Woman stranded in Spain after UK's eVisa system mistakes her for twin sister
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Sure, the software has a bug. Software does. Almost always. What is broken here is that it is possible to get stuck in an airport with no possibility of escalating sensibly to a chain of human beings with agency to resolve it. You could have a software process which works 99.9% of the time, and have staff at hand which could solve any solvable remaining issues like this one. They call the Home Office internal hotline, explain the issue, resolve it by manually interfering on the spot (and have a bug filed), and everyone carries on.
Instead, we demand a 100% correct system, and save money on actually having people around who can deal with the edge cases and make sure everyone has a good time. Of course, getting a project from 99.9% to 100% costs a lot of money, because that includes literally all edge cases ever (getting to 100% is as likely as reaching ∞ by multiplying any given starting number by 2 until you reach it), and so it will likely end up being more expensive in budget overruns than the 99.9% plus humans system.
Obviously, politicians must choose for the fictional 100% case, because they can't afford the cheaper 99.9% plus human one.
> “I had no idea the issue had been corrected until I was allowed to board my flight home,” Webb said. “Had I not spent hours on the phone trying to resolve the matter, I have no idea how long I could have remained stranded abroad.”
Sounds like there were indeed channels to escalate this.
Previous company had full payments/accounts team, a few QAs, a couple accountants and SRE working on the automation of a specific payment edge case that was normally handled through support, and was taking 5-10 mins to handle per case. Whole thing took four-five months.
In the first year, less than 100 people used it, out of a few million. It was B2C, so after taxes, that amount was maybe enough to cover a couple days of lunch for the people who worked on it.
> Monique Hawkins, the acting chief executive of the immigration campaign group the3million, said it had seen previous cases similar to Webb’s, adding that it highlighted vulnerabilities in the system and it was “crucial that people have a genuinely stable means by which to prove their status”.
> She told Politico the eVisa rollout had been “rushed”, adding: “We regularly see people not only denied boarding, but also compensation, as carriers and the Home Office play a blame game shifting responsibility between each other.”
"Oh, that's an edge case. 0.1% of users will encounter it. P2 bug, not a ship blocker."
What's described here is not an engineering failure, but a process failure.
Yes it's a process failure but just like health and safety it is everyone's responsibility.
Similar things happen when you require fingerprints or retinal scans. "Well, I don't have a right hand anymore. It's in some hospital's incinerator."
And not having an override or bypass is a software issue. Designing a system that doesn't permit exceptions or overrides is bad software design.
I think his point is that the designers of the software would have been aware of this, but they weren't the designers of the system, who wanted software to do All the Things.
You cite three meaningful changes in biometrics: disfigured, loss of fingerprint and retinal issues.
In all three cases surely the right and proper thing do to is to get your details updated on the system ? It may even be a legal requirement for you to do so in the case of official ID documents.
Of course, if you have a temporary mismatch due to being injured on holiday that's different.
But for a permanent thing I just don't see why you would not just get stuff re-issued or updated.
The real world is messy.
I suggest you actually read my post, because its clear you did not.
If you had read it, you would have seen the phrase "Of course, if you have a temporary mismatch due to being injured on holiday that's different.".
I quite clearly excluded holiday injury.
This may be possible some 15+ years ago. Home Office today is very different. Without a prober procedure written down I doubt this could be solved manually. Nor would anyone want to solve it manually.
This is extremely common
>It seemed pretty standard at B2B tech providers.
It is, but I was referring specifically to Home Office in UK Gov.
This is another instance of the usual hubris of management in thinking that automation has solved all the problems without creating any of its own, therefore all the humans are now made redundant.
What's really stupid is not being allowed to get on the flight at all.
Like: she's not labelled as a "terrorist", so just let her on the flight as she's not likely to make the plane explode, and let the customs folks take her as a one-off to be dealt with on home soil. Why is it necessary to be pre-approved to even get on the flight?
- a valid “immigration document” which satisfactorily establishes identity and nationality or citizenship.
- and, if the person requires a visa, a visa of the required kind or other permission to travel. This visa, or permission, may now be in either physical form, or a digital e- Visa; or
- a valid Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA), if the person requires one.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/document-checks-a...
