Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-18 Thread Mark Hynes

On Jun 17, David Cantrell wrote:
  Out of interest, does anyone know if it's done in-house or contracted out?
  (I strongly suspect the latter)
 
 The latter.  Via EDS and Microsoft, I believe.

*shudder* EDS. That explains it then!

   This incompetence is further manifested in their choice of platform.
   even if I *could* use it, I wouldn't use it anyway, as I do not have
   sufficient confidence in the integrity of the server for such important
   information as my (eg) medical and tax data.
  
  Err, why? What do you know about its implementation as opposed to any other
  government website?
 
 david@lapdog:~$ HEAD http://www.gateway.gov.uk|grep ^Server
 Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
 
 That, and EDS and Microsoft being involved.

Ah, so primarily blind bigotism then.

 Note that whilst other government sites may suffer from the same problems,

What problems? Other than the people behind it you've not mentioned any.

-- 
| Mark Hynes  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 
| What are you trying to incinerate? |



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-18 Thread David Cantrell

On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 02:00:32PM +0100, Mark Hynes wrote:

 On Jun 17, David Cantrell wrote:

  david@lapdog:~$ HEAD http://www.gateway.gov.uk|grep ^Server
  Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
  
  That, and EDS and Microsoft being involved.
 
 Ah, so primarily blind bigotism then.

No, they're using software with a poor reputation, and having the site
developed in conjunction with two companies with a poor reputation.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  Good advice is always certain to be ignored,
  but that's no reason not to give it-- Agatha Christie



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-17 Thread Mark Hynes

On Jun 09, David Cantrell wrote:
 
 So yes, the only reason for not allowing me to use it is incompetence on
 the part of whichever civil 'servants' were in charge of implementing it.

Out of interest, does anyone know if it's done in-house or contracted out?
(I strongly suspect the latter)

 This incompetence is further manifested in their choice of platform.
 even if I *could* use it, I wouldn't use it anyway, as I do not have
 sufficient confidence in the integrity of the server for such important
 information as my (eg) medical and tax data.

Err, why? What do you know about its implementation as opposed to any other
government website?

-- 
| Mark Hynes  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 
| What are you trying to incinerate? |



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-17 Thread David Cantrell

On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 12:49:50PM +0100, Mark Hynes wrote:
 On Jun 09, David Cantrell wrote:
  
  So yes, the only reason for not allowing me to use it is incompetence on
  the part of whichever civil 'servants' were in charge of implementing it.
 
 Out of interest, does anyone know if it's done in-house or contracted out?
 (I strongly suspect the latter)

The latter.  Via EDS and Microsoft, I believe.

  This incompetence is further manifested in their choice of platform.
  even if I *could* use it, I wouldn't use it anyway, as I do not have
  sufficient confidence in the integrity of the server for such important
  information as my (eg) medical and tax data.
 
 Err, why? What do you know about its implementation as opposed to any other
 government website?

david@lapdog:~$ HEAD http://www.gateway.gov.uk|grep ^Server
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0

That, and EDS and Microsoft being involved.

Note that whilst other government sites may suffer from the same problems,
they are only sources of information and not places where I would submit
any information which I need to have kept confidential.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  Good advice is always certain to be ignored,
  but that's no reason not to give it-- Agatha Christie



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-13 Thread Chris Devers

At 07:14 AM 2001.06.13 +0100, Chris Benson wrote:
I need to read the news more often, I was thinking about Louisiana!
I also need to get a better grip of the geography: I thought
LA. was the Florida side of Mississippi and Alabama.

No, it's the place where I was born -- Lower Alabama. Also refers 
to nearby Literate Mississippi, where the joke, it is generally 
noticed, is missed entirely by the locals.




--
Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
webmaster work: 781.270.5372
Skillcheck  aol-im: chdevers




Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-13 Thread Mike Jarvis

Wednesday, June 13, 2001, 1:16:12 AM, Dave Cross wrote:

DC On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 10:55:17PM -0500, Mike Jarvis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
 
 Larry speaks in a bit over 9 hours.  Yippee!

