest.

The government has spent years trying to educate home computer users on the importance of security – often drawing the obvious analogy that you wouldn’t leave your front door open and allow thieves to walk in and steal your property, so why do the same online.

Yet this snooping plan allows the police to do just that – and without a warrant. Any suggestion that the police could randomly walk through your front door and inspect your premises at will would rightly be condemned. Just look at the furore when they did precisely that to Conservative MP Damien Green in his workplace.

We have already seen how local councils have abused powers that allow them to undertake legitimate surveillance under anti-terrorist laws, by instead snooping on how people use recycling bins, for example.

The idea that it will be legal for police to perform acts that, if undertaken by you or I would see us rightly branded as hackers, is absurd. We have become sadly used to organised crime realising how they can make use of keylogging software, downloaded malware and drive-by access to wireless networks. To think that the police will be copying them is beyond acceptable limits.

There has to be a balanced and reasoned debate about what privacy means in a digital world where old physical boundaries and principles no longer apply. The government seems to be taking an approach that sees it keep extending its powers until someone will finally say stop.

There are very good reasons why, in the right circumstances, law enforcement authorities should be granted access to digital information that promises to give as much of a boost to evidence gathering as did the development of DNA matching.

But the lines of acceptability in the internet age are blurred and yet to be defined. Those definitions need to be put in place soon – the privacy debate cannot be delayed further.

Last night I was privileged to speak to a gathering of the UK IT security elite, at a dinner event organised by BT. Gathered in the exclusive Westbury Hotel in Mayfair were the great and the good of information security and risk management from the private sector, government and academia.

Putting aside the debates and discussion on the challenges these individuals face – among the toughest and higest-profile tasks in technology management – there was one particularly notable facet of the evening. This wasn’t just a get-together of like-minded professionals of the type you find at any conference or seminar – this was a bunch of mates, albeit with a common professional cause, but meeting on a regular basis to see old friends, have a laugh, and even raise money for charity (congratulations to the organiser, BT’s Ray Stanton, for collecting £1600 for Childline on the night).

In my job, I get to spend a lot of time at events such as this where IT leaders network, meet their peers, make contacts and share experiences – but rarely have I come across a group whose connections go beyond merely the collection of business cards.

Security is the great taboo of IT. Understandably, most organisations are wary of discussing their security and risk management strategies for fear of attracting unwanted attention from potential threats. There is no greater challenge to a hacker than an IT security manager proclaiming his network is hack-proof.

But put these normally reticent individuals together and they recognise their common cause. There are few areas in IT where sharing information and experiences is more likely to produce wider benefits, and the openness that these experts show to each other in private is a lesson for every discipline in IT.

The only area I have come across with similar knowledge sharing is among the most senior IT leaders in the country, who come together through user groups such as CIO Connect, The Corporate IT Forum and the BCS to learn from each other.

But there is a lesson in such sharing that would benefit many more working in IT – it is a sign of a mature profession. Compare with accountants or lawyers, for whom professional knowledge sharing is a key part of their job.

The message to everyone in business technology is clear – you should be talking to each other.

BT Global Services has until very recently been a shining star of the telecoms giant, and even after its shock profit warning last week, the division still accounts for £9bn of the group’s £20bn revenue.

In all the recrimination, resignation and share price falls since the financial announcement, one potential aspect of Global Services’ problems has been little discussed.

I’ve heard a few people wondering how much of the division’s troubles are down to its involvement in the NHS National Programme for IT (NPfIT).

BT is one of only two major contractors still involved, along with CSC. Accenture and Fujitsu have already pulled out due to concerns over potential losses, and BT had been expected to pick up the region ceded by Fujitsu’s departure.

Former NHS IT director general Richard Granger negotiated some tough terms and conditions for the key suppliers to the programme – in particular, that payments would be made on delivery of finished product. This is great news for the NHS – now that key parts of the project have been delayed, it doesn’t have to worry about the costs of software and services that are not yet fully operational.

This was a big factor in Accenture’s withdrawal as the supplier saw its costs increasing and its revenue being pushed further into the future.

In the early days of NPfIT, former BT chief executive Ben Verwaayen was asked by reporters about the impact on the firm’s bottom line, and he proudly explained that BT had not budgeted for a profit from the programme for some time ahead, seeing it as a long-term investment. A wise move – but one now wonders exactly when those profits were expected.