I don't think it is good enough for either, but I also think we should practice, and run our companies, as we preach.
This is a fundamental problem with "running government like a business," one of several that point to the fundamental flaws of the entire idea (profit motive, unitary unit of execution, etc.).
I'm glad you said "ethically" because the current US administration is openly admitting that they're making decisions on things like school funding, disaster relief based on whether that state went for Trump or not.
Why can't the same system work here?
As a someone in tech, I feel this a classic case study of how NOT to roll out a release and develop a solution.
The release was chaotic, none of the airlines staff were trained on how to use this. So they still insisted on the expired cards and then picked on the expiry dates.
Next, almost everyone makes you generate a verification share code in front of them by logging into the e-visa website even if the rules say I can print it out and just use the code. It takes a few minute to get on the website and generate one.
This solution assumed that everyone has access to a smart phone and a good wifi connection to make this work.
Whoever built this didn't test it on the ground.
God this happens all the time. Software written by people that don't use the software themselves. It has happened to me so many times, I come across a piece of software with weird bugs or interactions that would be immediately fixed if the developer just spends 5 minutes using the software like an end user would. Dogfood all the things!
My experience is completely contrary: developers typically do care deeply about such things. The problem is rather that very commonly managers actively disallow these poor developers to apply their diligence to the software that they develop.
I really have a strong feeling that you want to participate in the ugly vendetta against software developers that has been going on for decades ("Replace all software developers"; current season: "Replace them with AI").
Don't do that. Rather fight the people who are really responsible (who are often (project) managers or Scrum masters).
Paranoia?
There are a lot of devs who don't really like what they develope so don't spend any time dogfooding it. Has nothing to do with devs who are blocked by management.
That said I have also encountered lazy engineers who are totally fine with implementing obviously broken software, those are a perfect match for the egotistical product manager.
... I saw last week that they just had their (latest) 25% headcount reduction, followed by their (latest) "executive offsite retreat" to pat each other on the back and figure out what they'll do between now and the next one.
This is like the argument "developers should use the software that they write" (dogfooding).
Let me give one example: the previous person who designed and developed the previous version of the software which I now work on really could use "his" program insanely well. The problem was rather that he was basically the only person who really did understand it sufficiently well to not to be triggered by problems other users had. Yes, a huge part of my job is over the years to turn this piece of software into something that is understandable by other people, too,. :-)
In my experience with large regulated systems, the engineers writing the software don't have the expertise to even know what the correct specifications should be in most cases, and especially in edge cases. Software engineers are not experts in customs and immigration legal requirements and would be relying on heavily on guidance from experts in those fields to determine the proper rules to apply.
In my experience with bugs like this, it is usually scenarios that all parties involved in the design did not consider... especially when implementation is rushed due to tight deadlines.
Other stakeholders typically don't apply such caution.
Business software is work processes that has been turned into code.
Whether such a person has such a permission in the system or whether the permission system of the software can actually model this is a work process that has been turned into code.
To be fair to the airlines here, if they get it wrong then the UK government fines the airline. This is why they are pretty risk averse, and also why I'm surprised that the screenshot worked.
Computer says no.
So how many people did not successfully use it? Could be 100 million for all we know. Do they think just throwing out a large number without anything to compare it to is somehow proving something?
Welcome to the last 20 years of UK public policy communications. Politicians know that people do not question big numbers or have the skills to put them in context.
I remember the May government shouting that "more children go to schools rated good+ by Ofsted than ever before". Me and you would say, well, there's more children alive than ever before, so it's hardly an achievement.
I had recently a case where my title (Mr) ended up as my middle name in the system of the operating airline (it was perfectly correct in the system of the airline that I booked the ticket through). Two hours of talking to those two airlines did not help me. I had to buy another ticket...
I think this starts to remind me the movie Brazil...
They'll have paid one the many software/technology companies to build this thing. Who will be hiding their shoddy crap behind their client (the government department that paid for it). There are some patterns that I'm sure would start to arise from naming the consultancies that are churning out crap.
I was losing my sanity over all the refusals (app refusing the photos).