DC Actually - he doesn't :)

DC http://use.perl.org/article.pl?sid=01/06/12/2255236

It all worked out ok.  Daminan filled in, and was great as always.  I
would have liked to see Larry, but Damian's a great second choice.

-- 
mike





RE: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-12 Thread Robert Thompson

 From: Chris Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

 Why, when the sun is shining (almost) and there is a popular (?) govt.
 do I feel like I did in early/mid 70's: like the end of the 
 world was nigh?

Hmm, not sure... but is the feeling helped buy having someone in the White
House who has no real idea of foreign policy (and doesn't seem to care that
much), and is sitting at his desk thinking (and I use the term advisedly) -
'I wonder what this big red button does...'

No, I thought not.

Rob


---
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of IBNet
Plc. 

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete
this e-mail from your system. 

E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as
information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept
liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please
request a hard-copy version. 




RE: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-12 Thread Robert Thompson

 From: Paul Makepeace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

 PS -- that is one truly obnoxiously big sig.

I apologise profusely for my employers lawyers need to avoid any form of
litigation due to something that I may or may not say to the right or wrong
person while sending an email which may or may not be on behalf of the
company and therefor needs the sig from hell to disclaim anything that I may
or may not have said within said email and basically saying that anything I
did say wasn't said by me on behalf of the company or anybody else including
myself and in fact you really should consider the email that you might have
received to be totally empty and must destroy all traces of it but not until
you've emailed me back to say that you may have received it possibly or not
in error.



Rob

Maybe I should be a lawyer. Except, of course, I didn't say that.


---
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of IBNet
Plc. 

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete
this e-mail from your system. 

E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as
information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept
liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please
request a hard-copy version. 




Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-12 Thread Philip Newton

This in the Opera (browser) Newsletter I received yesterday:

 
 * Opera challenges UK govt to support standards *
 
 
 The British government's prestigious gateway 
 http://www.gateway.gov.uk/ security system only lets users 
 perform transactions when using IE. Opera challenges the 
 UK government to support World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
 standards and let British citizens enjoy full access to the
 Web from different browsers, platforms and devices.
 
 In the future, British users might even find that they 
 can't access the gateway, because wireless devices' 
 manufacturers increasingly are choosing other browsers than 
 IE. The British wireless consortium Symbian is an example 
 of a future leading platform not running IE.
 
 Opera's CTO, Håkon Lie, is currently in contact with the 
 assistant to UK's e-envoy, Andrew Pinder. Pinder's office 
 is responsible for the commissioning of the site, 
 gateway.gov.uk.
 
 Read the story in The Register:
 http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19275.html

I don't know whether that link was the one quoted previously.

Cheers,
Philip
-- 
Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.



Obnoxious sigs (was Re: www.gateway.gov.uk)

2001-06-12 Thread Philip Newton

Robert Thompson wrote:
 I apologise profusely

Sorry, you'll have to give me a hardcopy version of that before I'll believe
you:

 E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
 as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, 
 arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore
 does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents
 of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If
 verification is required please request a hard-copy version. 

Your apology might otherwise be construed to be the figment of some
mailer-daemon's imagination :-)

(Oh, no! I just quoted Robert Thompson! Doesn't that contravene

 If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate,
 distribute or copy this e-mail.

since the message was addressed to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' and not to
me?)

Hm, perhaps I'll use the company semi-official sig for a change. (The
official one specifies which fonts[1] and sizes to use, but I can't do that
in plain text email, so I don't bother.) No ugly disclaimers in that, thank
goodness, but no proper sig delimiter, either.

[1] That explains the long lines of dashes; they're supposed to align with
the longest line of text *on the print-out*, and are based on sending HTML
or Rich Text email in Arial, not a fixed-width font such as I use to compose
my messages.

Cheers,

Philip Newton

--
datenrevision GmbH  Co. OHG
a gedas company
Cuxhavener Straße 36, D-21149 Hamburg
Telefon/phone   +49-40-797 007-37
Telefax/telefax +49-40-797 007-10
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.datenrevision.de
--



Re: Obnoxious sigs (was Re: www.gateway.gov.uk)

2001-06-12 Thread Paul Makepeace

Isn't there some cough/ perl module that might allow us to rig a
sig-stripper to be installed at dircon? Where sig = any trailer that has
more than four un-para'ed lines. Or give these people a damn shell
account. Or SOMETHING.

(Actually I don't really care I just got carried away with the melodrama.)

Paul



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-12 Thread Struan Donald

* at 11/06 21:38 +0100 Robin Szemeti said:
 On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Chris Benson wrote:
 
  Didn't ukonline.co.uk complain about trademark infringement a while back?
  
  Is gateway.gov.uk the result?  and is there any possible trademark confusion 
  with this address?
 
 ring ring
 'hello .. is that the government? .. oh good. I'd like to complain about
 trademark infringement by one of your sites ..'
 
 pause
 
 'yes .. yes .. oh I see .. yes .. no, no you are quite right I don;t want
 to spend the the next 20 years talking to VAT inspectors and men from the
 Inland Revenue ... ah forget I ever called, by the way, did I mention
 waht a fantastic set of teeth Tony has?'

that really is terribly cynical of you. i really can't imagine a
giverment as benevolent and trustworthy as ours even contemplating
such a thing.

struan



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-12 Thread Chris Benson

On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 08:15:36AM +0100, Robert Thompson wrote:
  From: Chris Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 
  Why, when the sun is shining (almost) and there is a popular (?) govt.
  do I feel like I did in early/mid 70's: like the end of the 
  world was nigh?
 
 Hmm, not sure... but is the feeling helped buy having someone in the White
 House who has no real idea of foreign policy (and doesn't seem to care that
 much), and is sitting at his desk thinking (and I use the term advisedly) -
 'I wonder what this big red button does...'

Oh yes,  I vaguely thought on reading about the floods in The South
that maybe this was supposed to be a message like Repent your sins or
I wash you off the face of the Earth.  If so it missed Washington DC 
by about a 1,000 miles and Texas by 500.  It probably missed GWB by a
couple of light years.
 
 No, I thought not.

Thank you for the cheery thought anyway.
-- 
Chris Benson



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-12 Thread Paul Makepeace

On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 08:55:38PM +0100, Chris Benson wrote:
 Oh yes,  I vaguely thought on reading about the floods in The South
 that maybe this was supposed to be a message like Repent your sins or
 I wash you off the face of the Earth.

I think it's more along the lines of the Creator(s) saying Oh, that
Global Warming thing, you might want to check into it again. By the way,
the most populous city in your home state? *WHOOSH*

Paul


-- 
Balance the consistency principle with the inconsistency principle



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-12 Thread Chris Benson

On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 01:24:01PM -0700, Paul Makepeace wrote:
 On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 08:55:38PM +0100, Chris Benson wrote:
  Oh yes,  I vaguely thought on reading about the floods in The South
  that maybe this was supposed to be a message like Repent your sins or
  I wash you off the face of the Earth.
 
 I think it's more along the lines of the Creator(s) saying Oh, that
 Global Warming thing, you might want to check into it again. By the way,
 the most populous city in your home state? *WHOOSH*

Will Washington DC notice?  I know a state-of-emergency (or whatever)
has been called,  but the White House and Capitol facing each other 
across Lake Pennsylvania Ave. would make more impact.

 :-)  (Just in case the FBI/CIA think I'm suggesting it, god forbid).
-- 
Chris Benson



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-12 Thread Robin Szemeti

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Chris Benson wrote:
 I know a state-of-emergency (or whatever) has been called

to right it has, as I understand it this means now that you are supposed
to drive a 5.3L V8 rather than the 7.1L V8 unless absolutlely necessary
...

oops .. read 358cubic inch and 427ci ... these new fangled litres and
things don't work over there yet :))

-- 
Robin Szemeti   

Redpoint Consulting Limited
Real Solutions For A Virtual World 



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-12 Thread Mike Jarvis

Tuesday, June 12, 2001, 2:55:38 PM, Chris Benson wrote:

CB On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 08:15:36AM +0100, Robert Thompson wrote:
  From: Chris Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 
  Why, when the sun is shining (almost) and there is a popular (?) govt.
  do I feel like I did in early/mid 70's: like the end of the 
  world was nigh?
 
 Hmm, not sure... but is the feeling helped buy having someone in the White
 House who has no real idea of foreign policy (and doesn't seem to care that
 much), and is sitting at his desk thinking (and I use the term advisedly) -
 'I wonder what this big red button does...'

CB Oh yes,  I vaguely thought on reading about the floods in The South
CB that maybe this was supposed to be a message like Repent your sins or
CB I wash you off the face of the Earth.  If so it missed Washington DC 
CB by about a 1,000 miles and Texas by 500.  It probably missed GWB by a
CB couple of light years.

Missed Texas by 500 miles?  I think not.  I was in Houston.  Worst
place on earth.  I most definatly did NOT miss Texas.

And I wouldn't have been any happier had it hit DC instead.  I live
there, as do several million people who weren't elected to anything
(including dubya).

If you could localize the storm to a box bounded by D  2nd SE and H
and 17th NW, I'd be ok with that.  Oh, and take out Georgetown too
while you're at it.


-- 
mike





Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-12 Thread Paul Makepeace

On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 10:10:28PM -0500, Mike Jarvis wrote:
 Missed Texas by 500 miles?  I think not.  I was in Houston.  Worst
 place on earth.  I most definatly did NOT miss Texas.

Houston rocks, although if I moved back it would be to Austin. Houston's
humidity (the airborne type, as opposed to the 10ft deep land-based
stuff) and traffic are beyond vile.

Paul

-- 
Cut a vital connection



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-12 Thread Dave Cross

On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 10:55:17PM -0500, Mike Jarvis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
 
 Larry speaks in a bit over 9 hours.  Yippee!

Actually - he doesn't :)

http://use.perl.org/article.pl?sid=01/06/12/2255236

Dave...

-- 

  Drugs are just bad m'kay




Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-12 Thread Chris Benson

On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 10:10:28PM -0500, Mike Jarvis wrote:
 Tuesday, June 12, 2001, 2:55:38 PM, Chris Benson wrote:
 
 CB I wash you off the face of the Earth.  If so it missed Washington DC 
 CB by about a 1,000 miles and Texas by 500.  It probably missed GWB by a
 CB couple of light years.
 
 Missed Texas by 500 miles?  I think not.  I was in Houston.  Worst
 place on earth.  I most definatly did NOT miss Texas.

I need to read the news more often, I was thinking about Louisiana!
I also need to get a better grip of the geography: I thought
LA. was the Florida side of Mississippi and Alabama.
-- 
Chris Benson



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-11 Thread Jonathan Peterson

At 18:51 09/06/01 +0100, you wrote:
Monday morning

Precisely.  And using Java et al is a discrimination against the mobility
impaired.

Not to mention the way it discriminates totally against people who can't 
afford, don't have, morally object to, are too old to learn to use, 
computers.

Sure, it's kind of a crap designed website, and they should have done it in 
a way that worked on more platforms (although, to be honest, I can't see a 
way round the problems - it's very hard to do client side certificates in a 
portable way, and I'd rather see them do something than nothing).

However, it's not that big a deal.


However, it's hardly the end of the world
/J\

-- 
Jonathan Peterson
Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-11 Thread Dominic Mitchell

On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 09:56:19AM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
 At 18:51 09/06/01 +0100, you wrote:
 Monday morning
 
 Precisely.  And using Java et al is a discrimination against the mobility
 impaired.
 
 Not to mention the way it discriminates totally against people who can't 
 afford, don't have, morally object to, are too old to learn to use, 
 computers.
 
