 |
Citizen Centricity, one the foundations of Transformational Government, is usually seen by government as being synonymous with data sharing. And, data sharing, when done with peoples consent, can make it much easier to access and use government services. When quality of service founded on consent is the driver for government I’m sure most people are happy to be passengers.
Difficulties arise when government starts to think it knows best and that administrative convenience is more important that treating citizens with respect. Such misuse is most prevalent when the data is initially collected to protect citizens, examples include using border control data to assist in collecting parking fines or using traffic control CCTV pictures to catch those dropping litter. The main arguments advanced are; that as individuals citizens wouldn’t consent to the use of data to control their behaviour they shouldn’t have any collective say in what is fair, and, secrecy is necessary to avoid terrorists and criminals taking avoiding action.
Most people aren’t criminals, and resent being treated like one. Security organisations that press for wide powers to access and share data alienate the very people they are supposed to protect. Secrecy isn’t particularly effective, for example, how many terrorists and criminals don’t know that mobile phones can be tracked and intercepted and have used more difficult to trace pay as you go phones? So why not treat people with respect and get consent where it is appropriate and be open about what government is doing where it isn’t. My feeling is that people would then consent to more data sharing.
As an illustration most people applaud the convenience the DVLA service for taxing a car online, which depends on sharing vehicle, MOT and insurance data from different organisations. Press publicity when the DVLA sells data to parking enforcement organisations on the other hand is generally negative. Wouldn’t it be better if there was an open debate on what is fair resulting in a publicly available statement on what vehicle data can be shared and what controls are applied to who can see it and what they can do with it.
By not sharing data in a respectful way government is building a blanket suspicion of data sharing. This damages it’s ability to improve services, reduce costs and improve security. Why not move from lose – lose behaviour to an open consensual win – win? Citizens would win easier more convenient services that avoid continually providing the same information. Government would win savings in the money wasted in continually capturing the same data and dealing with calls from irritated citizens. And we’d all win from having better security based on understanding and cooperation.
Difficulties arise when government starts to think it knows best and that administrative convenience is more important that treating citizens with respect. Such misuse is most prevalent when the data is initially collected to protect citizens, examples include using border control data to assist in collecting parking fines or using traffic control CCTV pictures to catch those dropping litter. The main arguments advanced are; that as individuals citizens wouldn’t consent to the use of data to control their behaviour they shouldn’t have any collective say in what is fair, and, secrecy is necessary to avoid terrorists and criminals taking avoiding action.
Most people aren’t criminals, and resent being treated like one. Security organisations that press for wide powers to access and share data alienate the very people they are supposed to protect. Secrecy isn’t particularly effective, for example, how many terrorists and criminals don’t know that mobile phones can be tracked and intercepted and have used more difficult to trace pay as you go phones? So why not treat people with respect and get consent where it is appropriate and be open about what government is doing where it isn’t. My feeling is that people would then consent to more data sharing.
As an illustration most people applaud the convenience the DVLA service for taxing a car online, which depends on sharing vehicle, MOT and insurance data from different organisations. Press publicity when the DVLA sells data to parking enforcement organisations on the other hand is generally negative. Wouldn’t it be better if there was an open debate on what is fair resulting in a publicly available statement on what vehicle data can be shared and what controls are applied to who can see it and what they can do with it.
By not sharing data in a respectful way government is building a blanket suspicion of data sharing. This damages it’s ability to improve services, reduce costs and improve security. Why not move from lose – lose behaviour to an open consensual win – win? Citizens would win easier more convenient services that avoid continually providing the same information. Government would win savings in the money wasted in continually capturing the same data and dealing with calls from irritated citizens. And we’d all win from having better security based on understanding and cooperation.
