Dr David Murakami Wood - PowerPoint

							Data-Sharing:
 Joined-Up Government
        or Big Brother?
           Dr David Murakami Wood
               d.f.j.wood@ncl.ac.uk



                                Global
                                Urban
                                Research
                                Unit
             Background
 Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-
  Four still dominates
  aspects of British public
  discourse on surveillance
 But people also want
  efficient government
 Surveillance has always
  been part of government
 Care and Control are not in
  opposition
 Need for debate: A Report
  on the Surveillance Society
  and the aftermath…
                                A still from the 1954 BBC TV version
                                of Nineteen Eighty-Four
                  Outline
 Not another talk about ‘data protection’
 What are the assumptions behind concerns about
  data-sharing?
 What is ‘data’ and why does it matter?
 What are the new relationships between State
  and Citizens on an information society?
 What are the relationships between Surveillance,
  Data Sharing and Freedom of Information?
      The ‘New Surveillance’
 Digitisation
 New Virtual Bodies of
  Information:
     Data subjects
     Data doubles
     Data Shadows
     Dividuals
 Second Order
  Surveillance of Data:
   Dataveillance
   Knowledge Discovery in
    Databases (KDD)
   Profiling
 Algorithmic Surveillance
 Pre-emption
                             Privium System, Schiphol Airport,
                             Netherlands (from Schiphol website)
Reinscription    Surveillance



                                  Cycle of
                                Surveillance


  Profiling     Dataveillance
      Problematic Trends
 Technological determinism OR If it can be done,
  it should be done
 Technological capacity runs ahead of policy
  capacity and government knowledge
 Blurring of boundaries between:
    Public and Private
    Technological systems
    Nations
 Permanent State of Emergency / State of
  Exception
 Politics of data opaque to ordinary people
 Erosion of Trust
 Decrease in Privacy and in coceptual utility of
  Privacy
 Integrity, Ownership and Data
       The Problem of Trust
 Components of Trust:
      Accountability – MPs and FOI
      Bias – Privatisation, US-centrism
      Predictability – Moving of goalposts in ID policy
      Affect – perception of lies on Iraq/WMD
      Competence – Failed / late computerisations
 Lack of ‘Respect’…
 Use of exceptional / extreme arguments every
  time, like the boy crying wolf…
 Trust needs to be rebuilt as a key part of process
  of data-sharing, not afterwards
       The Problem of Trust
 Components of Trust:
      Accountability – MPs and FOI
      Bias – Privatisation, US-centrism
      Predictability – Moving of goalposts in ID policy
      Affect – perception of lies on Iraq/WMD
      Competence – Failed / late computerisations
 Lack of ‘Respect’…
 Use of exceptional / extreme arguments every
  time, like the boy crying wolf…
 Trust needs to be rebuilt as a key part of process
  of data-sharing, not afterwards
  The Problem of Privacy
 Alan Westin’s Forms of Privacy:
     Privacy   of   the Body
     Privacy   of   Intimate Relations
     Privacy   of   Personal Information
     Privacy   of   Personal Space
 But with profiling and categorisation, do we have
  to consider ‘group’ / ‘social’ privacy?
 Man of these categories also need more
  elaboration, e.g.: Irma Van der Ploeg on body:
   Psychological
   Emotional
   Visceral
 ‘Information’ and ‘Body’ now not so separate
     Reconsidering ‘Data’
 Data still treated as simply ‘information about…’
 State sees right to acquire data as paramount?
  c.f.: National Identity Register
 But: ‘Data Doubles’ as important to life chances
  as physical bodies?
 Data is also a valuable commodity, basis of new
  economy c.f.: image rights debate
 Established in Mediaeval period that state could
  no longer ‘own’ physical body of person
 State’s assertion is akin to colonisation?
 At least consider thinking of data body more like
  physical body – digital habeus corpus?
        Possible Solutions
1.   Status Quo – muddle-through, compromise
     etc…

2.   Laissez-Faire – market decides

3.   Security State – paternalism

4.   Transparent Society – everything is known

5.   Rebuilding Trust
    Solution 1: Status Quo
   Rely on existing institutions and law
   Data Protection Act (1998) as basis
   Codes of Practice and volunteerism predominate
   Information Commissioner as shackled regulator
   State able to produced contingent arguments for
    exceptions and exemptions
   Technological advances continue to run ahead of
    policy
   Trust problem not addressed
   Cost of systems and compliance increasingly an
    issue
   Contradictions continuous and never certain
    where ‘lines crossed’
 Solution 2: Laissez-faire
 Assume that privatisation will continue
 Encourage development of ‘Personal Information
  Economy’
 Personal data as commodity
 State and private sector pays market value of
  data it wants
 But in turn citizen has to pay for access to
  information
 Levels of ‘privacy’ are set by these market
  relations and technological capacity
 Privacy-Enhancing Technologies (PETS)
 You get the privacy you can afford
 Embedded within existing unequal market
  relations
Solution 3: Security State

 Assume that State of Exception will become the
  norm
 Security trumps all other considerations
 Rights contingent on national security
  considerations
 Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear
 Citizen can obtain what information state feels is
  relevant and necessary
 State can share data as it wishes and can change
  the purposes to which data is used as it wants.
    Solution 4: Transparent
            Society
 Assume all information will flow
 Information Wants to Be Free
 Everything you do is public knowledge or liable to
  be known by the state
 But everything the state or private companies do
  is equally available
 Build minimal protections based on contracts
  allowable in clearly-defined circumstances
Solution 5: Rebuild Trust
 Create new legal bases for relationships between
  state and citizen: ‘Information Act’
 Liberty and privacy integral part of national
  security, not opposed to it
 Mandatory Surveillance Impact Assessment for
  new technologies and systems
 Technologies fitted to policies not vice-versa
 Surveillance and FOI as reciprocal
 States, companies are ‘custodians’ of data not
  owners
 Citizen rights to correct data, but custodians are
  responsible for errors and omissions
 Strengthen oversight and audit capacity of ICO
 Real FOI and digital habeus corpus ensures data-
  sharing is joined-up government, not Big Brother