 Sure, it's kind of a crap designed website, and they should have done it in 
 a way that worked on more platforms (although, to be honest, I can't see a 
 way round the problems - it's very hard to do client side certificates in a 
 portable way, and I'd rather see them do something than nothing).
 
 However, it's not that big a deal.

It is that big a deal.  The government has legal requirements for
accessibility in other areas, I don't see why it's public interface on
the Internet should be any different.  If there was no ability for
disabled people to enter government buildings at Westminster, there
would be outrage from the disabled communities.

In short, it's a big deal because they made it a big deal.

I haven't looked at the certificate issue, but most of the things I've
read so far state that it's only a problem because they've made it a
problem by using non-standard technology.

 However, it's hardly the end of the world

No, but it is the start of the long slippery slope.  Which most of us
hope to avoid travelling down.

-Dom

-- 
| Semantico: creators of major online resources  |
|   URL: http://www.semantico.com/   |
|   Tel: +44 (1273) 72   |
|   Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-11 Thread Robert Shiels

From: Jonathan Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Not to mention the way it discriminates totally against people who can't
 afford, don't have, morally object to, are too old to learn to use,
 computers.

How come. It's an alternative to, not a replacement for, the usual paper
based forms; isn't it?

/Robert




Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-11 Thread Nicholas Clark

On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 10:19:21AM +0100, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
 On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 09:56:19AM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote:

 I haven't looked at the certificate issue, but most of the things I've
 read so far state that it's only a problem because they've made it a
 problem by using non-standard technology.

And it doesn't seem very impartial if they continue building these sites
which you can only use if you buy products from a given company.

(If I understand the current requirements, you have to buy MacOS (from Apple)
or Windows (from Microsoft) to run your free (no cost) browser)

(Is it legal to be anticompetitive by encouraging a duopoly?)

  However, it's hardly the end of the world
 
 No, but it is the start of the long slippery slope.  Which most of us
 hope to avoid travelling down.

I agree. It's the not the end of the world. Just the beginning of the end.

Nicholas Clark




Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-11 Thread Chris Benson

On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 11:26:39AM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
 
 (If I understand the current requirements, you have to buy MacOS (from Apple)
 or Windows (from Microsoft) to run your free (no cost) browser)

IIUIC IE on MacOS lets you look at the site, but you can't do anything 
useful due to lack of certificates.  
 
 (Is it legal to be anticompetitive by encouraging a duopoly?)

Hardly a duopoly!  

Anyone see the Steve Bell cartoon in the Gaudrian: on Saturday: Light 
conquers the forces of darkness ... with the light in question shining 
from the arse of a fat cat with no noticable resemblance to anyone in 
Redmond.
 
   However, it's hardly the end of the world

It will be when you get the Go to Jail card because you haven't filled 
in your on-line tax return.  Best start shouting now.

  No, but it is the start of the long slippery slope.  Which most of us
  hope to avoid travelling down.
 
 I agree. It's the not the end of the world. Just the beginning of the end.

Amen.

Why, when the sun is shining (almost) and there is a popular (?) govt.
do I feel like I did in early/mid 70's: like the end of the world was nigh?
-- 
Chris Benson
-- It ain't dark yet, but it's getting there.



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-11 Thread Chris Benson

On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 11:26:39AM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
 
 (If I understand the current requirements, you have to buy MacOS (from Apple)
 or Windows (from Microsoft) to run your free (no cost) browser)

Looking at open.gov.uk, there is mention of the move to ukonline.gov.uk
but no mention of gateway.gov.uk.

Didn't ukonline.co.uk complain about trademark infringement a while back?

Is gateway.gov.uk the result?  and is there any possible trademark confusion 
with this address?

-- 
Chris Benson



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-11 Thread Robin Szemeti

On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Chris Benson wrote:

 Didn't ukonline.co.uk complain about trademark infringement a while back?
 
