The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s recent consultation into ‘illegal databases’ has revealed – what ‘we’ all know to be true; that personal information records frequently overstep the line when it comes to social ethics and the protection of individual privacy. In short we have a data State. Or rather our State is based on our data; which includes the archiving and retrieval of our personal data.Other news to hit today is that ‘7% of MPs’ are now ‘on Twitter’. Does this mean that ‘they’ (the Mediated Member’s of Parliament (MMP’s) few) have added themselves to the ranks of the socially mediated many? Or that this is simply scope for shameless self-promotion and a new task for their PA to include into daily updates? But do not forget to be included on WeFollow - the Twitter's new directory for user's (find me as 'mazphd'; 'academic', 'writer' and 'web2.0')
Back to the JRF Reportage which recommeds that ‘A quarter of all government databases are illegal and should be scrapped or redesigned’ – one in particular that stands out for critism is the NHS databases. A ‘health’ care system that cannot be trusted to hold potentially sensitive information or to update consistently for reliable patient records. So aside from being costly; frequently such systems can be criticised for being an ‘ethical and administrative disaster’. But where does the responsibility lie? With ‘them’ as the recorders and holders of our data, or with us? The Data Protection Act is there to safeguard our rights, ‘subject to request access’, to gain information that is held about us on Government databases.
Socially we are being data sorted. Our data is pervasive and increasingly personal. However, the appropriate measures and societal implications are all too easily overlooked - even if we are keen to volunteer information for public directories such as Twitter's WeFollow; Facebook etc.
And so are we to hit a mediated epidemic? We are not so far from the (fun?) scenario of the spoof scenario of the Future of Pizza Ordering – a situation that has unforeseen social consequences…
By dialing for delivery the clip shows how individual's will be subject to data-veillance;
‘you don’t want to order that, linking to your health records indicates that your waistline is already over the optimum health ratio’ Advises the voice on the end of the line.Here the convergence of personal data is overlaid with Government databases that volunteers information in a way that is designed for ‘our own social good’. Whilst the clip satirises the consumer from a pizza-hungry-perspective, it is suggestive of the more sinister side of data-veillance. One where ‘evidence getting’ is perceived as an acceptable and approved social act.
Until the Government and other organisations get it ‘right’; we are more than a consumer; a ‘pro-sumer’ or mere web participant. We are already in the records of data projects and organisations and this has long-term implications headed by unknown social objectives. Perhaps it is time we started recorded them?...
