Feeds

Google fear? BCS shrinks away from Tories

Sideways shuffle on NHS IT review

Maximizing your infrastructure through virtualization

The British Computing Society has moved to distance itself from the Tory Party's review of NHS IT.

Last August the Conservative Party said it was reviewing the National Programme for IT with the help of Glyn Hayes from the BCS. This led to several reports (here, here and here) suggesting the BCS was behind the review.

But this morning the BCS was insisting the review was nothing to do with them. It is being carried out by BCS member Dr Glyn Hayes, but he is acting as an independent consultant, not as a BCS representative. Hayes heads up the BCS health informatics section. So why has the story changed?

Could it have something to do with recent claims that the Tories were planning to hand patient care records to Google or Microsoft? The Tory party has faced criticism for its starry-eyed view of Google before and for its close links to the firm.

But Cameron was comparing the NHS IT programe unfavourably with Google Health and Microsoft Health Vault as early as last April.

The BCS statement said: "The British Computer Society (BCS) has been mistakenly cited as undertaking a Review of the NHS IT Programme on behalf of the Conservative Party."

The statement repeated the BCS's promotion of common sense data protection principles and said: "In the case of sensitive information such as health records, the potential damage to individuals is significantly greater if robust systems and processes are not in place.

"Establishing that this is the case is potentially more complex where organisations holding the data are based off-shore and databases that they operate may be subject to non-UK law."

The BCS believes the UK needs a culture change in the way it handles personal data.

Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the Tory party insisted it had never said the BCS was reviewing the NPfIT. She added that the party has now received the review from Hayes and was considering its response which will be published later this year.

The controversial project is expected to cost £12.7bn and is currently four years behind schedule. ®

Top three mobile application threats

More from The Register

next story
Arrr: Freetard-bothering Digital Economy Act tied up, thrown in the hold
Ministry of Fun confirms: Yes, we're busy doing nothing
ONE EMAIL costs mining company $300 MEEELION
Environmental activist walks free after hoax sent share price over a cliff
'Blow it up': Plods pop round for chat with Commonwealth Games tweeter
You'd better not be talking about the council's housing plans
Help yourself to anyone's photos FOR FREE, suggests UK.gov
Copyright law reforms will keep m'learned friends busy
Apple smacked with privacy sueball over Location Services
Class action launched on behalf of 100 million iPhone owners
UK government officially adopts Open Document Format
Microsoft insurgency fails, earns snarky remark from UK digital services head
You! Pirate! Stop pirating, or we shall admonish you politely. Repeatedly, if necessary
And we shall go about telling people you smell. No, not really
prev story

Whitepapers

Designing a Defense for Mobile Applications
Learn about the various considerations for defending mobile applications - from the application architecture itself to the myriad testing technologies.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Top 8 considerations to enable and simplify mobility
In this whitepaper learn how to successfully add mobile capabilities simply and cost effectively.
Seven Steps to Software Security
Seven practical steps you can begin to take today to secure your applications and prevent the damages a successful cyber-attack can cause.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.