Comments on: “Whitehall plan for huge database” – BBC http://idealgovernment.com/2007/01/whitehall_plan_for_huge_database_bbc/ What do we want from Internet-age government? Wouldn't it be better if... Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:23:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Ruth Kennedy http://idealgovernment.com/2007/01/whitehall_plan_for_huge_database_bbc/comment-page-1/#comment-1332 Ruth Kennedy Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:42:15 +0000 http://whitehall_plan_for_huge_database_bbc#comment-1332 I think this is a perfect example of where a much more intelligent, properly deliberative approach to citizen engagement is required. Trustguide (www.trustguide.org) whose praises have been sung on these pages before is the exemplary forerunner. You need to enable the public to explore what these new technologies mean in practice before you can ask them to consider what the impliations might be, whether they like the idea, and how it might be made to work most sensibly. I dpn't think being 'briefed' (by whom??) on pros and cons is nearly good enough for people to think through the logical ramifications of decisions in this area. I think this is a perfect example of where a much more intelligent, properly deliberative approach to citizen engagement is required. Trustguide (www.trustguide.org) whose praises have been sung on these pages before is the exemplary forerunner. You need to enable the public to explore what these new technologies mean in practice before you can ask them to consider what the impliations might be, whether they like the idea, and how it might be made to work most sensibly. I dpn’t think being ‘briefed’ (by whom??) on pros and cons is nearly good enough for people to think through the logical ramifications of decisions in this area.

]]> By: andyl http://idealgovernment.com/2007/01/whitehall_plan_for_huge_database_bbc/comment-page-1/#comment-1331 andyl Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:55:07 +0000 http://whitehall_plan_for_huge_database_bbc#comment-1331 Hmm a few issues here. Firstly the data-sharing aspect. This will as others have mentioned drive a massive hole in through the Data Protection Act and make it meaningless for national and local govt. However, I do admit that there are times when an individual wants to provide a piece of information to multiple aspects of government. For example if granny dies you might need to tell the local council (for council tax), the tax office, pensions etc. As far as I can see this can be done quite effectively without linking databases together. Secondly, I want to talk about the "citizens' panels". There are some obvious possible problems with them with regards to how representative they can be. For example it is easy to reflect ethnic, gender and age representation. However in respect to other aspects it may well be harder to remain representative. Many types of individual may choose not to participate - either on the grounds they would not want to be involved with the govt. in this way, can't be bothered, too time-consuming to travel to the panel, or simply they are too busy with work. Next, as I understand it the govt. ideas will be presented to the panel before discussion begins. As no presentation of an informed contrary nature are likely to be presented I feel this stacks the deck a little too much towards positive outcomes. It seems that the only counteracting presentation of the opposite opinion will be through the media (which has hit the ground running with this story). Would it be better if the panel could call for countering opinion from the opposition parties and experts? Also what happens when the panels give positive outcomes but public opinion (through polls, letters to MPs, and organised groups) swings against the government. Will the government try and absolve themselves of responsibility and blame the panels? Will they consider the panels opinions more highly than public opinion (because the panels have had it all explained to them). I feel that citizen's panels are an OK means of grabbing a handle on general opinion (esp. in the cases where the panels are not led by the nose too much). I am unsure if they are an effective means of altering policy and feel that there is a danger of the government of the day using them as a "get out of jail free" card when public opinion goes against them. Hmm a few issues here.

Firstly the data-sharing aspect.

This will as others have mentioned drive a massive hole in through the Data Protection Act and make it meaningless for national and local govt.

However, I do admit that there are times when an individual wants to provide a piece of information to multiple aspects of government. For example if granny dies you might need to tell the local council (for council tax), the tax office, pensions etc. As far as I can see this can be done quite effectively without linking databases together.

Secondly, I want to talk about the “citizens’ panels”.

There are some obvious possible problems with them with regards to how representative they can be. For example it is easy to reflect ethnic, gender and age representation. However in respect to other aspects it may well be harder to remain representative. Many types of individual may choose not to participate – either on the grounds they would not want to be involved with the govt. in this way, can’t be bothered, too time-consuming to travel to the panel, or simply they are too busy with work.

Next, as I understand it the govt. ideas will be presented to the panel before discussion begins. As no presentation of an informed contrary nature are likely to be presented I feel this stacks the deck a little too much towards positive outcomes. It seems that the only counteracting presentation of the opposite opinion will be through the media (which has hit the ground running with this story). Would it be better if the panel could call for countering opinion from the opposition parties and experts?

Also what happens when the panels give positive outcomes but public opinion (through polls, letters to MPs, and organised groups) swings against the government. Will the government try and absolve themselves of responsibility and blame the panels? Will they consider the panels opinions more highly than public opinion (because the panels have had it all explained to them).

I feel that citizen’s panels are an OK means of grabbing a handle on general opinion (esp. in the cases where the panels are not led by the nose too much). I am unsure if they are an effective means of altering policy and feel that there is a danger of the government of the day using them as a “get out of jail free” card when public opinion goes against them.

]]>