Breakfast in Phuket

Posting written by msweeks over 4 years ago.
Last comment over 2 years ago, 2 Comments.

Just finished a fascinating 3 days in Phuket, Thailand at a government and technology conference.  There were speakers from all over Asia offering fascinating insights into the astonishing ambition and scope of the eGovernment agenda in this part of the world.  And an amazing array, too, of different stages of development and progress. 

There was lots of talk about new collaborative approaches to improving citizen service, which meant government agencies had to work out better ways not just to collaborate between each other but with a whole lot of other players outside government.  Which raises tricky questions about the quality of the data that gets generated and stored.  Who will set the standards to make sure all of those different players can rely on the data they need and share?  Who owns the data?  Who gets to take responsibility if the data is incorrect or faulty in some way? 

Wonder if the concern about data quality and ownership is partly a smokescreen to disguise a deeper resistance to playing the collaboraiton game?  Perhaps that's unfair.  But there's a risk, maybe, that while we're sorting out the details of data ownership and quality, the collaboration bandwagon will roll on through the new opportunities of social networking.

The ownership thing is interesting too.  I think who owns the data is much less important than who has access to it and under what conditions. The power of ownership as a proxy for control is  diminishing...I think.

Comments

Default_avatar_medium Unknown User

Chris Cook said: I'm reminded of the first time I met Cisco's Simon Willis at a Unisys gig on Money Laundering he was hosting (fresh out of the Treasury) at the Unisys campus in St Paul de Vence, France (very nice).

One of the contributors - Hamish Pringle , ex Saatchi, from memory - had commissioned a UK survey of who people trusted with their data.

The EU was last (25% ish trusted), UK government next last (about 40%); Microsoft, maybe 50%; Marks & Spencer came second best at > 60% and step up the winner : Boots the Chemist got over 80% trust rating.

My long held view is that the requirement is for a "Custodian" "Identity Foundation" funded by businesses and institutions collectively and cooperatively on a "Not for loss" basis to "own" data as "trustee".

This ties in with Simon's brilliant 10 minute conclusion/ summing up of the gig which was to the effect that while every other activity or application may or may not require payment, it is the payment/ clearing function - uniquely - which requires Identity.

He went up even more in my estimation when these words of wisdom turned up in Pole Position in the next day's Financial Times.

I thought then... "this man will go far"....!

posted over 4 years ago

Default_avatar_medium Unknown User

Martin Stewart-Weeks said: You're right, Chris, he is brilliant and he has gone far...

Two ideas...the first is that the best custodians of personal data are the people about whom that data is created. The second is that, if we either can't or don't want to take on that responsibility directly, it is a role that could be taken on by civil society - basically, non-government organisations whose stock-in-trade is trust. Maybe that is what an Identity Foundation is? My sense is that this is a job for a wide range of organisations prepared to take on the role of identity custodian. The worst thing would be to create another monolith, even if it was a nonprofit monolith. The basic principle should be competition and choice amongst potential identity custodians.

IBSG Public Sector is about to release a draft white paper dealing with exactly this issue, with a central focus on three interdependent ideas - risk, control and acountability...more to come soon.

posted over 4 years ago