The core part of NPfIT –electronic patient records – is an area BT is most exposed to, and is the area most delayed. Recent reports suggested that many NHS trusts are refusing to implement software until they can see it working elsewhere. Considering that one of the BT pilot sites, the Royal Free Hospital in London, has just revealed it lost £7.2m due to the project, it isn’t looking promising.

BT meanwhile, is funding development and providing services to implement software and try to make it work – essentially without getting paid for it.

There has been no official word from BT one way or the other, but observers cannot help but speculate that the troubled National Programme may be a factor in Global Services' current struggles.

And if it is, and BT feels it has to reconsider or renegotiate its involvement, then the risks to the NHS IT scheme would be significant.

We’ve all heard about “greenwash” – the recent tendency of IT suppliers to add a green veneer to all their marketing, suddenly hailing the environmental credentials they didn’t realise they had until it became important to their biggest customers.

Well now we seem to have the “economic crisis-wash” if you’ll pardon the rather garbled grammar.

Computing journalists are regularly on the receiving end of PR executives ringing on behalf of IT vendors to promote their wares and try to get an inch of column space somewhere in the publication.

Probably every other call lately is pushing their clients’ ability to help users respond to the impending recession – usually the self-same products that were also just perfect to help you in the boom times.

Of course it’s easy to be cynical and you can’t blame IT marketing managers for trying to be topical and responding to the changing needs of prospective customers.

But if you’re not fed up already with recessionwash, I expect it’s only a matter of time…

If ever you have wondered what the latest industry buzzword means, here’s Oracle chief executive Larry Ellison to explain:

“We’ve redefined ‘cloud computing’ to include everything we currently do. So it has already achieved dominance in the industry. I can’t think of anything that isn’t cloud computing," he told financial analysts last week.

“The computer industry is the only industry that is more fashion-driven than women’s fashion. Cloud computing. I read that orange is the new pink. And cloud is the new SaaS. [Software as a Service] Or cloud is the new virtualisation. It is the most nonsensical... I mean I read these articles… I have no idea what anybody is talking about. I mean it is really just complete gibberish.”

It was just too good a quote to miss – thanks to Reuters for reporting it here.

Meanwhile, here is a recent press release in which Oracle is clearly not deciding to co-opt a buzzword for its own purposes: Oracle Extends Enterprise 2.0 Leadership .

Enterprise 2.0?  I mean it is really just complete gibberish.

It’s the new IT vendor battleground – which buzzword works for you…

What is the future for the electronic medical records aspect of the NHS National Programme for IT (NPfIT) now that the basic consent structure of the project has been altered

The switch from mandatory opt-in to a default of patients opting out has significant implications. Let’s review the background to the decision:

The summary care records (SCR) initiative was intended to allow for our medical details to be available to health professionals from anywhere in the country. The aim is that if we need medical attention at a hospital many miles from home, instant access to details about medical conditions, history or medicines prescribed would improve the quality and speed of care we receive.

Put like that, it is a common sense move with enormous potential benefits – but it has proved to be the most controversial part of an already-controversial programme.

To many, the idea of a nationwide “database” of patient records smacks of Big Brother, and in the light of the recurring government data loss scandals the critics say it is tempting fate to risk widespread access to such sensitive information. And of course, they have a point – even if the widespread assumption that there will be a big super-database is incorrect; the data itself will be distributed across the country, but accessible from anywhere with suitable permissions.

To add to the privacy fears, SCR has become the most delayed part of NPfIT. According to the National Audit Office, it will be at least 2014 before the system is in place – four years late.

And industry speculation increasingly suggests that the technology behind SCR is in serious trouble, and may even be unworkable. Some NHS trusts are already pursuing other options outside of the officially-approved NPfIT applications. 

All that controversy has already been happening on the understanding that SCR assumes patient details will be accessible on an “opt out” basis. This means that our medical records would be available to medical professionals on the system by default, unless we told our GP that we wanted access to be restricted.

In trials of SCR, only a tiny percentage of patients opted out, which was seen by supporters as a boost for the project. But a later study found that most people involved didn’t even know they had the option.

As a result, last week the NHS announced that the consent model was being changed. Patients will now be asked at the point of care before their records are accessed by medical professionals, rather than being automatically accessible. To avoid having their details on the system in the first place, they would have to tell their GP to remove them from the SCR altogether.

This seems like the least controversial option and will be welcomed by critics.

