|
The Ordnance Survey is offering a free Explorer map to every 11-year-old in Great Britain from the
start of the 2004 autumn term. What has this to do with PITCOM’s latest probe into information sharing? Vanessa Lawrence,
Ordnance Survey's Director General and Chief Executive set the scene with an interesting description of Geographic Information. The OS web site http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/ says Geography is the common platform
that unites disparate datasets, opening the way to greater efficiency and increased effectiveness in meeting performance targets.
That statement was graphically demonstrated by Spencer Chainey, Director of Geographic Information Science at the Jill Dando Institute of Crime
Science at UCL. He showed that perception and fact are sometimes wildly different by looking at some crime data within London. Good data plotted on maps showed a pattern of crime significantly different from the perceptions of even local police officers. He went on to
site examples of how similar data can be used, such as in the Crystal Clear project in Liverpool, where work correlating glass injuries with certain pubs resulted in the bad ones getting
plastic glasses. Result, benefit to emergency services and A&E and reduced glass related injury.
Of course there is the flip side where existing data has been ignored or even destroyed. This will be the subject of further
intense coverage with the forthcoming publication of the report into the Soham murders. But the potential shown by good practice is encouraging and justifies further
development.
Paul Golding, a partner in Nabarro Nathanson, helped PITCOM put all of this into a real world context by quoting an information officer from a local
authority who said “There are still concerns about the lack of detailed guidance. How can we imply a duty to share information in the absence of express
powers? Surely this will encourage the same information to be treated differently depending on the “bravery” of the legal advice available. Often, whether (the department
in question) works under the same roof becomes a key consideration.” Many of the audience who had suffered daft interpretations of the Data Protection Act empathised with
that.
It is quite clear that there is widespread confusion regarding the legal framework and the issues raised by data protection and human rights
legislation interspersed with common law duties of confidentiality. Some of that “confusion” may well have its roots in administrative convenience rather than real legal
difficulties, but undoubtedly the Department of Constitutional Affairs advice lacks clarity in the eyes of many observers.
The opportunities are clear, as are the difficulties. The question that needs to be addressed is “Where should society place the
limits on the use of data?” Anyone who thinks that there are easy solutions should reflect on some simple examples and then tell their MP how parliament should deal with
the issues raised.
Starting with the “easy” one. It was alright for the Grimsby Evening Telegraph to keep back copies of their newspaper describing
allegations of sex attacks by Ian Huntley. Therefore the Humberside police decision to destroy all of their records on Huntley was wrong – or was it?
Or what about the situation where the police concentrate their resources based on good geographic information and your car gets stolen outside that
area, will you give an assurance that you won’t complain at the lack of police interest in your case?
Don’t you want the ambulance personnel to be able to instantly match your blood and know your allergies so that you stand a better chance of
survival in a serious car crash?
Of course there will be plenty of reasons why we should not increase information sharing and the debate will continue for some time
yet!
Andrew Miller MP, Vice Chair, PITCOM (Parliamentary Information Technology Committee)
|
