Politicians should use their own expectations of privacy to judge how far the government should go when digging through databases and marrying up disparate information on individual citizens. That's the conclusion of a report published by Tory think tank Policy Exchange, which counts among its list of trustees California-based …
"...£22m spent on a team of web consultants and developers "
Is this the same crowd that screwed up so badly on the parental internet controls consultation (the site is back but the on-line form is still out).
This whole data accumulation and mining idea is pretty scary, but if the consultants and developers are indeed those who borked the online consultations, I don't think the minister's plans are going to work any time soon.
Re: "...£22m spent on a team of web consultants and developers "
I'm sure RBS can put them onto a first class team in India for far less than that...
A famous quote applies
By Benjamin Franklin: "They that give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor security."
I cannot see government departments or their multitudes of contractors or their poorly vetted temporary staff abusing a big database containing all the details of its citizens. No not at all! Plus they would have to re-write the Data Protection Act as they could be collecting personal data and using it outside of a defined purpose. I'll pass on giving my consent thanks.
What happened to that election promise of no more big vanity IT projects?
"Big Data" is the current corporate
fad priority for my employer too. At the moment the main benefit as far as I can see is you get to see serious-looking besuited business types say the word "hadoop" a lot, a sight which I find quite funny for some reason.
"Politicians should use their own expectations of privacy ..."
No, they should use laws and published regulations. We have seen what running a country using politicians' expectations/morals/urges leads to: a big stinking mess.
Public benefit / interest
Increasing appeals to justifications of "public interest" and "public benefit" started with Blair's government.
In one gem from that administration, the definition of "Public Interest" included "the purpose of securing the efficient and effective provision of public services" - which could be interpreted as ANYTHING that saves money or reduces effort in the delivery of public services. And "public interest" trumps privacy.
Big data as in Big brother more like
Like most of the tory government, Maude is a right cock.
Do you believe a politician when they say "to help it adhere to the highest ethical standards in its use of data".
What would the government know about "ethical standards"? Do they turn on the TV/read the rags?
Christ, big brother is here to stay! And you have no say on it at all.
The Magna Carta is so 1215 A.D.
Data trends are in uniform motion (c.f. Newton's First Law). Newton sexed up Cannon Balls by suggesting that you put the Cannon Balls in a Cannon, and you could control the Cannon. He did not presume to tell Governments what they could and could not do with Cannon Balls and Cannons.
Big Data Alchemy is different ... add money and uniform motion turns into Ice Cream. It turns out that if you add money to anything the result is Ice Cream, just ask any Economic Man. But do not ask him to share any of his Ice Cream, nor suggest that it is everybody's Ice Cream. That would be like Newton telling the Government what to do with Cannons (c.f. Title).