2. David Cameron and his retinue of consumer marketing experts, by contrast, project a complicated and mixed message. They will tear up the contract for ID cards. But not the contracts for the National Identity Register database nor the biometrics database. They advocate nudging, if you remember, and they seek to control people’s volition by the appointment of a so far unnamed responsibility neglect tsar:

Cameron Conservatism puts no faith in central direction and control. Instead, it seeks to identify social and environmental responsibilities that participants in the free market are likely to neglect, and then establish frameworks that will lead people and organisations to act of their own volition in ways that will improve society by increasing general wellbeing.

Take a look at Cameron’s latest speech, particularly:

By harnessing the wisdom of the crowd, we can find out what information individuals think will be important in holding the state to account.

You recognise that, don’t you, William – The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few by James Surowiecki. This is pop psychology where there should be principles. David Cameron really does seem to want to be the “heir to Blair”. There is no difference, it seems, between his thinking about politics and, say, David Miliband.

Let’s, indeed, as you suggest, make this a non-partisan forum. Let’s have a bit more mention of the Lib Dems. They, at least, recognise that politics is sui generis and not a branch of consumer marketing.

For many years I’ve taken the view that if there’s some simple things that citizens can do to enhance ‘life, liberty & pursuit of happiness’ for all, then it would be unreasonable not to participate.

So “an identity card” is a reasonable thing to be asked to carry. I’ve nothing to hide – and neither have so the vast majority of citizens. But then, in pursuit of making a simple (innocent?) commitment to citizenry more secure, more useful, it becomes over-complex, over-expensive, and arguably no closer to being either more secure or more useful. In transition from ‘innocent’ to ‘secure’, it comes to represent a culture that while professing to protect our liberties, achieves the opposite.

To have universal adoption of ID cards is not a task anybody would sensibly set themselves. There’s better routes for the average citizen, and the non-particpants are… etc etc
Managing by exception is the only sensible approach – but not one that seems to be understood by bureaucrats.

We’re all very willing to share our data with people we trust. Combine the loyalty card databases of the major supermarkets, petrol retailers and iTunes, and you’d have a vastly richer picture than any Home Office service. If Tesco Pharmacy offered a Health Check service, and drew conclusions about your health & eating/shopping habits, would you object if summary data were exchanged with your GP? & vice versa?

Until we trust our Government with our privacy, Government should get out of the data business and leave it to trusted 3d parties to deliver services that citizens find useful. Act as an agent for change, and an enabler for services which citizens value.

UPsum: an authoritarian approach to privacy & security is expensive, doesn’t achieve objectives, and undermines citizen’s trust.
Where Gov’t acts as catalyst & enabler, individual, social & commercial interests can achieve many objectives, at reduced cost & complexity. With added trust from citizens. ]]>