Say no to a Scottish national ID system

The Scottish government has opened for consultation plans of that would lead to database sharing among a vast range of organisations, and could lead to the introduction of de facto ID cards via the back door. Responses to the consultation are due by 25 February 2015. ORG Scotland writes:

A minor, barely noticed consultation is not the way to make a major change to Scottish citizens’ privacy and their relationship with the state. Creating a national ID register was rejected by the SNP and the UK, and the bare minimum should be for the Scottish Executive to introduce primary legislation whereby the public and MSPs can debate the nature of these changes and whether they are acceptable.

Respond to the consultation quickly, courtesy of ORG.

ORG is planning meetings to discuss how we can stop the Scottish Government's plans in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen, and is tracking developments in their blog.

Here is the original consultation,  and a detailed response by ORG.

A paean to the Western General

I resided in Ward 42 of the Regional Infectious Disease Unit of Edinburgh's Western General Hospital from 17 Dec—2 Jan. For most of the time I received antibiotic by drip or injection every four hours, day and night, and I thought my stay would be six weeks. Fortunately, my infection reacted well to antibiotic and I could be released early for outpatient treatment.

The building is ugly, but the people inside it are beautiful. I cannot recall another time or place where everyone was so unfailingly helpful and friendly. On the first day, a nurse found a staff member willing to lend me a charger when my phone ran down. The doctors took as much time as needed to answer my questions. The nurses were cheerful despite constant interruptions. The men who brought the coffee remembered that I liked it with milk, and one often asked after my twins (he had twins as well). No one objected when my daughter brought me a poster of the Justice League and I blue-tacked to my wall; several admired it.

Most often, I interact with institutions where the people who help you are, clearly, in it for the pay. They are nice only to the extent required by their job, and often less than that. Part of the difference in attitude here must be that the people know they are actively helping patients in need. I take my hat off to an institution that inculcates a caring attitude in everyone.

(Picture above courtesy of The Edinburgh Sketcher, whose pictures adorn a couple of corridors in the Western General. The RIDU is a different building, though somehow every building in the complex contrives to be equally unattractive.)

Related: Status report, Status report 2.

Status Report 2

An update to my status. My doctors continue to monitor my heart infection, but it appears cleared up, along with the problems in my abdomen.

I met with my urologist on 4 Feb. My latest CAT scan (27 Jan) shows a small mass in my liver and that the tumour on my left kidney has not grown. The mass is unlikely to be a metastasis of the tumour, but the first order of business is to biopsy my liver; this should happen in the next two weeks, and it may take a further two weeks to get the results. Meanwhile, I am on the waiting list for keyhole surgery to remove my left kidney; this should happen in about six weeks. (Hospitals are fined £1000 if it takes more than four weeks, but the Western General currently has thirty people over that limit.) Recovery time is about four weeks. So, with luck, back to work in ten weeks, mid-April.

All four kidney surgeons at the Western General are in the top 10% in the country, so I am in good hands. If keyhole surgery converts to ordinary surgery the recovery time is three months; this happens in 4% of cases. My doctor says it is unlikely to happen to me because, compared to most of his patients, I am young, fit, and slim. Not words I usually hear applied to myself!

Previously: Status report, A paean to the Western General.

Status report

I am off work this semester, being treated for two things: an infection affecting my heart and abdomen; and a tumour on my kidney. I was in hospital 17 Dec—2 Jan, and self-administered antibiotics as an outpatient 3 Jan—29 Jan. The photo shows me partway through self-administration, which required 90 minutes each day.

The infection of my heart and abdomen appears cured, and I am feeling much better. I am awaiting an appointment with urology. It is likely the kidney will need to be removed. The tumour, I am told, is too small to have metastasised. I will have better information once I meet my urologist, but my current guess is that I will be back at work sometime in March.

My thanks to the NHS and to the Western General Hospital for the excellent treatment I have received, and to all my colleagues for their support.

Democracy vs the 1%

To celebrate the 750th anniversary of the first meeting of the British parliament, the BBC Today programme sponsored a special edition of The Public Philosopher, asking the question Why Democracy? The programme spent much time wondering why folk felt disenfranchised but spent barely two minutes on the question of how wealth distorts politics. (Three cheers to Shirley Williams for raising the issue.) An odd contrast, if you compare it to yesterday's story that the wealthiest 1% now own as much as the other 99% combined; or to Lawrence Lessig's Mayday campaign to stop politicians slanting their votes to what will help fund their reelection; or to Thomas Picketty's analysis of why the wealthy inevitably get wealthier. (tl;dr: "Piketty's thesis has been shorthanded as r > g: that the rate of return on capital today -- and through most of history -- has been higher than general economic growth. This means that simply having money is the best way to get more money.")