 Is gateway.gov.uk the result?  and is there any possible trademark confusion 
 with this address?

ring ring
'hello .. is that the government? .. oh good. I'd like to complain about
trademark infringement by one of your sites ..'

pause

'yes .. yes .. oh I see .. yes .. no, no you are quite right I don;t want
to spend the the next 20 years talking to VAT inspectors and men from the
Inland Revenue ... ah forget I ever called, by the way, did I mention
waht a fantastic set of teeth Tony has?'

-- 
Robin Szemeti   

Redpoint Consulting Limited
Real Solutions For A Virtual World 



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-10 Thread Roger Horne

On Sat 09 Jun, Robert Shiels wrote:
 
 Assume for a moment that I'm using lynx on Linux, and I want to send the
 government my tax return securely. What are the security implications, can
 it actually be done. I don't want to go off half-cocked and complain about
 something when I don't fully understand why the alternative is better.
 
 Could someone explain it to me, and give me an address to send my complaint
 to, and I'll definitely do it.

As someone else has pointed out, this derived from a Linuxuser article at
http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/articles/issue11/gateway.html

This points out that most Government IT is now contracted out and this is
so far as I am aware correct. Most departments appear to have *no*
professional computing staff. 

(Some months ago I converted a Court Guide prepared by a judge into HTML.
The intention was that this should be put on the Court Service site.
Unfortunately Court Service had had its site redesigned -- white text
on a purple background, etc -- and so the 39 files needed to be topped
and tailed with their standard templates. When I suggested that this
would not take even me more than an hour to do with Perl I was told
by the Court Service IT department We use DreamWeaver, we have no
need for Perl. The Guide -- complete with meta tags on each page saying 
meta name=author content=The Court Service Publications Branch --
appeared on the CS site about 6 weeks later.)

One of the main outside companies used by Departments is EDS. So far as
certificates are concerned, at a meeting I went to a week or so ago the
chairman, who is employed by another legal government department, handed
round a message to him from a colleague saying that all contact with
outsiders would require the use of digital certificates. The message was
accompanied by a Paper which gave the impression of being written by someone
in the department. In fact it was a topped and tailed copy of a paper
written by one of the certificate suppliers, Entrust, on PKI (public key
infrastructure?) 
http://www.entrust.com/resourcecenter/descriptions/152.htm 
Unsurprisingly  it claims that digital certificates are essential. 

I note that the whole idea of PKI has been questioned:
http://www.counterpane.com/pki-risks.html

Another series of Articles from the Register show that EDS in NZ have
dropped the idea in relation to their Revenue. If it is not essential there
presumably it is not essential here. See the three links at the end of 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19340.html

But how one persuades the civil service of that I don't know.

Roger H
-- 
Roger Horne, 11 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3QB
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http:www.hrothgar.co.uk/




Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-09 Thread Simon Cozens

On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 01:27:08PM +0100, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
 As a public service I would exhort all of you to go to this site and then
 complain when it tells you that you are using an 'Unsupported Browser'
 (which I guess will be more than half of you :)

Well done. The Reg picked this up ... last month.

-- 
When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb. 
-- Steve Haflich, comp.lang.c++



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-09 Thread Robert Shiels

From: Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: www.gateway.gov.uk


 As a public service I would exhort all of you to go to this site and then
 complain when it tells you that you are using an 'Unsupported Browser'
 (which I guess will be more than half of you :)

I agree that this is pants. I don't see why I need cookies, javascript and
Java enabled. But I don't fully understand digital certificates.

Assume for a moment that I'm using lynx on Linux, and I want to send the
government my tax return securely. What are the security implications, can
it actually be done. I don't want to go off half-cocked and complain about
something when I don't fully understand why the alternative is better.

Could someone explain it to me, and give me an address to send my complaint
to, and I'll definitely do it.

/Robert





Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-09 Thread David Cantrell

On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 01:54:01PM +0100, Robert Shiels wrote:

 From: Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  As a public service I would exhort all of you to go to this site and then
  complain when it tells you that you are using an 'Unsupported Browser'
  (which I guess will be more than half of you :)

 I agree that this is pants. I don't see why I need cookies, javascript and
 Java enabled. But I don't fully understand digital certificates.
 
