Identification practices in government citizen su

Authors: John A Taylor Miriam Lips Joe Organ

Publish Date: 2009/02/24

Volume: 1, Issue: 1, Pages: 135-

PDF Link

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the ambiguities and confusions that arise when studies of the ‘surveillance state’ are contrasted with studies of the ‘service state’ Surveillance studies take a largely negative view of the information capture and handling of personal data by Government agencies Studies that examine Government service providing take a largely positive view of such data capture as Government is seen to be attempting to enhance service provision to individual citizens This paper examines these opposing perspectives through a series of case studies and concludes that a new understanding and methodology should be brought forward so as to create a reconciliation of these two points of departure for research The call is for an holistic appreciation of data capture activities by Government so that researchers and public policy makers alike can appreciate and reconcile these competing perspectivesWe develop this theme of ambiguous confusion through an examination of our case study research1 on identification processes including forms of identity management in a variety of settings of ‘digital government’ By setting out this case study evidence we demonstrate the informationintensity that characterises the relationship between the modern state and its citizens In turn we set these case study findings against what we refer to as a ‘Service State’ perspective on the one hand and a ‘Surveillance State’ perspective Lyon 1994 on the other In sodoing we acknowledge the largely separate development and orientation of two bodies of academic writing that cohere around these two themes each of which is profoundly concerned with the application into forms of government service delivery of new information and communications technologies ICTThe content of the first of these bodies of writing the ‘service state’ literature has many variants including studies of access to and uptake of forms of ‘eservice’ providing eg Hagen and Kubicek 2000 Margetts and Yared 2003 studies of public service innovation and modernisation eg Bekkers 2007 and most recently the development of ‘citizencentric’ services and the encouragement of forms of data sharing and database management and development that permit informational integration at the point of the individual citizen in order to improve the service experience of the citizen Lips et al 2006 Taylor et al 2006 2007 Leben et al 2006 It is an empirically grounded literature basing its analysis and prescriptive reasoning on research evidence This academic literature has its parallel too in public policy reporting reporting that is focussed also on wider issues of citizencentricity such as the availability access to and uptake of online government services whether they be information services or transactional services and on intercountry comparisons eg Accenture 2005 Varney 2006The ‘surveillance society’ literature is primarily concerned that new technology developments offer governments and private companies affordances Norman 1999 for ‘knowing’ citizens and customers in new and more intimate ways than hitherto Its perspective is on the rapid development of the ‘surveillance society’ fuelled by inherent capabilities of newly available ICTs that include the ubiquity of information gathering on the activities of individuals the speed of information gathering and processing and the embeddedness of computer codes values and decision making assessments leading to ‘social sorting’ activities of business firms and governments alike Gandy 2000 Lyon 1994 2001 2003 Graham and Wood 2003 Surveillance Studies Network 2006 2008 Much of this work has a strong normative basis one that underpins the advocacy and campaigning stance of collaborations such as the Surveillance Studies Network This literature also has its parallel in public policy reporting The recent report from the Chief Surveillance Commissioner for the UK 2008 and the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs 2008 provide examples as will a forthcoming report from the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords expected in late 2008In this article we translate this surveillance society perspective into a surveillance state perspective Lyon 1994 one that is concerned with how informationintensive governments are using managing and implementing new modes of surveillance and with that the emergence of new forms of relationship with citizensA feature common to each of these perspectives is the centrality of citizen identity From within a service state approach identification and authentication procedures are viewed as a necessary precursor to high quality serviceproviding aimed at the individual citizen both in online and offline service settings as we show in our case studies below From the surveillance state perspective however this incipient concern to identify the citizen in many different settings is interpreted as marking a sea change in relationships between citizen and state one that demands constant and critical appraisal eg Bannister 2005 Thus the interpretive schemes of these two sets of observers lead them to opposing conclusions from observation of the same phenomena Whilst students and analysts of the service state are most likely to stress positive consequences for citizens emerging from new identification practices for students and analysts of the surveillance state the consequences are most likely to be negativeWhilst for the purposes of elucidation we present these perspectives as distinctive we note too the growing mutual appreciation emerging between them That is to say that a growing body of work suggests the need both to accept and regulate for an holistic awareness of the coexistence of the desire to enhance public services on the one hand and the risks attaching to such enhancement in the form of overweaning public scrutiny on the other Such awareness seems to mark out the emergence of a new ‘appreciative setting’ Vickers 1965 wherein new regulatory mechanisms such as a Privacy Council Bannister 2005 privacy audits Bennett and Raab 2006 ‘surveillance impact assessments’ Surveillance Studies Network 2008 would be introduced into emergent public service relationships between the citizen and government so as to realise a new mode of regulatory optimisation Vickers 1965

Keywords: