This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/18/personal-data-privacy-and-the-totalitarian-state
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Personal data, privacy and the totalitarian state Personal data, privacy and the totalitarian state | |
| (about 14 hours later) | |
| Your editorial (Suspending privacy rights will lead to Facebook government, 17 October) argued there was no chance that “data science” would pinpoint solutions to society’s problems; then the following day you gleefully reported findings from the self-same “data science” showing how the government’s troubled families programme had made no difference (More than £1bn spent on troubled families ‘has had little impact’, 18 October). | Your editorial (Suspending privacy rights will lead to Facebook government, 17 October) argued there was no chance that “data science” would pinpoint solutions to society’s problems; then the following day you gleefully reported findings from the self-same “data science” showing how the government’s troubled families programme had made no difference (More than £1bn spent on troubled families ‘has had little impact’, 18 October). |
| The Guardian is right to be concerned about the sharing of individuals’ data to inform operational decisions, and we agree that this must be based on the consent of individuals and appropriate safeguards. But the use of data for research purposes is a different proposition, and you seem to miss this important distinction. Conflating different data uses and drawing conclusions from esoteric examples like the Joseph Rowntree case is potentially misleading. | The Guardian is right to be concerned about the sharing of individuals’ data to inform operational decisions, and we agree that this must be based on the consent of individuals and appropriate safeguards. But the use of data for research purposes is a different proposition, and you seem to miss this important distinction. Conflating different data uses and drawing conclusions from esoteric examples like the Joseph Rowntree case is potentially misleading. |
| For years, vast amounts of resources across the health, education, employment and justice sectors have been spent on public and charitable programmes that are essentially untested. New technology enables us to examine these programmes more rigorously and inform improvements. Furthermore, this kind of analysis can be done without any risk to individuals’ privacy, as has been demonstrated by the Justice Data Lab, which is used by charities and others to study their impact, and which we at New Philanthropy Capital lobbied for. | For years, vast amounts of resources across the health, education, employment and justice sectors have been spent on public and charitable programmes that are essentially untested. New technology enables us to examine these programmes more rigorously and inform improvements. Furthermore, this kind of analysis can be done without any risk to individuals’ privacy, as has been demonstrated by the Justice Data Lab, which is used by charities and others to study their impact, and which we at New Philanthropy Capital lobbied for. |
| The dossier of private information is the badge of the totalitarian state | The dossier of private information is the badge of the totalitarian state |
| We need a balanced debate in which the benefits and the risks of using public data are weighed up accurately and carefully. Otherwise, we are in danger of squandering the potential of data to help us all, as service users, taxpayers and donors to charities.Dan CorryChief executive, New Philanthropy Capital | We need a balanced debate in which the benefits and the risks of using public data are weighed up accurately and carefully. Otherwise, we are in danger of squandering the potential of data to help us all, as service users, taxpayers and donors to charities.Dan CorryChief executive, New Philanthropy Capital |
| • Your editorial fails to recognise the provisions to improve data-sharing for statistics and research in the digital economy bill. These provisions build on well-established frameworks which protect the identity of individuals. They relate to aggregate data for statistical purposes, and are much needed to improve the evidence base for a wide range of critical decisions for the country.Hetan Shah Executive director, Royal Statistical SocietyProfessor Jane Elliott Chief executive, Economic and Social Research CouncilSharon Witherspoon Head of policy, Academy of Social ScienceVanessa Cuthill University of Essex | • Your editorial fails to recognise the provisions to improve data-sharing for statistics and research in the digital economy bill. These provisions build on well-established frameworks which protect the identity of individuals. They relate to aggregate data for statistical purposes, and are much needed to improve the evidence base for a wide range of critical decisions for the country.Hetan Shah Executive director, Royal Statistical SocietyProfessor Jane Elliott Chief executive, Economic and Social Research CouncilSharon Witherspoon Head of policy, Academy of Social ScienceVanessa Cuthill University of Essex |
| • The Guardian’s first leader, with government departments able to pool data collected without having put in place robust privacy protection, reminded me of a warning years ago from the former senior judge Lord Browne-Wilkinson. | • The Guardian’s first leader, with government departments able to pool data collected without having put in place robust privacy protection, reminded me of a warning years ago from the former senior judge Lord Browne-Wilkinson. |
| He warned: “If the information obtained by the police, the Inland Revenue, the social security offices, the health service and other agencies were to be gathered together in one file, the freedom of the individual would be gravely at risk. The dossier of private information is the badge of the totalitarian state.”Richard Norton-TaylorLondon | He warned: “If the information obtained by the police, the Inland Revenue, the social security offices, the health service and other agencies were to be gathered together in one file, the freedom of the individual would be gravely at risk. The dossier of private information is the badge of the totalitarian state.”Richard Norton-TaylorLondon |
| • Just because an organisation, public or private, can share our personal data doesn’t mean it should. | • Just because an organisation, public or private, can share our personal data doesn’t mean it should. |
| Data-sharing between public authorities must remain justified and proportionate, otherwise it risks undermining public trust and confidence in much more than data-sharing. A presumption of data-sharing would call into question the legitimacy and accountability of individual public bodies, for a start. | Data-sharing between public authorities must remain justified and proportionate, otherwise it risks undermining public trust and confidence in much more than data-sharing. A presumption of data-sharing would call into question the legitimacy and accountability of individual public bodies, for a start. |
| Routinely collected data must not become routinely shared data.Dr Alex MayManchester | Routinely collected data must not become routinely shared data.Dr Alex MayManchester |
| • I was very pleased to read your front-page piece (18 October) on the investigatory powers tribunal ruling that British security agencies have secretly and unlawfully collected massive volumes of data on UK citizens. While most other media outlets have moved on from Snowden, it is good to see that the Guardian remains committed to shedding light on the laws that govern our security and law enforcement agencies. | • I was very pleased to read your front-page piece (18 October) on the investigatory powers tribunal ruling that British security agencies have secretly and unlawfully collected massive volumes of data on UK citizens. While most other media outlets have moved on from Snowden, it is good to see that the Guardian remains committed to shedding light on the laws that govern our security and law enforcement agencies. |
| It was, however, disappointing to see your paper give credence to the idea that Labour is opposing the government’s latest surveillance proposals. Despite calling the bill “draconian”, Diane Abbott failed to vote against the bill in the House of Commons, and this week in the Lords her party supported the government in passing proposals to collect and store all our web histories for 12 months. The Liberal Democrats are the only party standing up for civil liberties and privacy as Labour sits on its hands.Alistair Carmichael MPLiberal Democrat home affairs spokesman | It was, however, disappointing to see your paper give credence to the idea that Labour is opposing the government’s latest surveillance proposals. Despite calling the bill “draconian”, Diane Abbott failed to vote against the bill in the House of Commons, and this week in the Lords her party supported the government in passing proposals to collect and store all our web histories for 12 months. The Liberal Democrats are the only party standing up for civil liberties and privacy as Labour sits on its hands.Alistair Carmichael MPLiberal Democrat home affairs spokesman |
| • Have I got this right? In your article, the tribunal ruling states that the agencies acted illegally from 1998 to 2015 because their data-gathering was secret. Since 2015, when the activity stopped being secret, it is now legal, even though the same amount and type of data collection continues?Helen OwenThurnscoe, South Yorkshire | • Have I got this right? In your article, the tribunal ruling states that the agencies acted illegally from 1998 to 2015 because their data-gathering was secret. Since 2015, when the activity stopped being secret, it is now legal, even though the same amount and type of data collection continues?Helen OwenThurnscoe, South Yorkshire |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |