pubgrub277

Capita's stance re :ICO

Don't be fooled into thinking the patch is the end of the issue. LSU's and support teams should be sharing some reports for checking if your data has been affected. The error was introduced in the AUTUMN upgrade! Although the issue is said to be with importing pre-admissions we've raised concerns about issue for other pupils too. Soft contact matching on name only has occurred and could affect records link to lots of other pupils. Capita's response so far hasn't been great and they seem to be underplaying the issue.

Surely consent isn't required: 6(1)(e) – Processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller?

The share issue will boost the short term balance sheet. Remember Capita are still making a profit! just instead of £400M its estimated to be between £270-£300. There's a big difference between them and the likes of carillion where increasing costs of maintaining spiraling PFI's got out of hand. Many contracts are being renewed like the BBC And M&S. when long term contracts with government come up i cant see them losing those.

At this point i'm actually interested in how many response i can get from a list of local schools i have. I'm using a personal account and am sending a link to the following form. May post and update if i get any responses.

I think the live form may not support the style of validation you've used previously. Autoresponse are an easy option though. https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/97848/can-google-forms-send-emails-automatically This example could be updated, to include and if statement to only send when the sum of the columns does not match as per you webform. There would also be the option to return the url of the prefilled form already completed so the user can amend the details but not refill the whole request.

the cogs have been spinning.

I was not making an FOI request merely testing the assertion , along with everyone else, that the website and address are a big part of peoples failure to respond. As other people have said, your attitude at this point makes people disinclined to help. The validation you want could be setup within the google sheet the forms feed the data back to very easily. Responses can be sent if data is submitted inaccurately. Prefilled forms can be returned to the respondent for correction. I think you'll find almost all FOI's will come from unsolicited emails, i don't know anyone actively seeking people to make request of them. thats why whatdotheyknow.com etc are around so people can add some sense of legitimacy to the request and not just try to ignore it. I'm with most people on this, we would like to see you request carried out, but not at the expense of other peoples time and effort. I would actually be interested in the analysis of this data, but would be terrified to spend any time working with you on it.

thanks @Bedders , i was beginning to regret no turning on address collection and facing the prospect of living with never knowing who'd done it! and just so you can see the colours

I'm not sure I'm open to changing my methodology just to suit you @hardtailstar Monkeys and only monkeys will remain, until i build my own site and webform.

Small sample, 5 responses in under 3 minutes.

Would anyone be willing to test it for me? Volunteers only, no cash prizes. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdTcPOSdDjplB77Jm7gGyhM_Z77FzDJ3Et64SnppwDOBvvZxg/viewform?usp=sf_link

Have you not considered that much of this information is also held by local authorities in central pupil databases (such as Capita ONE) and you could be collecting the same data from them? Would contacting an LEA (and their often dedicated teams designed to respond to FOI and data queries) by a few hundred not be better than thousands of schools? Given you seem adamant that you're correct in all of your assertions to this point, would you even consider a change of tack?

sorry, reread the post and you don't know where the first value is. =INDEX(A1:A5,MATCH(TRUE,A1:A5<>0,0))-INDEX(A1:A5,MATCH(TRUE,A1:A5<>0,1)) This would use the first index formula to find and return the first value in the range. The second finds the last in the range. The minus in the middle takes one value from the other.

Would something like this work? =A1-(INDEX(A1:A5,LOOKUP(2,1/(A1:A5<>""),ROW(A1:A5)),0)) index used to return a value found in a range lookup within that to find the last row reference containing a non blank value.

I think this is because the permissions on the machine keys folders and files is wrong. something like "C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Crypto\Keys" or maybe "C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Crypto\RSA\MachineKeys" (depending on server os). It will hold a number of files that SOLUS3 needs access too. I think you may need to take ownership/grant permission on each file individually first and not at a folder level too.

Could you not do something like banks do with viewing a pin online? Only one letter/number/word displayed at a time so no risk of a screenshot being taken or the whole document? of course multiple screenshots would get the whole document so maybe display each word in a random order too? then the reader just pieces it together in their mind but cant get a copy of the whole document to copy at once......

as an example, If someone makes a request but doesn't explicitly say its FOI for instance, I think you're not obliged to respond etc. I would apply the time scale relevant to the request being made ie if the parent requests details sighting SAR as the reason 30 days applies. If they sight The Education (Pupil Information) (England) Regulations 2005 the 15 days applies. Unless I'm missing soemthing?

Maybe as a stop gap until we get the tools, but could you imagine the same scenario for papr records? "sorry, we kept them as we don't have a shredder".I know that's taking it to the extreme. Audit and delete facilities in SIMS have been requested for so long that its hard to believe that Capita still havent done anything significant about it. The SAR requests side is starting to look better but still not complete. like a lot of things from them is the slow rate of change and poor communication that's hard to take.

You're probably correct in the examples given but what about the staff and student records your still holding in SIMS that are already outside of these timeframes already? Many schools have had SIMS so long they have 15/20 years of records that it would be very hard to justify still holding. Capita need to provide better tools, at a quicker pace, than they are.

Yes, would happen anywhere the students with the missing details are loaded, ie register or marksheet for the group they are in. must not be the issue. I've just looked back at the error i had and it is very different to this one.

i would check all students have a legal forename and surname (using egneral student list). Had this happen recently, given it is a required field i don't know how it was deleted from a pupil record.

surely the rules on automated decision making and profiling come into play at some point. what are his provisions for appeals and review*? *asking for a friend

Google discontinued the webview method of authentication earlier in the year and now require the oAuth to connect. From what i understand the Android app is no longer being developed and will be discontinued by Capita (due to lack of take up) so they won't be implementing the changes required to allow device to logon. I've yet to see an official announcement. Maybe @PhilNeal could confirm.

I've just checked mine, say "YKK" on it. Not sure who the vendor is but I have the same problem as @snagrat it was in the down position.