Sometimes the experts are not what they seem

A debate on civil liberties with, among others, former shadow home secretary and libertarian of the moment David Davis last week revealed some interesting things about perceptions of technology.

A number of high-profile commentators in the media - notably Henry Porter in The Observer and Simon Jenkins in The Guardian and Sunday Times – have based their opposition to what they term the "database state" on what seems to be an inherent fear of technology.

In December last year Jenkins wrote: "What needs to be private must stay in our heads or be put on paper under lock and key. We should get out of this cul-de-sac [government IT investment] and invest in Manila envelopes."

Earlier in the same piece Jenkins dismissed as "crap" the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD's) £7bn Defence Information Infrastructure project – a scheme that the National Audit Office last week said was "an essential element for the success of operations and [for the MoD] to conduct its day-to-day business".

Jenkins and Porter both have a problem with the Transformational Government strategy. Jenkins calls it "sales pitch rubbish" while Porter, writing in The Observer, sees it as a more sinister "merger of all government databases in a monstrous implement of surveillance."

The problem is they don't understand it. Porter says the plan will potentially allow a criminal to "surf" from one database to another, while Jenkins calls it "something called e-government."

The Transformational Government strategy aims to connect information that is already held by government to improve the effectiveness of its use.

So, for example, a person would need to notify only one government department – rather than several – of a relative’s death.

The strategy was hailed by the UK privacy watchdog the Information Commissioner's Office as "providing benefits to both the general public and to government itself".

Porter and Jenkins ignore the benefits of technology. Increasingly people are filing tax returns online for example – this year more than 3.5 million people, an 80 per cent increase on last year.

And a report from the Public Accounts Committee said the number of forms which can be completed online should be increased, improving the service.

Broadband access is now considered by many to be almost a basic human right, not an imposition of the state.

During the debate last week Porter said he no longer felt free when surveyed by a "network" of surveillance cameras around the country.

There is no network. Very few surveillance cameras are linked to a central "nerve centre" - 80 per cent do not even belong to the government.

This watered-down Ludditism is dangerous because it panders to the population's most base instincts. People fear what they don't understand.

Perhaps this is the government's fault. If rather than trying to spin ID cards, it was clear and open about the benefits and the dangers of a national identity register, perhaps commentators and the public would not be so suspicious.

On the other side of the debate, tabloid outrage over crime could very well nudge the government further and further towards a universal DNA database – calls that can really only be counteracted in a similar, simple, tabloid style.

Perhaps a free, informed open debate on every government policy is too much to ask for.

What is not too much to ask for is that each issue be considered on its merits. Grouping "government IT projects" together as always a bad idea is not constructive.

Critics have a tendency to write off any government use of IT as a disaster waiting to happen.

Each case should be considered on its merits, and, more importantly, those with the loudest voices should be the most informed.