 Assume for a moment that I'm using lynx on Linux, and I want to send the
 government my tax return securely. What are the security implications, can
 it actually be done. I don't want to go off half-cocked and complain about
 something when I don't fully understand why the alternative is better.

They also don't let you use Netscape on Linux, even with 128-bit encryption
and all the other security goodies.  That is just as secure as - if not
better than - IE on Windows.

So yes, the only reason for not allowing me to use it is incompetence on
the part of whichever civil 'servants' were in charge of implementing it.

This incompetence is further manifested in their choice of platform.
even if I *could* use it, I wouldn't use it anyway, as I do not have
sufficient confidence in the integrity of the server for such important
information as my (eg) medical and tax data.

 Could someone explain it to me, and give me an address to send my complaint
 to, and I'll definitely do it.

http://www.stand.org.uk should have the Fax My MP thing back soon.  I have
a long list of things to bother mine about, none of which he bothered
to answer when I asked him during the election campaign.  No surprise that
I didn't vote for the little shit then.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  Good advice is always certain to be ignored,
  but that's no reason not to give it-- Agatha Christie



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-09 Thread Simon Cozens

On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 02:06:24PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
 So yes, the only reason for not allowing me to use it is incompetence on
 the part of whichever civil 'servants' were in charge of implementing it.

And nothing to do with the deal struck between Microsoft and the government.
No.

-- 
You want to read that stuff, fine. You want to create a network for such 
things, fine. You want to explore the theoretical boundaries of free speech, 
fine. But when it starts impacting *people* trying to *communicate*, then 
that is where I draw the line. - Russ Allbery, http://www.slacker.com/rant.html



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-09 Thread David Cantrell

On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 02:09:23PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
 On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 02:06:24PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
  So yes, the only reason for not allowing me to use it is incompetence on
  the part of whichever civil 'servants' were in charge of implementing it.
 
 And nothing to do with the deal struck between Microsoft and the government.
 No.

I tend not to pay much attention to conspiracy theories.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  Good advice is always certain to be ignored,
  but that's no reason not to give it-- Agatha Christie



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-09 Thread Robin Szemeti

On Sat, 09 Jun 2001, Robert Shiels wrote:
 From: Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: www.gateway.gov.uk
 
 
  As a public service I would exhort all of you to go to this site and then
  complain when it tells you that you are using an 'Unsupported Browser'
  (which I guess will be more than half of you :)
 
 I agree that this is pants. I don't see why I need cookies, javascript and
 Java enabled. But I don't fully understand digital certificates.
 
 Assume for a moment that I'm using lynx on Linux, and I want to send the
 government my tax return securely. What are the security implications, can
 it actually be done. 

yes .. its just SSL .. the digital certificate is just to identify who
you are .. like a digital signature.  so the SSL layer provides the
transport security .. the digital certificate ( that you get from an
issuing authority ) proves who you are ( maybe ).

 I don't want to go off half-cocked and complain about
 something when I don't fully understand why the alternative is better.

the new site is a fine example of something that was dreamt up by
webdesigneers with no concept of 'cross platform coding' or standards
compliance. its suppose to ditribute information in a clear and concise
way .. not piss about with animated sliding panles and multilayer
flirtations with art design .. you can do good and attrctive designs in
simple HTML, you don;t need Java to getthe message across.

 Could someone explain it to me, and give me an address to send my complaint
 to, and I'll definitely do it.

well .. consider this.

the old ( apache / Linux ) driven site (www.open.gov.uk IIRC ) was a
testament to good web design. graphics light and W3C html compliant AND
it met the W3C accessibility guidelines .. 

the new site is a stinking pile of shit.  all the backgrounds are fixed
colour, the text fixed colour and the text size is pixed in pixels ..
what use is that to anyone with colour blindness/poor vision.

try feeding any single page of the new shite ( oops type put 'shite'
instead of site .. )  through validator @ w3c and laugh at the error
output ... kilobytes of it.

and if it decides it doesn;t like your browser it won;t even let you in!
.. never mind that it might not display correctly .. it simply wont let
you in full stop. pile of crap.

this is supposed to be a government info site .. not some web designers
multimedia experience .. the first priority should be making the
information available THEN making it animated etc .. its feck all use if
I cant actually even get onto the site to use it. 

