The Times: Tech column - UK online/The Onion/Airport screening
By David Rowan
There was quiet satisfaction in Whitehall last week at the news that almost half of British homes are now online. This Government, after all, has pledged that all its services will be delivered electronically by 2005, and the growth in home access - as well as the 6,000 local Web centres promised by December - adds to the pressure on departments to get wired. So how are they doing?
Don't get too excited. The main UK online website (www.ukonline.gov.uk) leads to a wealth of factual information, but don't expect to interact digitally with government just yet. Yes, you can buy software to file a tax return online. Sure, you can apply online to join a quango - though to be considered you must mail in your signature. Beyond that, there's nominating someone for an honour or buying a TV licence online. That hardly makes Britain the pinnacle of e-democracy.
Slowly, however, the bureaucracy is waking up to the benefits of two-way conversations with citizens. It is even starting to take Internet voting seriously: in May's local elections, we may see some remote casting of Internet votes. It is also making it easier to do business electronically, for instance by recognising contracts that contain digital signatures. The key, of course, is to make it easy for us to communicate securely and confidently with all branches of government. And that is where "digital certificates" come in.
Digital certificates, held on your computer, contain personal identifiers that let you exchange information securely with other websites. The Government sees them, together with smartcards, as the future. They can send vast amounts of personal data securely using a "dual key" encryption process. The Inland Revenue is already using digital certificates; eventually they will give dozens of government agencies secure access to your data. But once vast amounts of your data are being passed around Whitehall, an important question arises: who gets to control it? Whenever you interact with government, local or central - from your planning application to your speeding fine - you will leave a searchable record. We might be grateful, in the fight against terrorism, that MI5 can easily mine these various databases to detect worrying patterns of behaviour. But the State has not yet explained how it will protect our personal privacy as it does so.
Dr Ian Kearns has been studying the risks for the Institute for Public Policy Research, and he concludes that the Government's online strategy will give it the most detailed picture ever of individuals. The emerging e-government network, he warns, creates "vastly increased monitoring and searching potential", yet no guidelines have been laid down to protect us.
What if official databases are combined so that software can profile us? Could hospitals reject patients as likely troublemakers, or police monitor teenagers deemed high-risk? Dr Kearns warns that we must address "the implicit threats of increased surveillance and monitoring by the State" before technology overtakes the discussion.
We need this debate, and quickly. Last week, the Chief Constable of North Wales, Richard Brunstrom, told MPs that roadside speed cameras should record digital images of drivers' faces, which could be matched against databases to track potential wrongdoers. Do we really want a relationship with government that lets it identify us in detail and know exactly where we are?
Until I know where my data is going, I'm not going to give the State any electronic information that I can provide on paper. Some things should be relatively private.
++++
It has taken a while to find a laugh in Microsoft's epic legal battle, but finally this week The Onion (www.theonion.com), the Web's best satirical journal, hits the bullseye. Below the headline "Judge orders God to break up into smaller deities", the paper reports that the Lord has been found in violation of anti-monopoly laws. He's used his might to build a marketplace hostile to other deities, and now faced being split into a pantheon of specialised gods. And though his lawyers did not deny the charges, they argued "that God offers followers unbeatable incentives in return for their loyalty, including eternal salvation, protection from harm, and fruitfulness". Worshippers should now get a faster prayer-response time - although reform might take some time. God's lawyers are, of course, planning to appeal.
++++
Here's one disconcerting use of database technology already in the pipeline. The US Federal Aviation Authority is close to testing a system for screening passengers, based on instant analysis of personal data - from people you live with, journeys you have previously made, even the magazines to which you subscribe. When you check in, software packages will send warnings to airline staff based on complex analysis that scans dozens of databases in search of worrying patterns. "This technology gives us a pretty good idea of what's going on in a person's mind," boasts Joseph Del Balzo, who's working on the project. All very well - but if you have ever seen your credit history, you will know how easy it is for errors to fill your file. How will you convince the system that you're not a potential terrorist?