I have had to take photos of each of my two kids at six months old for passports. That was not a lot of fun (though it's nice to look at the baby photo for the older one now).
The hilarity of having to compare a baby picture with a 5 year old kid stood in front of you is a separate problem.
> The hilarity of having to compare a baby picture with a 5 year old kid stood in front of you is a separate problem.
Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous, I'd imagine that most border guards will just check the last name and assume it's OK in that case.
So just be advised that this could get you into hot water.
Now I live in the US.
The UK government has decided that to travel to the UK, a UK citizen MUST use a UK passport. They also, helpfully, don't offer passport services at their US embassies and consulates.
So the process is this: I begin the process on gov.uk, and validate my identity to them, to their satisfaction, using questions only I should know (where did my parents marry, born where and to whom, what time of the day). Once I have done that, I get to upload a passport photo of myself... and then I have to find, and nominate another UK citizen who -does- have a passport, -who is not related to me-, who "has known me for two years", and "has the risk of loss if they were to make a false statement", to go through the same process themselves, validate their identity, and then state that the photo they have seen is of me, that they have known me for two years or more, what the nature of our relationship is, and more.
Then the UK will issue my passport.
Fun story of the app refusals though, id.me, as used by the IRS:
"Scan the front and back of your Driver's License."
[upload scan of front of DL @ 200DPI]
"Unable to find a face in the image you uploaded."
[upload scan of front of DL @ 300DPI]
"Unable to find a face in the image you uploaded."
Huh. Maybe I'll try with a lower resolution.
[upload scan of front of DL @ 72DPI]
"Thank you, now please upload the back of your Driver's License."
Hmm, 72DPI worked for the front, so...
[upload scan of back of DL @ 72DPI]
"Unable to read a barcode in the image you uploaded."
[upload scan of back of DL @ 200DPI]
"Unable to read a barcode in the image you uploaded."
[upload scan of back of DL @ 300DPI]
"Thank you for verifying your Driver's License".
Comedy gold.
p99 is ok for web stuff, not for systems that impacts people in their life, but I’ve seen too often things being dismissed because they are edge cases (which becomes an actual real issue at the scale of a country of course)
I myself recently had a 10-minute or so delay due to a visa issue. I was departing from Johannesburg and was going to use my Italian passport for entry into New Zealand. I had acquired an NZeTA visa about 15 months before but didn't think to consider until checking in that it was against my previous passport number which I had since renewed.
When the agent said they were just having to double check my visa (while my wife's and children' were fine), the fact the passport had been renewed occurred to me and I told the agent about it which probably saved a couple of minutes of them having to work out this was the issue. They phoned New Zealand, explained the situation and within about 10 minutes the New Zealand side updated their system and I was able to complete my check-in.
For example, I went to the bank down the road and tried to withdraw a few thousand dollars. This isn't atypical for me - I do this every few months. I had my ID and knew my account number, but I didn't have my debit card. They essentially told me "system says no" and that there wasn't anything they could do. This is a feature for the bank - a human teller might be talked into pressing the wrong button by fraud. Instead, I had to go home and get my debit card. By presenting that bit of plastic, system said yes, and I was good to go with my cash.
For another example, I was recently at an airport listening to a family struggling to get on a flight. They were checked in with seats assigned (confirmed by the gate agent) but the system refused to give the green "ok to board" light for them. Rather than just put them on the flight and file a ticket to fix the record after the fact, the agent just stood there churning for a while until a supervisor was able to sprint over from the other end of the airport. The supervisor didn't use their superior access level to override the broken system. Instead, they used their superior knowledge on how to push the system through its bug. They kicked the family off the flight, unassigned their seats, put them on standby, approved them for (random) empty seats, and then let them board... but now they weren't sitting together in the seats they had before. I ended up missing that (extremely delayed) flight for boring reasons related to ongoing engine problems and upcoming connections so I don't know how it worked out but I hope they got to sit together in the end!
Laws against persona; freedoms should be called out as unethical.
On whose dime?
"We regularly see people not only denied boarding, but also compensation,"
Oh.
not having a paper fallback (fill out an immigration form on arrival if you don't need a visa, i.e., US citizens) was the stupidest decision ever