Listening to #CogX2020 panel on barriers to data trusts / institutions / stewardship
Usual challenge of language is being identified but not really pointing at the different goals of various actors, how context affects those goals, & the power dynamics in play.
As data is just an (imperfect) representation of our world, then it has all of the rich variety of that world but it also interacts with it and all of the other dynamics going in that world.
It obviously isn't easy, just look at everything that's happened this year :)
No one org - gov, academic, NGO, biz &c - exists that could or should lead on this kind of work.
Instead lots of messy debate, actual experiments, time & different visions to gradually work out how to make data work 'better'* for people
*for various definitions of 'better'
(In answer to a DM. Nope. I heard no new insights that came specifically from experiments, whether designed experiments or just from observing all of the data stuff that’s already happening)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If anyone in govt has evidence that a change in data protection legislation will help meet an "urgent need to raise GDP" in any way other than a short-term burst in services to update org-level data policies - & cookie banners, lol - then I'd love to see their modelling...
Quite sad to see the fears, and article as whole, exclude the fear that weakening data protection legislation - legislation which exists to protect people, not data - will lead to harm to people, and that that harm will not be equally distributed....
Ah, health data trusts "independent of the NHS and industry" to "allow startup companies access to NHS data" "as a way of overcoming concerns about confidentiality and the use of private information"
Rather than "overcoming concerns" I think people meant to say "using a new legal structure to sidestep existing legal forms of governance that are intended to protect both patient's rights and delivery of NHS services"
There are some useful idiots around data trusts in UK who still don't quite get that even though in some contexts they _might_ improve outcomes for ppl that there are other contexts where they're being used as a tool to do an end run around existing governance for commercial gain
The job ad says responsible for both IGDP *&* for strategy to transform way data is managed, used & shared across govt.
The job pack says reporting to Deputy National Statistician. No mention of either the planned govt Chief Digital Officer or Chief Data Officer.
Another responsibility is "increase public acceptability of the use of data in government" << obviously sometimes that will mean using less data than now, or than other officials want. I hope they both have power, know how to use it, & can speak truths to others who use it too
This BBC piece talks about some of data app collects that could be useful, it doesn't say why NHS test+trace haven't shared it so far and when they will
There's lots in here that's right - there was some great work and lots of Whitehall pushback - but there are lots of omissions of where GDS got it wrong.
Not just failed big projects - hello Verify, UC, RPA - there was too much focus on one lever 'civil servants building transactional services that end in a website' to change govt
While ppl would rave about ease of ordering a driving licence online, there were closed post offices
The steps from The App to discover what to do if risk level is high have been reduced by one, now 5 clicks, by addition of direct links to gov.uk local lockdown restriction pages on this FAQ page faq.covid19.nhs.uk/article/KA-011…
As the app has user's postcode area I suspect that humans that design computers could make it take a user straight to either the correct gov.uk page for their area or, better IMHO*, a local council page.
* better as local councils offer support as well as info
(Yes, I know some postcode areas cross council boundaries. Someone in GDS must have built a widget to identify & help users thru those cases. Right? Oh...)