WRITTEN ON March 2nd, 2008 BY William Heath AND STORED IN Uncategorized

We’ve written quite a lot about trust and e-government over the years. Where have we got to? Here’s an edited version of a brief I was asked to prepare:

The two are often mentioned in the same breath. But is there a connection? Which is the cart and which is the horse?

It seems to us the default starting position has been to assume a level of innate trust government’s competence and good intentions, and to count on that relationship as we build new public-service systems.

There’s a strong case to make that new more responsive and open systems will further improve trust in public services, or restore it where it has been damaged.

At the same time, as Gordon Brown recognised in his “Liberty” speech of October 2007, there is a risk of losing people’s trust if data are not properly managed (and of course since his speech that has been shown frequently to be the case).

There’s a positive case to be made that Transformational Government will build trust with more responsive and with personalised services. People will trust a modernised and more responsive NHS thanks to Connecting for Health. Children will be better protected thanks to the array of childrens’ databases and earlier interventions based on more comprehensive profiling. And the purpose of the ID System is at the same time to create better security and better access to public serivces.

Meanwhile checks and balances are in place. We have the HRA. We have the ICO working hard to check possible downsides, for example introducing new privacy impact assessments.

The new technologies can build trust. Government is certainly more open since central and local government introduced web sites. The latest MySoc web site shows the happy marriage between exemplary web design and the FoI law. Repressive regimes now see their secrets exposed on Wikileaks, and will perhaps feel pressure to mend their ways.

And there are more technologies that government is not yet widely using that could build trust further: privacy-enhancing tools, widespread encryption, biometrics, user-centric ID management tools or personalised health records services.

So the “glass half full” argument is that there is a basis of trust in government to build on, and the clear opportunity with contempory information systems to make it better.

The “half empty” view is that trust has to be earned not taken for granted, that the information age shines a harsh light on problems and current IT policies are making it worse, and that we in the UK (unlike, say, the Dutch or Finns) show no sign of yet accepting how deep we will have to dig in order to create the foundation of trust on which transformed services can be delivered.

Initially the expressions of concern about this have come from geeky privacy groups which robust politicians have managed to marginalise and ignore. But they are insistent and seem to be growing (No2IDnow has 40,000 paying members).

Concern about the competence of government IT went mainstream with the HMRC and subsequent data losses. Soon after, YouGov polled the first majority against the IPS NIS. And there’s a serious issue about online NHS record opt-outs

The debate (whether on health, children or NHS records) is unedifying. More broadly there is criticism of the use of stastics and scientific evidence (eg in the drugs debate). Electronic news media give us a shorter attention span, as Rowan Williams found out with his comments on Sharia law. There is no space for nuance.

Darker pictures, the successors to Kafka and Orwell, emerge in paranoid surveillance dramas such as the (partially UK-funded) Bourne Identity/Supremacy/Ultimatum trilogy, or the forthcoming BBC series “The Last Enemy”. “Dr Who” is liberally sprinkled with attacks on NHS IT or ID cards.

There is a growing chorus of concern from serious commentators, from the surprise documentary hit “Taking Liberties”, Henry Porter, Simon Jenkins even now Tim Garton Ash.

Perhaps The Economist government-technology special on 14 Feb (link above) is a fair current summary of intelligent opinion.

These appear to be real concerns. It seems they’re becoming more widespread. It seems fair to say they are not yet being well handled. Either we reject them, or we need to find a way restore trust, and fast. We have real choices to make, about centralisation and the architectures for key social systems that look after our finance, health and social records.

Perhaps what we need above all is to find a channel and rehearse a mode of discourse which works. It’s no good alientating anyone, and we must come up with some constructive, positive and practical suggestions.

It’s clear that up to a certain – pretty senior – level this is a conversation that makes Whitehall uneasy. At the same time it is absolutely clear that among an enlightened few, including those advising the very top government the growing trust problem is recognised and people are sending out feelers to find new ways forward. What can we offer?