Personal Data
Government needs to minimise its personal data holdings to the bare essential. Holding data that is not needed, or wrong, or outdated is poor practice and potentially dangerous - both for government and the person it relates to. It is also expensive: the growth of an unknown number of systems, all requiring hardware and software and people to feed and water them, to hold duplicated copies of our personal information is wasteful, and very "un-green". There is massive waste in an infastructure that duplicates and sends around personal information in this way.
Government needs to think hard about what it needs to hold and why and what role citizen control of data should play. And where government does need to hold data, it needs to ensure it is held appropriately, without unauthorised or casual access, and that citizens can easily hold operators to account for any suspected or actual breaches of confidentiality. The government's role may equally not be that of holding personal data itself, but of ensuring a framework within which data can be held where the citizen chooses (in the same way it regulates the banking system but does not dictate at which financial institution a citizen chooses to keep their money).
The current environment, whereby information given to say the DVLA is then sold on for another purpose, neither respects the principles whereby people interact with government, nor does it build the trust needed for a more widespread acceptance of how government services might be modernised and delivered using modern technologies.
More widely, questions have also been raised about some of the legality of current government databases and whether they breach human rights legislation.
The mindset probably needs to be changed too. This isn't just about systems and technology. It's about the respect that people have for information and details that relate to other people. Of course government needs access when required to appropriate personal information in order to deliver the services we are asking it to deliver to us, or to check that we aren't defrauding it (and our fellow citizens). But that doesn't mean it has to always hold and control access to that data.
How do we use the ideas in "It's ours - why we, not goverment, must own our data." [http://cps.org.uk/cps_catalog/It_s_Ours.html#a686]
next steps
One practical step that needs to be taken is to audit the information assets that government has, the information assets it actually requires in order to deliver its services, and the way in which the current inefficient, costly and insecure world can be transitioned cost-effectively, and in a timely fashion.Unless someone can point us at it, there does not seem to be any government information strategy: nor indeed any analysis of public sector capabilities and requirements that would help shape such a strategy. An information strategy would normally be part of the responsibilities of a CIO (hence the "I" in the job title). However, the Whitehall CIOs at present seem to be focused on "IT" rather than "I" - although without an information strategy the role of technology is hard to define and justify.
Gotomeeting Strategy
Some very easy elements to understand are in the form of personal data and web conferencing. For example, the gotomeeting trial system works rather securely and morally stays intact in most cases.We need to define an owner of govt information strategy and a plan to drive through the analysis, review and delivery of information assets, information requirements, and technology implications. This needs to be routed in pragmatic policy guidance about the desired capabilities of the public sector over the coming 10-20 years.
(see also trust, dignity & legality under human rights & DP law ).
Back to CTPR Ideal Government IT Strategy home page
Please see the creative commons wiki attribution license.
There are 5 comments on this page. [Display comments]