[codetrotter]

> The DfE told the Guardian that once a possible match has been identified, the beneficiary may be asked to confirm that they are not the same deceased stranger every 12 months since the system, administered by Capita, does not log a disproved link.

Sounds like garbage software

[cornholio]

I love how an obvious bug that should have led to a rejection of the delivery of the system - or an emergency fix as per the support requirements these large contracts always come with - has instead transformed into official DfE policy.

That's just so typical of the newfangled digital bureaucracy: it's far easier to change the workflow than it is to fix the software.

[adhesive_wombat]

> it's far easier to change the workflow than it is to fix the software

This is just something software seems to do. There's a mature and fully-fledged industry in modifying entire workflows to fit software which is implicitly viewed as something that simply is the way it is.

Jira and SAP are some obvious big ones, almost with their own priesthoods, but at all levels, "capabilities drive requirements, regardless of what the systems engineering textbooks say".

And let's not forget that the entire capital-C Content industry is completely subservient to the vagaries of "The Algorithms" that are not just considered ineffable by the supplicants, but were in fact specifically designed to be that way.

[cornholio]

I think you will find that with many other types of technology, due to scale and interoperability effects.

For example, when the automobile breakthrough happened, manufacturers quickly converged to an "average" design that was cheap to manufacture in large numbers, captured the main strengths of the technology, and happened to suit the average small city, rural or suburban lifestyle where most of the potential customers lived.

Now, this machine was not suitable for a small mountain village. Nor was it suitable for dense urban environments. You could design automobiles specifically for those markets - for example, a much more compact closed two seater, that would save fuel, road and parking space. But you couldn't produce it at a scale that could make it profitable against the dominant design, and the clients would face difficulty, risk and even ridicule when using the dominant "big car" infrastructure.

So what we got instead was a redesign of the city to suit the dominant technology variant, with what we can confidently say today were disastrous results. Just like your Jira consultants, starting from the 60s an entire cottage industry appeared advising cities on how to correctly plan road infrastructure of sufficient "capacity", how to set minimum parking requirements, etc.

If you happen to fall right on the average case of a technology, you gain almost magical benefits and substantial competitive advantages. So your competitors will try to emulate your success even if they don't fit the same pattern. If the interoperability and scale effects are strong, and customization is difficult, we should expect a similar pattern to emerge. And with software, you have both insane scale effects (every copy sold after the first costs zero dollars to make), and strong lock-in effects (file formats and protocols, inherent complexity which leads to a limited talent pool - both your employees and suppliers aren't willing to waste time and effort into a custom technological dead-end for which you are the only potential client etc.).

[duggan]

"Computer says no"[1] has been a hallmark of bureaucracy for some time.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0YGZPycMEU

[sorokod]

There is a pattern where accountability is outsourced by bureaucrats to software (they are supposed to be accountable for) and the citizens.

The Post Office Scandal has a similar theme.

[cornholio]

It's a pretty sweet deal: we can't be responsible for something that the software does, since we are not programmers; meanwhile, the software provider has a thick contract that says he can't be held legally or financially responsible, so he's happy to take the political hit, it's not like it would prevent them from getting another contract in the future. It's like being the Ticketmaster of administrative accountability.

[sorokod]

That is where accountability differs from responsibility. It is the business of the government to make sure that:

* the contract with the software vendor is free of the kind of fuckery you mentioned

* the product it has signed off on at the end of the processes is fit for purpose.

Lawyers and programmers are responsible for crafting contracts and software. The government is accountable for the end result.

[bananapub]

(at least) the UK government outsources things so there are gaps between "notional policy" ("people get paid pensions until they die") and "implemented policy" (Capita fuck up yet another thing) can differ and both sides get to assert it's not their fault.

[Gibbon1]

I think the proper thing is a judge issues and order for them to stop doing that. And when they do it again someone spends a weekend in jail.

[donalhunt]

GDPR has a provision to correct information stored by organisations. It may get interesting once they believe you are dead though because GDPR only applies to living people. :/

[mytailorisrich]

I love how they are trying to push their software issues onto people.

Once the person has provided proof once it is the DfE's problem to keep track of that and there is no obligation to keep providing it.

At some point, to keep asking to prove something 'or else' may be construed as harassment in addition to being idiotic.

[midasuni]

It mentions crapita, surely you aren’t surprised?