Britons say Government getting it wrong on privacy

Britons think the Government is getting it wrong on aspects of privacy and don’t trust some of its flagship policies, new polling has revealed.

Liberty, the human rights organisation which commissioned the polling, has called on the Government to listen to the British public and use the upcoming leadership change as an opportunity to reset and win back the public’s trust on privacy.

The polling revealed public unease over both digital ID and police use of facial recognition technology. The Government has carried out public consultations on both policies, but we are still waiting for its own response to the findings in both cases.

The Government’s flagship digital ID scheme was a particular cause of concern among Britons, the polling found, with three in four people saying they were concerned by the potential for a cyber-attack and data being compromised.

Other key findings revealed:

• Nearly two thirds of people are concerned about sensitive personal data like health records being shared and used by other parts of the government.
• Nearly two thirds of people are concerned over not being able to use a physical form of ID like a passport or driving license to access Government services.
• More than six in ten are concerned about the UK Government being able to track where and when a digital ID is used

Public pressure has already led to one Government U-turn on digital ID in January this year, with ministers announcing they had dropped plans to make the scheme mandatory.

But Liberty said the extent of ongoing public concern revealed by these latest figures show the Government must go much further to ensure any future scheme protects people’s rights.

Liberty has long warned the scheme proposed by the Government falls far short of its promises on privacy, pointing to the Government’s bad track record on keeping people’s data safe – mistakes it seems set to repeat by building digital ID on existing systems which have already been exposed to have serious failings.

A good digital ID scheme would put people in control of how their data is used, Liberty said, but the current proposals put people’s data at risk and link data across government – creating an unprecedented surveillance tool.

The public is also divided over the roll out of facial recognition technology by police forces across the country, and more than four in ten said it should only be used once laws are in place to regulate police use.

Police use of facial recognition has continued to expand despite the fact the legal frameworks the Government has promised are not yet in place – most recently with the Metropolitan Police expanding the use of live facial recognition, drones, and AI across London.

Meanwhile there have been multiple concerning revelations over police use of facial recognition unearthed by Liberty Investigates, Liberty’s editorially independent journalism unit, including hundreds of children as young as 12 being included on watchlists, and police forces lobbying to use facial recognition systems they knew were racially biased.

Liberty has called on the Government to halt the rollout of the technology until there are safeguards in place – something we now know the public also wants.

Akiko Hart, Liberty director, said: 

“The British public are right to be concerned about their privacy – it is time for the Government to listen and have an honest conversation with the public about the risks of its surveillance schemes.

“The Government’s flip flopping on digital ID and the fact it has allowed the expansion of intrusive facial recognition technology without safeguards has eroded assumptions about what is and is not private – and how that is protected. From walking down your local high street to starting a new job, more and more of the everyday things we take for granted will be tracked or require some kind of digital oversight and approval.

“The new Prime Minister has a unique opportunity to hit reset and win back the public’s trust. It is time for the Government to prioritise protecting our right to privacy instead of expanding surveillance and state power without meaningful safeguards or accountability in place.”