back to article MPs' proposal to cash in on public-private algos given a solid 'maybe'

The UK government has tentatively accepted calls from MPs to monetise public sector data – but would rather brag about existing efforts to encourage responsible use of algorithms. The House of Commons Science and Technology issued its report on algorithmic decision-making in May, and the government has this week published its …

  1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    The report lists the members of the committee in the form of

    Name, MP (Party, Consituency)

    and also list the names of their supporting staff. Wouldn't it be great if it listed their full qualifications for being on a science and technology committee: their degree and/or memberships of chartered professional bodies? They do have additional qualifications other than just being MPs don't they? Likewise it would be useful to know if any of their supporting staff also have relevant qualifications.

    1. DavCrav

      The chair is Norman Lamb. He was a solicitor before becoming an MP. His science connection is that his father was a professor and his great-grandfather was a famous mathematician.

      The next one on the list is Vicky Ford. She was a banker, but is married to a doctor, who's almost a scientist. Both of her parents were doctors too.

      Third on the list is Bill Grant. He used to work for the Fire Brigade. And he likes motorbikes, which have technology in them, so that's the link I guess?

      Darren Jones is next. He's the closest to science that I have found, because he has a degree in something sciency. Human bioscience, followed by work in the NHS for a while, and then, well, solicitor.

      I haven't bothered looking further down.

      1. DavCrav

        Actually, this gets quite depressing.

        Liz Kendall has a degree in history and then was a politician. Stephen Metcalfe was a printer.

        First scientist! Carol Monaghan did a degree in laser physics, then became a science teacher at a school. I mean, I'll take whatever I can get at this stage.

        Damien Moore did a history degree and then was a store manager at ASDA. Neil O'Brien did PPE and then became as far as I can tell a political parasite. Martin Whitfield was a lawyer and primary school teacher.

        Graham Stringer is the only actual genuine scientist in the group. He studied chemistry, and then worked as you know, a scientist.

        In future, the S&T Select Committee should just be Graham Stringer, with occasional visits from Carol Monaghan.

  2. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    WTF?

    "MPs [..] call for this to be leveraged"

    So it is official : the UK government is selling out on its own people.

    This will undoubtedly set a precedent that other governments will be only too happy to follow.

    Ain't civilization grand ?

    1. nematoad

      Re: "MPs [..] call for this to be leveraged"

      Being politicians they are willing to sell their granny for a few extra votes so selling your data to their commercial friends is no cause for concern to them.

      You, of course, may not be so relaxed

    2. analyzer
      Mushroom

      Re: "MPs [..] call for this to be leveraged"

      Don't forget that their, their families and any other exceptions that they can think of will be excluded from the data sale.

      After all they are probably already fully aware that data anonymising is actually really hard :-P

      Icon, is this how we restart it all over again?

  3. SVV

    Privatising the public

    Members of the public, that is. It's a nice idea, but I suspect some of the reactions to the proposal in the comments here may be of a slightly negative nature.

    To sooth the reservations about all their private data being monetised by the state, the government should have a trial period, say 10 years, where the data being released for said commercial exploitation is restricted to that of Conservative Party MPs and members, and their families, just to prove to us that no bad consequences are at all possible from doing so. Absolutely everything the state holds will be available, including HMRC, NHS, snoopers charter snoopings, etc. Maybe even "open source" it to allow innovation to flourish and prevent data monopolies being formed by those with the deepest pockets. I am sure the voters would reward you at the ballot box when they can see just what data about them you are proposing to sell for commercial exploitation.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Privatising the public

      "Absolutely everything the state holds will be available, including HMRC, NHS, snoopers charter snoopings, etc."

      Can we extend that to banking, ecommerce etc. credentials for anyone, MP of any party and non-MPs alike, who says "If you have nothing to hide..."?

  4. }{amis}{
    Thumb Down

    Sweep stakes anybody??

    Days until this gets compromised and turns into yet another government IT disaster.

    My bet minus several months either nobody has cottoned onto the disaster yet, or Whitehall is doing its best to bury the mess before to goes public.

