Taking the privacy battle to the streets

On St George’s Day, we English are supposed to celebrate the small man’s victory against a tyrannical and fearsome foe. But when it comes to battling seemingly awesome opponents, I’m always inclined to wonder whether the villains are as monstrous as they first seem. Maybe it’s because George did such a sterling job, but I haven’t seen many dragons around these parts recently.

I’ve also been less than impressed by the valiant efforts of the villagers of Broughton, Buckinghamshire, to do battle against the oppression and intrusions of Big Brother, in the shape of Google’s Street View car. Manfully the good folk of Broughton defended their village against the camera-fitted car. But was it really an epic privacy battle that they won? I’m with the Information Commissioner, who rejected privacy-infringement complaints.

Perhaps my outrage over the apparent breach of human rights being perpetrated by Google’s Street View has been diminished somewhat by my decision to live in the wrong village.

You see, try as I might to persuade that little yellow man on Google Maps to venture beyond the boundaries of the M25, he’s just not having it. I’ve inadvertently found a very 21st century way to define myself as someone who lives in the sticks: Google’s Street View spy cars haven’t driven down my street yet.

Maybe if I lived in the sort of awe-inspiring village where the mere sight of its resplendent beauty would compel otherwise law-abiding citizens to thievery, I would feel differently. I might genuinely believe that a picture of my road appearing on the internet represented some form of intrusion and heralded the imminent breakdown of law and order in British villages.

But really, pretty much anyone is free to drive down my street, and if they’re so minded, take a photo and place it online. They might get into trouble if they turn round in the private road at the bottom of my street: one couple who lives there seem to relish any opportunity to shout at errant motorists.

I think the problem that the fuss over Google Street View highlights is that in today’s interconnected, data-hungry world, our notions of privacy are being challenged like never before. And as people wake up to the reality of just how much data is routinely collected about them, every new exercise in information gathering is treated with suspicion.

Take electronic patient records: the potential for gross intrusions into highly sensitive information is obvious ­ especially given the patchy security record of large public sector IT projects. Serious safeguards are quite evidently needed.

But it would be wrongheaded to get het up about privacy simply because the information in question has been digitised. Old paper-based patient records frequently went missing off hospital trolleys ­ – and there were no audit trails about who might have read them.

The digitising of information need not be a privacy problem providing adequate controls are in place. There are, however, real dangers if we start conflating unrelated issues and use privacy arguments where none apply.

I think it’s understandable that people are concerned about the lengths to which Google goes to preserve people’s search histories. Similarly, I can appreciate why people are spooked by the extensive records built up on them by credit reference agencies and loyalty card providers, much of it done without their knowledge. The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, was spot on with his warning about the dangers of us slipping in to a surveillance society.

While Street View might provide disconcerting moments for some – ­ like the poor woman who was widely reported to have found evidence of infidelity on the part of her husband – ­ it doesn’t involve anything that should seriously be regarded as reprehensible.