(The Times, February 4 2002)
There was quiet satisfaction in Whitehall last week at the news that almost half of British homes are now online. This Government, after all, has pledged that all its services will be delivered electronically by 2005, and the growth in home access - as well as the 6,000 local Web centres promised by December - adds to the pressure on departments to get wired. So how are they doing?
Don't get too excited. The main UK online website (www.ukonline.gov.uk) leads to a wealth of factual information, but don't expect to interact digitally with government just yet. Yes, you can buy software to file a tax return online. Sure, you can apply online to join a quango - though to be considered you must mail in your signature. Beyond that, there's nominating someone for an honour or buying a TV licence online. That hardly makes Britain the pinnacle of e-democracy.
Slowly, however, the bureaucracy is waking up to the benefits of two-way conversations with citizens. It is even starting to take Internet voting seriously: in May's local elections, we may see some remote casting of Internet votes. It is also making it easier to do business electronically, for instance by recognising contracts that contain digital signatures. The key, of course, is to make it easy for us to communicate securely and confidently with all branches of government. And that is where "digital certificates" come in.
Digital certificates, held on your computer, contain personal identifiers that let you exchange information securely with other websites. The Government sees them, together with smartcards, as the future. They can send vast amounts of personal data securely using a "dual key" encryption process. The Inland Revenue is already using digital certificates; eventually they will give dozens of government agencies secure access to your data. But once vast amounts of your data are being passed around Whitehall, an important question arises: who gets to control it? Whenever you interact with government, local or central - from your planning application to your speeding fine - you will leave a searchable record. We might be grateful, in the fight against terrorism, that MI5 can easily mine these various databases to detect worrying patterns of behaviour. But the State has not yet explained how it will protect our personal privacy as it does so.
Dr Ian Kearns has been studying the risks for the Institute for Public Policy Research, and he concludes that the Government's online strategy will give it the most detailed picture ever of individuals. The emerging e-government network, he warns, creates "vastly increased monitoring and searching potential", yet no guidelines have been laid down to protect us.
What if official databases are combined so that software can profile us? Could hospitals reject patients as likely troublemakers, or police monitor teenagers deemed high-risk? Dr Kearns warns that we must address "the implicit threats of increased surveillance and monitoring by the State" before technology overtakes the discussion.
We need this debate, and quickly. Last week, the Chief Constable of North Wales, Richard Brunstrom, told MPs that roadside speed cameras should record digital images of drivers' faces, which could be matched against databases to track potential wrongdoers. Do we really want a relationship with government that lets it identify us in detail and know exactly where we are?
Until I know where my data is going, I'm not going to give the State any electronic information that I can provide on paper. Some things should be relatively private.
++++
It has taken a while to find a laugh in Microsoft's epic legal battle, but finally this week The Onion (www.theonion.com), the Web's best satirical journal, hits the bullseye. Below the headline "Judge orders God to break up into smaller deities", the paper reports that the Lord has been found in violation of anti-monopoly laws. He's used his might to build a marketplace hostile to other deities, and now faced being split into a pantheon of specialised gods. And though his lawyers did not deny the charges, they argued "that God offers followers unbeatable incentives in return for their loyalty, including eternal salvation, protection from harm, and fruitfulness". Worshippers should now get a faster prayer-response time - although reform might take some time. God's lawyers are, of course, planning to appeal.
++++
Here's one disconcerting use of database technology already in the pipeline. The US Federal Aviation Authority is close to testing a system for screening passengers, based on instant analysis of personal data - from people you live with, journeys you have previously made, even the magazines to which you subscribe. When you check in, software packages will send warnings to airline staff based on complex analysis that scans dozens of databases in search of worrying patterns. "This technology gives us a pretty good idea of what's going on in a person's mind," boasts Joseph Del Balzo, who's working on the project. All very well - but if you have ever seen your credit history, you will know how easy it is for errors to fill your file. How will you convince the system that you're not a potential terrorist?
(The Times, February 4 2002)
<< Home