The only way that nationally-accessible records make economic or operational sense is if the vast majority of people are involved. But in the current climate, if asked by GPs what their preference would be, surely only a minority would give full consent.

Given the cost and effort going into SCR, it presents another potential risk in justifying the project.

Political opinion is swinging away from SCR too – the Liberal Democrats have said they would scrap it, the Tories have implied the same.

The NHS needs to make a swift decision on the future of SCR and the role it will play in a connected health service. If it is to succeed, there are many questions that need to be answered before further significant money is spent on what critics fear will be an expensive white elephant.

Author's footnote 25/9/08:

I have made an amendment to this article since it was originally published. Connecting for Health contacted me to point out an error in my understanding of the way that SCR consent will now work. I had interpreted the changes to the model to mean that patient records will not be uploaded to SCR unless they ask to opt in. In fact, patient records will be uploaded to SCR anyway, and people will receive a letter informing them this is the case - at which point they have the right to ask that their records are not used in this way.

The consent change means that at the point of care - in a hospital, for example - the patient has to give their explicit consent before a medical professional can access their SCR. Previously, doctors could view the records without obtaining prior consent. I'm very happy to put the record straight and correct my misunderstanding.

In the next couple of years, we will increasingly see the evidence that Indian IT is not just about providing low-cost resources but will become a major source of innovation too.

I mentioned in a previous post here that I recently met up with Pradipta Bagchi, the head of global communications for India’s number one IT company Tata Consultancy Services (TCS).

Bagchi talked about a couple of new services TCS is developing which I think have enormous potential and could shake up a few western IT vendors.

The first is based on what will be India’s largest supercomputer. TCS has build a system composed entirely of standard commodity hardware and software, and plans to rent access to its processing power, initially in education but also to other sectors.

The aim is to establish a utility-style computing service, with power purchased on a pay-as-you-go basis. It’s a concept that has been around for some time, and suppliers such as Sun Microsystems have experimented with it with limited success. It’s also similar to the cloud computing offerings from the likes of Amazon.

But it’s being put together using the same low-cost approach that India has brought to IT services – and it’s that which makes it an interesting proposition.

The second development Bagchi mentioned is along similar lines in that it will be a cloud-type offering, but extends into software applications.

TCS plans to provide a full stack of business applications – from accounting through to supply chain and CRM, plus office tools such as wordprocessing and spreadsheets – on a hosted or software-as-a-service basis.

All the applications are being developed in-house by TCS – no expensive or complicated licensing issues to resolve – but interestingly they will initially be targeted at small business in India, not the traditional western markets.

Indian small businesses are light years behind in their use of IT, and the TCS services offer them a rapid helping hand to IT-enabled productivity.

Once the concept has been proved, you can bet the service will be rolled out internationally.

Again, it’s not a hugely new idea – take Salesforce.com, add Netsuite and Google Apps, and you have something comparable. But the difference is providing services from a single source that you would otherwise have to take from those three companies – and doing so on that familiar Indian low-cost model.

The more globalised the Indian IT suppliers become, the more they are willing to take ideas from the West, adapt them, add to them, innovate with them, and sprinkle in a mix of the country’s unique advantages. They are fast learners – and UK IT will have to learn just as fast if it is to compete.

The turmoil engulfing the financial services sector is causing a lot of head scratching and navel gazing across the IT industry.

Vendors are worried about the effect on sales in their most profitable market. IT professionals are worried about their jobs in the light of Lehman Brothers’ collapse and dire warnings of 100,000 job losses in the City of London.

Certainly few people will be worrying about skills shortages in the City – there’s likely to be plenty of spare IT staff looking for work.

But one area of the IT industry is almost certainly smiling – it’s time, once again, for India to benefit.

Computing blogger Mark Kobayashi-Hillary has speculated a lot about the effect on offshore outsourcing, and I’d tend to agree with his view that many finance firms are going to look overseas to help cope with the crisis.

The pressure will be on struggling banks to cut direct costs (which means people), reduce capital spending (which means big IT purchases), and generally to cut operational budgets.

Most big financial services firms have experience of offshoring work by now and understand the pitfalls and opportunities it presents. In tough times such as these when difficult decisions have to be made quickly, there are two easy, quick wins.

One is to say to an IT services company – can you run some of our proven processes in exactly the way they operate now, but cheaper. Effectively, keep the lights on, but do so for less cost. So, IT support, systems management, network management and other aspects of technical infrastructure support can easily be transferred to lower cost centres in India.