  5. iron Silver badge
    FAIL

    Data Quality

    If they want to monetise government data they are going to have to greatly improve its quality. In a previous job I pulled public data on the UK oil industry from DECC - that data was in a slightly different format every time they published it, often contained corrections to data they had previously published up to several years previously and was often less than accurate. Similar data published by the Norwegian government was accurate, reliable, standardised and had a great deal more detail than the DECC data. In comparison the UK data was total garbage and if I had to pay for it I wouldn't bother.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Data Quality

      from DECC - that data was in a slightly different format every time they published it, often contained corrections to data they had previously published up to several years previously and was often less than accurate.

      From a different sector I can confirm that government data is shit, even when there's no reason or excuse. But I don't think we're talking about the shonky data produced by the third raters of the civil service. I think that the prize here is mainly health data. There could certainly be huge benefits (although no different to those that could be garnered from other large, developed nation state health providers), but the one thing we can be sure of is the incompetence of our government in making sure that the data owners are rewarded. It'll be Google, IBM or drug companies who make out like bandits, and the NHS will get tuppence. On the plus side we really might (just might) see some therapeutic benefits.

  6. Wolfclaw

    One small point, all this data they have collected, cannot be used, as no informed consent obtained under GDPR for third party usgae and collected explicity for the function intended !

    1. DavidD

      RE: as no informed consent obtained under GDPR for third party usgae

      As I was reading the article I was wondering about that. Will British citizens still be protected by GDPR after Brexit?

      I have a feeling they will not, as GDPR only protects the data of citizens of the European Union and British citizens data will be placed under the legislation of the UK's Data Protection Act 2018 after leaving the EU.

      If that's incorrect, please let me know as I'm wondering what will happen myself.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Meh

      GDPR

      One small point, all this data they have collected, cannot be used, as no informed consent obtained under GDPR for third party usgae and collected explicity for the function intended !

      That won't stop them. They already don't ask your permission before flogging your driver details, which you must provide by law, to those car park bandits. And in the JRM Nirvana that is a No-Deal Brexit, you will have exactly the same level of data protection that the poorer citizens of any other third world banana republic have.

  7. Alperian

    I am the mark

    Okay? So we paid for the government to collect the data and now they sell it back to us. They have already tried to do this to some extent with the census. I know this because I bought some genealogy info and found out that my grandfather was a sea turtle called Max.

  8. Pen-y-gors

    Ethics?

    The government also pointed to its Data Ethics Framework,

    That would be the follow-up to the government Suthics Framework?

    Government + Ethics? ERROR: INCONSISTENT DATA. DOES NOT COMPUTE

  9. Teiwaz

    Patting themselves on the back

    They're very good at that, while expecting the latest over budget, unfit for purpose project rolls creakily out to fall over unceremoniously the first morning it's in use (remember those old b/w films of 'wacky races' style aircraft).

    I don't expect the thought that the customer data free-for-all of the last ten to fifteen years should be another wild-west new tech anomaly like revenge pron, and not something to be adopted wily-nilly like the bright idea of using children to clear out running looms during the early years of the Industrial Revolution???

    I am warily in favour of NHS data being judiciously and carefully used to improve treatments and care, but calls to monetise the information the government holds on the citizenry lacks any ethics whatsover.

    I'm not confident of any Ethics frameworks from anyone who would consider such a betrayal of the populance they are supposed to serve.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    MPs call to monetise public sector data

    How about instead, they make our Public Records available on the Internet, instead of having to pay-per-page to see it through multiple Freedom of Information applications, which will then only be returned to you in the form of photocopies and by surfacemail.

  11. Teiwaz

    How about instead, they make our Public Records available on the Internet, instead of having to pay-per-page to see it through multiple Freedom of Information applications, which will then only be returned to you in the form of photocopies and by surfacemail.

    Seemingly our Public officials prefer the publics records remain as exclusive as the Public Schools most the senior bods attended

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    'Data Ethics Framework'

    Nothing to fear.... Except this is all where it seems to be headed:

    ____

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2018/06/18/chinas-social-credit-system-spreads-to-more-daily-transactions/

    https://www.cnet.com/news/black-mirror-too-real-in-china-as-schools-shun-parents-with-bad-social-credit/

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2018/jul/12/algorithm-privacy-data-surveillance

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43428266

    https://neweconomics.org/2018/07/whats-your-score

    https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/germany-mass-surveillance-social-credit-china-big-data-886786

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/13/we-created-poverty-algorithms-wont-make-that-go-away

  13. 89724102172714182892114I7551670349743096734346773478647892349863592355648544996312855148587659264921

    This government seems to think it's a Silicon Valley Startup

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like