Select Committee on Home Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260 - 277)

TUESDAY 26 JUNE 2007

PROFESSOR CAROL DEZATEUX, DR IAN FORBES AND PROFESSOR SIMON WESSELY

  Q260  Mr Benyon: In the United States, for example, they throw away the key. It is Alcatraz if you breach data protection. We have a slightly different attitude in some respects in this country.

  Dr Forbes: That is about sentencing policy and how you treat adults and children. I do not think that is an issue about data, frankly. Teenage hackers will show you how vulnerable your systems are, so they are very useful in fact. To punish them for your own failures in your own systems I think is cruel. If I could just come back to your example of the fax, I think it is a terrific example where the specifications for a database, for example the NHS database, will have been, "We want a database that does this, this and this". Has anyone gone round and asked, "I want to know from all of you medical professionals what things have gone wrong that the system should look at and come up with some way of dealing with?" Instead of just a new specification, it is a problem specification. We know that this is going to happen; we know that this is typical; we know that that happens. Design it, please, not so that it is going to do all these lovely things but so that it will address some of these common problems with records that the medical service knows about. I think that is the way that you can build in protections.

  Q261  Gary Streeter: Dr Forbes, you mention in your paper some concerns about the invasion of privacy caused by the four million CCTV cameras we now have in this country, although they make our constituents feel safe and they want more of them, not fewer, I think. What are your concerns and can you give some concrete examples of this invasion of privacy?

  Dr Forbes: I think having four million cameras is already an invasion of public privacy, which seems not to have been a consideration by members of the public. They have just given it away, in a way. There are examples of the way that cameras have been used to the detriment of particular individuals and groups of individuals, women for example. The next problem is going to be an extension of that, if there is no check or consideration about what the invasion that is taking place might turn into, because now coverage by cameras is mostly digitally stored, so it is there for ever. Like anything else, it is just data which can be mined, explored and new technologies and new software can look at that data again and again and pull more things out of it. Effectively, your act of walking down the street may become interpreted as something very different in the future. At no point has consent been given by an individual entering a public space. At most, they are warned that they are being watched, if at all, if there are signs around. Basically the message is: we are watching you, do not misbehave. It is an incredibly negative and critical message to be sending out to any citizen, it seems to me. The idea that at some point in the future somebody could say, "Right, this person wants to stand for public office. Let us Google them to see what is available in the past. Let us run some of these softwares and say, `See the way this politician walks—completely dishonest, and we know this from gait recognition technology. Why are they over there? What is going on?' " I can see parties that would be interested in doing that sort of negative take on a person's past, either a party or the press or the media.

  Q262  Gary Streeter: What is the solution to then? Is it not to take the pictures in the first place?

  Dr Forbes: I do not think you can stop taking the pictures. They are there now. The cameras are there. If you think about health and safety legislation, more or less everybody is asked to do a risk assessment on what is happening in a particular situation and you get a proliferation of warnings and signs and a lot more awareness of what your behaviour might end up as or the harm that might come to you. I would have thought you need more signs saying, "You have come into this area and we are going to have your record and we are going to do what with it". I would like to know if it is going to be stored and where, how and who gets access to it. The other side of it is to say: let us think about this in a positive way instead of in a negative way. What might I want to know about what happens in my public space that I enter into and go out of on a daily or weekly basis? I would like to have access to see what is happening. I also would like to know why people are watching this. What is the use value of watching that space? What is their justification for it? What are their reasons and what are they looking for? Mostly they are looking for bad behaviour but the community might want to ask: when we are surveilling this piece of public space, let us think not about justice and crime issues, security issues, but about care issues. Might we look at this much in the way that the NHS does and say: we are not looking for behaviour; we are not looking for an individual who might be criminal, but we are looking for things that happen to the detriment of society. We might say that there is a problem here for this group of people. It is hard for them to get around; they are not serviced by the way this space is configured. There are lots of ways we can think about how we care for ourselves in our community by looking at what we capture on our images, on our webcams.

  Q263  Gary Streeter: This is what you mean by new and socially beneficial uses of surveillance technologies. Does that not mean that basically more people will be looking at these images so that there is even more of an invasion of privacy?

  Dr Forbes: Then the people might say, "Let's not look there". We might say that we want this camera a bit further away. We can see the benefit of watching this area but we do not see the point of intrusive watching. We might say, "Let's have some information of a different kind collected. When do we need lights on or not need lights on?" There are all sorts of things. You do not really know. The community is being watched all the time but we do not get to say from our perspective that something else might be done. There is no opportunity for creativity and innovation coming from people. The technology is there. It is a bit like text messages. The techies did not design texting for us. People decided that it was quite handy and they used it, and it became prolific and ubiquitous. We have already got the surveillance which is ubiquitous but the uses of it are not in our possession, even though it is always of us in our public space.

  Q264  Chairman: Can I be clear here that what you are suggesting is that communities should be invited to come up with ideas about how community-based surveillance should take place. You are not suggesting, or are you, that every member of the community should have the same access to the cameras and televisions pictures as, for example, the people who working in the CCTV control centre would, who are sackable, dismissable, prosecutable should they breach regulations?

  Dr Forbes: Why not introduce reciprocity? If you can see me without my consent, then I think I ought to be able to see what you are watching.

  Q265  Chairman: One reason might be that I am happy for the images to be looked at by somebody who has been through a reasonable recruitment process, who is properly managed, who will be sacked if he breaches it and, as we have seen in a tiny handful of cases, actually prosecuted, whereas my next-door neighbour may just be a nosey parker and the last thing I want them to do is keep an eye on who is walking the street with whom.

  Dr Forbes: They probably do that anyway by looking out of the window! I want to shift the balance here really. There is a dilemma of privacy and security but there are not any other creative possibilities going on of care, concern and interest of people saying, "Actually we do not want it". There is no opportunity for that. I just think (a) that people should always be consulted before cameras are set up and they should be asked why and how and contribute to that; and (b), yes, let them see what is going on, let them be bored, if they like, as well and see what happens.

  Q266  Gwyn Prosser: Dr Forbes, I want to ask you about privacy impact assessments. The Information Commissioner came before the committee and he described them as nothing much more than a discipline and a risk management tool and he seemed quite keen on them. You seem to conclude that risk impact assessments might actually work against privacy, which seems counter-intuitive. Can you give us the grounds for that view?

  Dr Forbes: First, if there were risk impact assessments, I would not have a problem with that but they do not say that. They call them privacy impact assessments. I have not seen one that says, "This will impact upon your privacy in the following way". They all seem to say, "This will not affect your privacy because we have terrific systems which never fail and, in any case, if they do, we will fix it almost straight away".

  Q267  Gwyn Prosser: We have heard a little of that from our other two witnesses this morning.

  Dr Forbes: No, I do not think that is the case at all.

  Q268  Gwyn Prosser: This is a system with treble locks which will not affect privacy.

  Dr Forbes: Yes, and it is about protecting that privacy, which is assumed to exist, so there is not really a discussion about what privacy is in the first place and is it privacy to me as an individual or a member of a family or a group or a profession or career? None of those things are clear and so I do not see how you can actually do a privacy impact statement unless you are clear about what the privacy is supposed to be. Mostly they seem to be compliance statements or best practice statements. I do not think any of them actually say, "This is your privacy and this is how it will impact upon it for good or ill". If they did, that might be interesting, but they do not.

  Q269  Gwyn Prosser: You have nothing positive to say about their possible introduction at all?

  Dr Forbes: No, because I think they are mis-named and they give you the impression that they are looking after your privacy but they do not do anything about that at all. If I want to know how good a system is, please tell me how good your system is for managing data.

  Q270  Gwyn Prosser: Would it help with regards to some public assurance to assure the public that the impact has been considered, the risks of privacy would be considered if the system was put in place? Would that be possible?

  Dr Forbes: I would like to see a consultation on what people think is private and what needs to be kept private. Most of them just conform to the legislation, it seems to me. You want to introduce some legislation that says: this is privacy, this is what it means, this is how it might be damaged, and do a check list that way. Then it might be interesting, but at the moment I think they are misleading.

  Q271  Gwyn Prosser: Can you tell us anything about the experiences in the States and in New Zealand and Canada for instance where they are already in place to a degree?

  Dr Forbes: They all seem to be the same. They are about compliance. I read the Homeland Security one yesterday and it was a joke really because it basically said, "We have a very good system and these are the three ways we protect our data and they trust us. If it breaks, we will fix it pretty soon"—if you find out, but you cannot find out. You cannot be compensated. If we think back to the popular environmental impact assessments, the evidence is that 90% of the time they do not really have an impact on outcomes. They have got to be able to say: yes, no, or do not know. If they say "yes" they are accepted pretty much. If they say "no", they might have an impact but mostly they do not. That is what I worry about with privacy impact assessments. If somebody really did say, "Look, this is going to affect our privacy", and I do not know who is going to do them, usually it is in-house, then it is doubtful that anything would change.

  Q272  Patrick Mercer: Turning now, if we may, to profiling, to all of you, what particular problems are associated in your view with predictive profiling to target deviant or unusual behaviour?

  Dr Forbes: The key problem here is that there is a shift that is often unacknowledged but is crucial from a person's behaviour to the identification of that person as something. I might see your behaviour but that does not mean I understand who you are or know who you are. Criminal activity does not mean that person is a criminal. They are a person engaging in criminal activity but the shift from one to the other is very quickly made once you go for predictive profiling. A person comes before you. They are scanned through your profiling system and then they are labelled. They are labelled, not their behaviour. They are labelled. That is the problem. They are then treated as if they are equivalent to that label. It is just as lazy as stereotyping. You need cohorts and you need to understand your data, but it is a way of using new stereotypes.

  Q273  Patrick Mercer: What can we do about it?

  Dr Forbes: I think that information is crucial. If somebody wants to gather my data and work up a profile of me, I need to know that. That would impact on my privacy. That I would like to know about in a privacy impact statement. This data is going to be used to profile me. That would impact on my privacy because I would not really know what was going on. I do not know the routines. If you think way back to the St George's Medical School, it had a fantastic points system for admitting students until somebody realised that if you had the lowest number of points, you got in but if you were a woman you got an extra 10 points; if you were an ethnic minority person, you got an extra 10 points, just because it was in the system. So perfectly reasonable people who were not wanting to discriminate were running this system and producing discriminatory results. You do not always know what is going into those assumptions that construct the profile and you cannot really be sure what is coming out. Most of this stuff is done by companies for their convenience and for their maximisation. It is not really a public interest profiling that we are talking about to which you might agree.

  Q274  Patrick Mercer: Do you accept that profiling may have a legitimate part to play in crime fighting, counter-terrorism or to enable the police effort to be concentrated in the most effective way?

  Dr Forbes: Yes, but it is full of dilemmas, is it not? Yes, you want them to target their efforts. However, past experience shows that the targeting of the efforts often turns out to be discriminatory in practice on the ground, so that its use is complicated. It may well be that there was more crime amongst a certain group but why is that? It may be because that group is already targeted and more crimes were picked up. There was a report recently that shows how much middle class crime there is, which is just not picked up. Why is not the profiling targeting all these middle class criminals?

  Q275  Patrick Mercer: Could NHS patient records, for instance of psychiatric patients, not be of assistance to the police in allowing them to profile people who potentially pose a threat to the public?

  Dr Forbes: I think that sort of data is so difficult to get right that I would be very concerned about that.

  Professor Wessely: I never thought that I would even discuss this but 20 years ago I did my PhD on the prediction of violent behaviour in people with schizophrenia. The problem is that it is incredibly inaccurate. It is okay for a large group of people and so you can make predictions about large samples in populations, but when it comes to the individual, it is incredibly inaccurate. The risk of hazard and detriment to that individual being deprived of their liberty for things that they are not going to do is very high as opposed to the one person who is going to commit a serious offence. Back when I did the research, you would be locking up something like 30 people who were not going to commit a serious crime—and this is for schizophrenia—for one who was, and I do not think it has changed that much. I am not up to date. The second point is: I cannot see any circumstances in which the police would be allowed access to, of all things, mental health records. Of all the things that are sensitive personal information, speaking as a consultant psychiatrist, that would not happen. The only way that it would happen would be through a court order, which already we would have to obey but it would be fought tooth and nail. It would be so destructive to how you deal with psychiatric patients and how you manage mental health services, it would just be quite an appalling future. I have not heard that proposal.

  Professor Dezateaux: In fact it might be helpful if the police were to come and talk to epidemiologists, because they do know quite a lot about associations being a fallacy in terms of individual predictions.

  Q276  Chairman: Professor, that is one of the areas we said we might question you about, but you are a child health expert. The Government is constructing a database of children apparently, and one of the aims is some sort of predictive profiling to recognise children who are seen to have a bigger set of risk factors. Can I ask you what your view is about that? Do you share the general concern about the inaccuracies of profiling or, given there are so many cases where children have slipped through the net through the failure to share information between different professions, and so on, is there actually a value in that database that is being created?

  Professor Dezateaux: Yes, firstly, I do believe there is, but I think you need to make the distinction between how it allows you to deliver effective care to an individual child and avoid some of the Climbié, and so on, tragedies that we see repeatedly and stepping back and saying: how does that information at a group level, at a population level, help you in other ways? If we take, first of all, the opportunities to identify whether there have been concerns about a child, we know that quite a few children do end up in contact with healthcare before they are harmed and that it is at the moment very difficult for anyone to get access to information that would help them know that there had been any concern. Because people are conservative, there are often many more concerns expressed about a child than there would be things that would be in the public domain, even being registered at risk. So I think this information can be useful and it obviously needs to be accurate, and, again, it needs to link across a unique identifier to avoid children being incorrectly identified. I think the same point is evident, that just because certain factors are associated with an increased likelihood of a behaviour, it does not mean that just because they are present in an individual that they are behaving in this way, and I think that healthcare people need to be aware of that, but I think in terms of Every Child Matters, child protection issues that are terribly important, this is an advance.

  Q277  Chairman: One final question, if I may. I want to go back to the concept that you floated and then moved on to about community assent as an alternative to individual decision-making about this. Dr Forbes has perhaps floated one model or one approach to be used in relation to CCTV, but could you say briefly what you have in mind? We can say we have all been elected by communities and, therefore, if we all say it is all right, that is community assent, but I do not think many of us would push that out too far with our constituents. If the focus on individual control of data is not quite the right one, how would you express this community assent?

  Professor Dezateaux: I think there are certain types of activity that are a class of activity where one can actually debate the principle of that and come to a position for an infrastructure with checks and balances that would be acceptable. Currently, as it is, we do not actually have a process that engages the public. So, I think that trust is very important but I think that Onora O'Neill has shown very clearly that trust that relies upon this individual consent, whenever studies have been done, show that actually informed consent is an ideal that is very, very hard to achieve at an individual level and that, in fact, you may have a better process by using community assent. However, I think it needs public engagement, accountability, communication and transparency in the systems. I think that happens within some of our ethics committees and related processes, but I think that it needs to be perhaps much more explicit in our system so that people are aware that, if they can go and visit their doctor and talk confidentially, that their data can also visit me as a researcher and will be treated with exactly the same respect as they would get from their GP.

  Chairman: Thank you. Can I thank all three of you. That is an enormously helpful session. It gives us a great deal to think about. Thank you very much indeed.





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 8 June 2008