The other action is to look at transformational IT projects and ask two questions: Do they need to be staffed with in-house resources, and can hardware infrastructure be externally hosted? If the same benefits can be delivered from these important initiatives by offshoring more of the development work to India, or by outsourcing the hardware operation, then it becomes an easy move to make in the current climate.

I met with Pradipta Bagchi, the head of global communications for India’s number one IT company Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) earlier today for a catch-up. Bagchi certainly sees opportunities for TCS and others from the financial upheaval. Most of the big Indian vendors have established relationships with firms in the sector and are ready to take advantage of any opportunities that arise.

Bagchi said that TCS already has experience of the complex integration and separation tasks involved in mergers and acquisitions among finance firms – another area of expertise that is likely to be in demand. TCS is one of the major suppliers to ABN Amro, in a deal signed before the Dutch bank was bought by a consortium of Royal Bank of Scotland, Fortis and Banco Santander.

Imagine how valuable that knowledge will be if, say, Lloyds TSB and HBOS merge, or when banks pick apart the remains of Lehman Brothers and take over parts of their operations and want to merge them with their own.

A global crisis in the most globalised sector of all will inevitably lead to opportunities for the most global of IT suppliers – and they are increasingly found in India.

The shortlist for the Computing Awards for Excellence has been announced – so congratulations to all those who have made it to this stage.

This year’s awards achieved a record number of entries, and the quality of the companies, projects, teams and individuals shortlisted is a testament to the strength of UK IT today. If you have made it this far – you deserve to pat yourself on the back for a job very well done.

It’s not been an easy year for a lot of people, what with threats of job losses in the City, IT budgets on hold, and skills shortages biting, but the award nominations prove the excellence of our IT community.

Our panel of judges worked long and hard to come up with the shortlists and our thanks go to all of them.

Every year it seems to get harder to select the top entries – I know that’s an obvious thing to say, but it really is true. The innovation, ambition and quality of the work being undertaken by UK IT professionals is outstanding – it is great to see that so many of you are keen to shout about what you are doing, and rewarding for us to be able to recognise your achievements.

The winners will be announced at the awards ceremony in London on 5 November – it’s always a good night out, so if you want to come along and join the party, go to the web site at www.computing.co.uk/awards and book a table. I hope to see you there.

The public response to the 10 Downing Street e-petitions site instigated by Tony Blair has led to politicians becoming eager to connect with the common man and woman on the street through the web.

After more than one million people signed up to an e-petition against road pricing, the government seemed to be swayed and apparently backed down in the light of such a vociferous – if well-orchestrated – protest.

Subsequently, prime minister Gordon Brown has talked about using e-petitions as a parliamentary tool to bring the voice of the people into the House of Commons (surely that’s what MPs are meant to do, but that’s another matter…).

Measures have been discussed to say that e-petitions gathering sufficient votes will be brought before select committees of MPs for consideration – the Tories have gone even further, suggesting full parliamentary debates over the highest-profile issues raised through this new form of online democracy.

And next week, the Liberal Democrat party conference in Bournemouth will discuss the use of e-petitions as a means for the public to veto unpopular legislation.

Strangely, someone beat MPs to the punch by nearly 40 years– before even the internet was born or Sir Tim Berners-Lee had heard of the word “hyperlink”.

In 1970, British comedy genius Peter Cook – doyen of Private Eye and half of Pete ‘n’ Dud (and Derek and Clive for the more X-rated humourists among you) – starred in a little-known and little-watched movie called The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer.

In the film – shown on television only three times according to the IMDB web site -  Cook plays the eponymous hero, a wildly-successful advertising executive who turns his devious skills to politics.

Rimmer soon becomes prime minister after promising the electorate – who have become disconnected from politics and distrustful of MPs – that new technology will allow them all to have a say in the running of the country.

Rimmer introduces voting through the television – a national electronic referendum on every parliamentary debate. The people love it – for a while.

As more and more tedious procedural votes interrupt their favourite soaps and sitcoms, public enthusiasm for the move evaporates. Rimmer, ever the populist leader, offers a solution: One last vote – to make him the first president of Great Britain, with executive decision-making responsibility for all those boring votes.

The movie closes on a freeze frame of Rimmer’s face, the look in his eyes betraying the successful conclusion of his long-standing plan.

So, e-petitions, eh? Be careful what you want, you just might get it…