My email is a monster

My New Year's resolution is to look at my e-mail at most once a day. If you need a response in less than a day or two, please arrange it with me in advance or use a different medium. Cartoon courtesy of Oatmeal.

Are the Greens or UKIP a major party? Have your say.

Ofcom has issued a draft ruling that the Greens are not a 'major party' but that UKIP is. Hard to justify, one might think, given that Carolyn Lucas has been a sitting MP since September 2008, while UKIP did not acquire its first MP until a by-election in October 2014. One consequence of Ofcom's decision is that the Greens may be shut out of any televised national election debates, while Farage is given a seat.

It's a draft ruling, and there is still time to have your say.

• Petition to Include the Green Party in the TV Leaders' Debates ahead of the 2015 General Election.
• Review of Ofcom list of major political parties for elections taking place on 7 May 2015 (including online response form).

My own response to Ofcom is below.

Question 1: Please provide your views on:

a) the evidence of current support laid out in Annex 2, and

b) whether there is any other relevant evidence which you consider Ofcom should take into

account for the purposes of the 2015 review of the list of major parties:

The Green Party has had a sitting MP since September 2008, while UKIP has only had a sitting MP since October 2014. This relevant point appears nowhere in the annex.

Question 2: Do you agree with our assessment in relation to each of:

a) The existing major parties,

b) Traditional Unionist Voice in Northern Ireland,

c) The Green Party (including the Scottish Green Party), and

d) UKIP?

Please provide reasons for your views:

It is a scandal to include UKIP as a major party while excluding the Greens. Either both should be included, or both excluded. I would prefer to see both included.

While UKIP enjoys stronger support than the Greens in current opinion polls, this is a shortlived phenomenon in part driven by the increased coverage recently given to UKIP by news media. Ofcom's role should be to dampen the effect of media focus on the current bandwagon, not to amplify it.

Ofcom should ensure that all serious contenders have an opportunity to make their views heard. The cutoff for being a 'serious contender' should sit at support from around 5% of the electorate.

Question 3: Do you agree with the proposed amendment to Rule 9 of the PPRB Rules Procedures outlined in paragraph 3.7 above? Please provide reasons for your views:

I do not agree with the proposed amendment. It is stated the parties 'might'' raise unsustainable complaints, but no evidence is provided that this is a serious problem. It is more democratic to leave the decision to the Election Commission than to give Ofcom the ability to refuse complaints without any right of appeal.

[I note also that the reference on the web form to 'paragraph 3.7 above' is confusing. Not only does the relevant paragraph not appear on the web page with the question, the web page does not even contain a link to the document containing the paragraph.] 

Joe Sacco: On Satire

Joe Sacco is my favourite graphic-novel journalist. All of us deplore the attack on Charlie Hebdo, but his response is the most thoughtful analysis I've seen.

A contrary view to 'Antidotes to the Imitation Game'

For five years, Barry Cooper has run the Alan Turing Year (ATY) mailing list, tracking worldwide activity related to the Turing Centennial and after. If you want a contrast to the view given by Antidotes to The Imitation Game, see Barry's most recent ATY post.

While I agree that fiction can sometimes can closer to truth than nonfiction, I disagree with Barry's claim that the 'higher-order' interpretation of the film accurately captures the arc of Turing's life. I suspect the real Turing differs hugely from the film's version, despite the effort and skill Tyldum, Cumberbatch, and others invested in the film.

Many computing scientists are disappointed by the divergence from history in The Imitation Game, while others think that if it does well at the Academy Awards that the popularisation of Turing will be good for our profession. There is something to be said for both points.

Hollywood's attempts at biography seems to inevitably involve gross oversimplification or distortion. Is this really necessary for a film to succeed? Does anyone have favourite examples of films that did not grossly distort their subject matter?

Antidotes to The Imitation Game

I was so disappointed by the treatment of Alan Turing in The Imitation Game that I devoted a standup routine to it. "The film begins: 'Based on a true story'. Now I know what that means: 'Contains characters with the same names as real people'. Preferably dead, so they can't sue for defamation."

The following articles, better than I could, debunk the treatment meted out to Alan Turing by the film. If you see the film, give them a look as well.

  A Poor Imitation of Alan Turing
  Christian Caryl, New York Review of Books

  The Imitation Game: inventing a new slander to insult Alan Turing
  Alex von Tunzelmann, The Guardian

  The Imitation Game is strangely shy about Alan Turing’s sexuality
  Catherine Shoard, The Guardian