I complained  to the UK Online helpdesk .. they deny all responsiblity
for the thing .. but can give you helpdesk contacts for the 3 government
agencies contained within the 'government gateway' site .. of course they
deny all responsiblity for it as well...

-- 
Robin Szemeti   

Redpoint Consulting Limited
Real Solutions For A Virtual World 



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-09 Thread Simon Cozens

On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 02:26:40PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
 I tend not to pay much attention to conspiracy theories.

Me neither.
http://linuxtoday.com/imgs/microsoft/gateway-microsoft-rationale-statement.pdf

-- 
This process can check if this value is zero, and if it is, it does
something child-like.
-- Forbes Burkowski, CS 454, University of Washington



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-09 Thread Nicholas Clark

On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 02:10:38PM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote:
 I complained  to the UK Online helpdesk .. they deny all responsiblity
 for the thing .. but can give you helpdesk contacts for the 3 government
 agencies contained within the 'government gateway' site .. of course they
 deny all responsiblity for it as well...

Are these e-mail addresses? If so, does it make it possible to forward all
4 denials in 1 message To: all four and ask for one joined up government
answer?

Nicholas Clark




Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-09 Thread Simon Cozens

On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 02:59:48PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
 Are these e-mail addresses? If so, does it make it possible to forward all
 4 denials in 1 message To: all four and ask for one joined up government
 answer?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19340.html says the man to talk to
is [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I've just asked him whether he thinks restricting access to IE and NS
only (hence cutting off speech browsers for the blind) constitutes
discrimination against the disabled. :)

-- 
Britain has football hooligans, Germany has neo-Nazis, and France has farmers. 
-The Times



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-09 Thread Robin Szemeti

On Sat, 09 Jun 2001, Nicholas Clark wrote:
 On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 02:10:38PM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote:
  I complained  to the UK Online helpdesk .. they deny all responsiblity
  for the thing .. but can give you helpdesk contacts for the 3 government
  agencies contained within the 'government gateway' site .. of course they
  deny all responsiblity for it as well...
 
 Are these e-mail addresses? If so, does it make it possible to forward all
 4 denials in 1 message To: all four and ask for one joined up government
 answer?

dunno .. try if you like ...

###

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

The Government Gateway is a Government website but is an external site to UKonline. 
It has been produced by a different department and therefore any
technical difficulties in accessing the site should be directed at their
helpdesk who will be able to provide an answer to your enquiry..

There are currently three services available on the Government Gateway.
Each of the Government departments handling online services has its own
Help Desk. These are the only contact details on the Government Gateway
web site..
The numbers of these are listed below. Choose the number for one of the
services you are enrolled for (or intending to enrol for).

If you are an individual and having problems registering for Electronic VAT
return 
Phone 01702 367930. 

If you are a farmer and having problems registering for MAFF IACS Area Aid
Application 
Phone 0845 6013482 
E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

If you are an organisation and having problems registering for PAYE End of
Year Returns for Employers and Agents 
Phone 0845 6055999 or 
E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-- 
Robin Szemeti   

Redpoint Consulting Limited
Real Solutions For A Virtual World 



Re: www.gateway.gov.uk

2001-06-09 Thread Jonathan Stowe

On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:

 On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 02:59:48PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
  Are these e-mail addresses? If so, does it make it possible to forward all
  4 denials in 1 message To: all four and ask for one joined up government
  answer?

 http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19340.html says the man to talk to
 is [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 I've just asked him whether he thinks restricting access to IE and NS
 only (hence cutting off speech browsers for the blind) constitutes
 discrimination against the disabled. :)


Precisely.  And using Java et al is a discrimination against the mobility
impaired.

/J\