Whitehall's plans for new technology - and in particular for storing yet more information about citizens - show no sign of slowing down. In the past week alone, Whitehall has announced plans to use GPS tagging for young repeat offenders, the tendering process has started to create a database of births, marriages and deaths, and detailed plans for the children's database were revealed, including proposals for holding a wealth of information such as educational achievements, medical records and parents' marital status.
Since the launch of Computing's Data Debate campaign earlier this year, three major new database proposals have been announced - a database of deaths, a national database of police intelligence, and the database of children. And the Passport Agency has started work on a new datawarehouse project, alongside plans to replace its existing Pass database.
There are two issues here.
One is the danger, highlighted in our earlier coverage, of expensive and unwieldy duplication between the four existing schemes for a definitive central index of citizens - the Citizen Information Project, the ID cards database, the NHS data spine, and the digital electoral register.
The second concern is the proliferation of government databases of all kinds.
Computing is not way suggesting that technology should not be applied to solve the problems of society and its administration.
But technology on its own is not enough. And by continuing to badge these solutions as 'IT projects', the serious cultural, political and philosophical questions the State's use of new technology poses are not generating the level of debate they deserve.
National media, politicians and members of the public commonly dismiss such issues as 'techie' questions and they are not addressed. Yet they touch on the heart of the citizen's relationship with the State, the nature of identity and privacy in the modern world, and the way taxpayers' money is spent and public services delivered.
Computing has already made the case for why the UK needs a Data Debate (Computing, 3 March).
This week we lay out the questions that debate needs to answer.
How do the array of existing and planned public sector databases relate to each other and interact?
There has been little clarification of how the four different citizen index schemes are to relate to each other, let alone the relationship between systems developed for more markedly different purposes.
One of the objectives of Ian Watmore, the newly-appointed head of egovernment, should be to ensure the range of different projects make sense as a whole, says Georgina O'Toole, analyst at Ovum Holway.
'The question is whether there is an over-riding strategy to ensure that where different databases hold similar bits of information, that information is the same. There needs to be an overall umbrella strategy to make sure the databases fit together,' she said.
What is the cultural impact of these database programmes and what changes in working practices will be needed for them to provide a tangible benefit?
The first question should always be: 'what will you be able to do as a result of the new database that is somehow better than what you could do before?', says Institute of Directors senior egovernment policy advisor Jim Norton.
'It is about how you use information, rather than about the database itself. Simply gathering information shouldn't be the objective, but using it effectively and in a way that accords with our beliefs about way data should be shared or not,' he said.
Where is the balance between citizen-focused public services and unwanted information sharing between government departments and agencies?
On one side is the public's expectation of a 'customer experience' in dealings with government. On the other are fears of a 'big brother' state.
The UK public needs to decide where the balance lies and that decision needs to be taken before systems are developed, at huge public expense, that are either too distributed or not distributed enough.
'Better sharing arrangements could help solve the problem and obviate the need for everyone creating different databases,' said deputy Information Commissioner Jonathan Bamford.
'We would want that on a proper basis and with proper safeguards, but where there are proper public policy needs it should be possible to achieve that end.'
How will the volumes of data be managed?
A key question is whether creating ever-larger pools of data actually provides any more useful information.
The government has no concept of how much data these projects will create, says Norton.
'The government doesn't understand the volume of data or the difficulty of extracting what is significant from what is routine,' he said.
Bamford said: 'If you are looking for a needle in a haystack, why create a bigger haystack? The children's database is a case in point: does it really achieve the objective of identifying children at risk if you just create a bigger and bigger database? That must be called into question.
'What we want is better quality information about people we are concerned about, not a lot of low grade information about everybody - which chimes with data protection rules which talk about data being relevant and not excessive,' he said.
How will information be kept up to date?
The Home Secretary says ID cards will be supported by a 'new clean database', but keeping systems up to date is a major issue that has not been satisfactorily answered.
'The most important questions are how will the information be kept up to date and what is the cost of that?' said Liberal Democrat IT spokesman Richard Allan.
'Creating a database is not massively complex, but keeping it up to date to the level of accuracy required, is. At the moment solutions are being offered but the whole problem has not been thought through.'
What can be done to ensure the same basic information is not collected many times and held in slightly different, incompatible formats?
'If you look at the totality of developments it begs the question about whether all the different databases are necessary or whether we are starting to collect some information over and over again. Our concern from the data protection and privacy point of view is whether these exceed what is necessary to deliver policy objectives,' said Bamford.
Has the Data Debate been adequately discussed - by MPs, by the media, by the general public?
The answer to this question is 'no'.
'We should have an informed public debate about the level of information the state should hold on individual citizens,' said shadow Home Secretary David Davis.
'There are many areas of legitimate
concern. There has been little discussion about the permitted level of
data sharing, the security of the database, or the guarantees to
protect individual liberties.'
What the experts say
The emphasis at the moment is on collection, rather than necessarily using the data to solve the problems, and I'm not convinced the government is doing the hard work on the people side, even if it does manage to collect the data in the first place.
Jim Norton, Institute of Directors senior policy advisor, egovernment
We should have an informed public debate about the level of information the state should hold on individual citizens. There has been little discussion about the permitted level of data sharing, the security of the database, or the guarantees to protect individual liberties.
David Davis, shadow home secretary
The most important questions are how will the information be kept up to date and what is the cost of that? Creating a database is not massively complex, but keeping it up to date to the level of accuracy required is.
Richard Allan, Liberal Democrat IT spokesman
This is not about IT projects, it's about business change and how you gather, disseminate and use information. The government needs to have an understanding about what these databases mean in practical terms.
Nick Kalisperas, Intellect director of public sector
Are all these developments necessary or are we starting to collect some information over and over again? The children's database is case in point: does it really achieve the objective of identifying children at risk if you just create a bigger and bigger database? Sensible practice is to be more targeted in what you do, not just cast a wider net all the time without necessarily bringing in any more fish.
Jonathan Bamford, deputy Information Commissioner
The question is whether there is an over-riding strategy to ensure that where different databases hold similar bits of information, that information is the same. There needs to be an overall umbrella strategy to make sure the databases fit together.
Georgina O'Toole, Ovum Holway analyst
Autor: Sarah Arnott
Quelle: Vnunet, 28.07.2004
