Via BoingBoing, a report that “. . . Over two-thirds of the population no longer trust the [UK] government with their personal data.” #
The report’s finding that centralization plays a role in the privacy concerns is a good one, and worth ruminating over. Privacy protection in the US has traditionally been less stringent than in Europe – ask a European PBX administrator about the reactions to displaying names on incoming calls in the 1990s, for example. But we have entered a time when data storage is essentially negligible relative to the potential future value of the data, so nothing is deleted. #
So, for example, every item you purchase using a credit or debit card can theoretically be stored and your purchasing history tracked (and perhaps sold). Or a political campaign worker can compromise your credit card information on its web site (committing numerous violations of CISP in the process). #
The benefits, and risks, of centralization have implications on how the US implements electronic medical records, for example. Already there are thousands of existing EMR databases in offices all over the nation – designing a solution for sharing that information that doesn’t result in undue security risks, and that patients trust will not be used against them, will be challenging. #
Technology consistently outruns regulatory oversight, and as a result entities that store personal data have an ethical obligation that exceeds the test of legality. “It’s not illegal” is simply not a sufficient standard to retain your customer’s trust. #
#