Joined-up government and privacy in the United Kingdom: managing tensions between data protection and social policy. Part II

Abstract

The tension between the goals of integrated, seamless public services, requiring more extensive data sharing, and of privacy protection, now represents a major challenge for UK policy-makers, regulators and service managers. In Part I of this article (see Public Administration volume 83, number 1, pp. 111-33), we showed that attempts to manage this tension are being made at two levels. First, a settlement is being attempted at the level of general data protection law and the rules that govern datasharing practices across the public sector. We refer to this as the horizontal dimension of the governance of data sharing and privacy. Secondly, settlements are also being attempted within particular fields of public policy and service delivery; this we refer to as the vertical dimension.In this second part, we enquire whether risks to privacy are greater in some policy sectors than others. We do this, first by showing how the Labour Government's policy agenda is producing stronger imperatives towards data sharing than was the case under previous administrations in three fields of public policy and services, and by examining the safeguards introduced in these fields. We then compare the settlements emerging from differing practices within each of these policy sectors, before briefly assessing which, if any, principles of data protection seem to be most at risk and in which policy contexts. Four strategies for the governance of data sharing and privacy are recapitulated -namely, seeking to make the two commitments consistent or even mutually reinforcing; mitigating the tensions with safeguards such as detailed guidelines; allowing privacy to take precedence over integration; and allowing data sharing to take precedence over privacy. We argue that the UK government has increasingly sought to pursue the second strategy and that the vertical dimension is, in practice, much more important in defining the settlement between data sharing and privacy than is the horizontal dimension. This strategy is, however, potentially unstable and may not be sustainable. The conclusion proposes a radical recasting of the way in which the idea of a 'balance' between privacy and datasharing imperatives is conceived.

Developing a data sharing framework: a case study

“…Information sharing between public sector bodies can lead to significant benefits for the partner bodies (Florence et al, 2011), and can inform policy and practice (Quigg et al, 2012). However, as Bellamy et al (2005) and Combe (2009) comment, there can be tensions between more extensive data sharing and privacy protection.…”

“…Data sharing (Ryan and Walsh, 2004;Otjacques et al, 2007;Bellamy et al, 2005) between UK public sector organizations needs to comply with the provisions of the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA, 1998). The UK Ministry of Justice oversees the overarching legislative and non-legislative framework for data sharing across the UK Government.…”

Population Objects: Interpassive Subjects

“…5 For example, housing benefit records are routinely matched with social security, national insurance and tax systems. Customer data from gas, electricity and telephone companies are also used to identify properties that may be part of fraudulent claims (Bellamy et al, 2005). Patterns, inconsistencies, or contradictions in these transactional categories are identified (e.g.…”

Alliance strategy: context, process, and requirements

“…Third, organizational conditions refer to the complexity of managing interactions between individuals both within and across organizations. This is especially the case when there exist different organizational standards and values concerning data and information sharing, absence of trust (due to concerns of autonomy loss, information interpretation incapability, or information misuse due to self-interested behavior), and power plays are involved (Arino et al, 2001;Bellamy and Raab, 2005;Dyer and Hatch, 2006;Gil-Garcia et al, 2007;Yang and Maxwell, 2011). In addition, a prerequisite for the exchange of data and information is the presence of common or adaptable operational procedures, control mechanisms and work flows to enable sharing (Premkumar et al, 2005).…”

“…In this new configuration, organizations struggle to co-create service and repair offerings, allocate roles, and organize accountabilities and revenues (Wende, 2007). In addition, collaborative outcomes must be secured against information misuse due to self-interested behavior (Bellamy and Raab, 2005;Dyer and Hatch, 2006), and knowledge leakages which could be harmful to the strategic positions of participants (Möller and Rajala, 2007). Moreover, sharing product quality information between a supplier and an asset owner as input for maintenance planning can be problematic when warranty periods have not yet expired.…”