Time to get off the politics and lighten up a bit. Here's a fun little web site I found out about recently:
likebetter.com
It's very simple: it just just keeps showing you pairs of pictures and you click on the one you prefer. For whatever reason - content, aesthetics, whatever. No need to explain, just click. Simple and quite addictive.

If you register then other people can compare their preferences with yours like this:
Are you like Trevor?
So far so much mindless fun. Here comes the really clever bit:

After you've made a number of selections the brain graphic will turn pink. At this point the system will make statements that it believes apply to you based purely on your choice of pictures. It's not perfect but is uncannily accurate.

Some of the statements are pretty vague, such as "you live in a rural area". However it also managed to correctly deduce that I'm a liberal atheist who reads a lot and doesn't like mornings! As far as I could see there was nothing in the pictures to directly give that information.

I assume that behind the scenes is a clever neural network. It "learns" the associations between picture preferences and character traits without making any attempt to analyse or "understand" them. If any correlations exist, however subtle, it'll find them eventually. The more people that use the site the more accurate it gets. It's a neat idea that works really well.

The likebetter site is a perfect example of the surprisingly large amount that can be deduced about someone from seemingly trivial pieces of data; if there is enough of that data and a large enough sample to compare it against. It is in essence a form of profiling - using many trivial facts to build up a larger picture.

It demonstrates clearly how a large number of seemingly irrelevant pieces of data can be mined to accurately discover some very personal facts. It shows how apparently harmless data collection can in fact result in a massive invasion of privacy. likebetter is - as far as I know - a harmless bit of fun. Other applications of this technology might be less benign.

A simple web site can work out this much about you from mere picture preferences. Think how much more other people can today deduce from your shopping habits (credit and loyalty cards), travel history (transport smartcards), calling circle (phone/email records) etc.

And think how much more people will be able to deduce if everyone is issued an ID Card. A card which contains your unique, lifelong National Identity Register Number. A card which you are asked to show many times a day and which links to a central National Identity Register (NIR) recording every time the card is checked.

The likebetter people now know I'm a liberal, morning hating atheist. That will be nothing compared with the amount the government will know about our private lives once ID Cards are introduced.

ID cards NIR privacy UK politics ukpolitics

In an apparent attempt to gain public sympathy, former Home Secretary David Blunkett has said that his affair with a married woman left him on the "brink of insanity".

If he was any ordinary person, even a politician, then I'd probably feel sorry for him. But Blunkett wasn't an ordinary person - he was Home Secretary with responsibility for protecting our freedom, safety and way of life. He says himself:

"I was barely sleeping and yet I was being asked to sign Government warrants in the middle of the night"

More importantly he was also presiding over some of the most dangerous, illiberal and shamelessly authoritarian policies the UK has seen for over 50 years.

What does his revelation say about the wisdom of those policies? Do we want to keep the 1300 new offences brought in by a man who had spent the last 10 years wondering if it was worth getting up in the mornings and who was going through the acrimonious breakdown of a secret, illicit relationship? What does his state of mind say about his pet scheme to impose ID Cards and a vast, intrusive National Identity Register (NIR)?

And what does it say about the judgement of a Prime Minister who continues to champion those policies today?

Blunkett David Blunkett identity cards NIR Tony Blair UK politics ukpolitics

You might find this hard to believe but I really do try to avoid knee-jerk reactions to potential invasions of privacy. Some databases are actually useful. Information collection and sharing is fine in principle providing it follows the rules of consent and "need to know".

Which is why I haven't said anything about the proposed NHS Care Records Service (NHS CRS) system. This will - if it ever works - link up NHS records from individual hospitals and surgeries around the UK. So if I'm taken ill on holiday in Dorset the local doctor will be able to see my medical records from Edinburgh.

Of course there are practical questions: Will the data be secure and accurate? Will the system be reliable? Is it a worthwhile investment or a hugely expensive white elephant? But in principle I can't object to the goal of making health records available to medical professionals when required.

The idea of such a vast national system does, however, make me uneasy. I realised it wasn't just my knee twitching when I saw this line in the NHS Information Governance Review:

"There is considerable pressure to obtain access to data on the NHS Care Records Service from other government departments, public services such as the police and immigration services, and researchers"

To be fair, they do go on to say:

"Clear ethical values and standard procedures consistently applied are essential if the right uses of the NHS Care Records Service are to be secured and maintained. As the National Programme for IT Programme Board has already acknowledged, ethical, consistent and effective information governance is a necessity if these benefits are to be realised and public confidence maintained."

That sounds good, but once the system is in place the pressure for access will become greater and greater and any safeguards will be chipped away bit by bit.

I find it highly significant that although the document talks about "protecting patient information" the word "consent" doesn't appear once.

Of course you can argue that the police - possibly even civil servants - should have access to these records when they have reasonable cause to believe that they will assist for a specific purpose. Unfortunately experience has shown that "reasonable cause" soon becomes "standard operating procedure" and "specific purpose" soon becomes "fishing expedition".

However noble the intent of the Caldicott Guardians, political pressure for wider access to our private medical records will become ever stronger. Eventually that pressure will become irresistable.

On it's own the proposed NHS CRC is no threat. In a different political climate I might even have welcomed it.

But combined with this government's other attacks on privacy it has the potential to become yet another tool of the surveillance state.

NHS NHS CRS privacy UK politics ukpolitics