Joined-up government and privacy in the United Kingdom: managing tensions between data protection and social policy. Part I

The Labour government that came to power in the United Kingdom in 1997 made much of its commitment to ‘joined‐up working’, by which it meant horizontal integration between policies and co‐ordination across services. The particular manner in which it pursued this commitment has led to growing pressure for the sharing of citizens’ personal information among public service agencies. Yet at the same time, Parliament was engaged in implementing the European Data Protection Directive with a new Data Protection Act and the Government was honouring its manifesto commitment to bring the European Convention on Human Rights – including its enshrined right to private life – into domestic law. Government has therefore been obliged to find ways of managing the potential tension between these commitments. There are two analytically distinct dimensions to the arrangements through which this is being attempted. First, the horizontal dimension consists in initiatives that apply across all policy fields, and includes the establishment of cross‐governmental guidelines for implementing data protection law as well as the development of national policy on sharing personal data between public services. In 2002, the government published a major policy paper on data sharing and privacy. By late 2003, its approach to the need for legislation had changed sharply. The second analytically distinct dimension, the vertical dimension, consists in the laws, codes and norms developed in specific policy fields to govern relationships between data sharing and privacy within those fields. This two‐part article discusses these arrangements. Part I analyses the horizontal dimension of the governance of data sharing and privacy. Part II (published in the next issue) examines the vertical dimension in three fields in which tensions between data sharing and privacy have come to the fore: community safety, social security and NHS health care. Four options for the governance of data sharing and privacy are analytically distinguished: (1) seeking to make the two commitments consistent or even mutually reinforcing; (2) mitigating the tensions with detailed guidelines for implementation; (3) allowing data sharing to take precedence over privacy; and (4) allowing privacy to take precedence over data sharing. The article argues that, despite its strong assertion of (1), the government has, in practice, increasingly sought to pursue option (2) and that, in consequence, the vertical dimension has become much more important in shaping the relationship than the horizontal dimension. The articles argue, however, that option (2) is a potentially unstable strategy as well as being unsustainable.     

Surveillance and resilience: Relationships,dynamics, and consequences

“Resilience” is a contested term with varying and ambiguous meaning in governmental, business, and social discourses. Surveillance is increasingly relied on as an instrument for resilience, enhancing the capability of anticipating, preventing, or recovering from adversity, thus preserving the fabric of society and the state. However, surveillance itself might undesirably erode social freedoms, rights, and other public goods. In the present study we focus on the interrelationship of surveillance and resilience. Studying the relationships between surveillance and resilience requires not only the theoretical study of possible examples but also the exploration and evaluation of the resilient entity’s core properties, strategies, and tactics and the external observer’s stance toward the entity in question. Furthermore, different contexts may exhibit different effects of surveillance on resilience. For example, an increase in surveillance by a democratic state may lead to increasing resilience of the state in the face of terrorist attacks but may also lead to the decreasing resilience of that society’s ability to exercise democratic values. The various models generated by these differing relationships will be explored with relation to three examples: the surveillance of international migration, the surveillance of extremist views, and the surveillance of digital financial transactions.     

Revisiting the governance of privacy: Contemporary policy instruments in global perspective

The repertoire of policy instruments within a particular policy sector varies by jurisdiction; some “tools of government” are associated with particular administrative and regulatory traditions and political cultures. It is less clear how the instruments associated with a particular policy sector may change over time, as economic, social, and technological conditions evolve. In the early 2000s, we surveyed and analyzed the global repertoire of policy instruments deployed to protect personal data. In this article, we explore how those instruments have changed as a result of 15 years of social, economic and technological transformations, during which the issue has assumed a far higher global profile, as one of the central policy questions associated with modern networked communications. We review the contemporary range of transnational, regulatory, self‐regulatory, and technical instruments according to the same framework, and conclude that the types of policy instrument have remained relatively stable, even though they are now deployed on a global scale. While the labels remain the same, however, the conceptual foundations for their legitimation and justification are shifting as greater emphases on accountability, risk, ethics, and the social/political value of privacy have gained purchase. Our analysis demonstrates both continuity and change within the governance of privacy, and displays how we would have tackled the same research project today. As a broader case study of regulation, it highlights the importance of going beyond technical and instrumental labels. Change or stability of policy instruments does not take place in isolation from the wider conceptualizations that shape their meaning, purpose, and effect.     

公共政策研究的新进展

近年来,公共政策研究正变得越来越多样化,出现了大量方法和理论,也表现为这些研究分散在各种特定领域的政策中。国家概念是政策理论的中心,但要将国家理论应用于政策研究却不容易“。阶段”方法是政策研究中长期以来占主导地位的研究方法之一,但它只是一种初级方法。新制度主义方法将政策制定过程推向了一种重要的比较分析方式,为解释政策的异同提供了制度解释维度,但它太笼统,考虑范围过于宽泛。而新制度主义者经常选择特定政策领域或部门进行分析,这是一个重要进展,因为政策制定是在特定部门或领域中进行的,仅仅集中关注国家及其行政、立法、司法机构是不够的。政策网络方法体现了研究者对于政策制定中国家与社会组织之间更普遍、更早的兴趣,但它除了描述外并不能帮助我们在理论发展中走得更远。理性方法是一个很有用的方法,当然它不能把理性选择作为对决策的惟一解释。在合作模式中,国家及其各个层次不再被看作合作的惟一机制,它表明市场和网络作为合作的另一种机制或原则正越来越受到重视。而时下十分流行的治理理论并没有形成真正行之有效的手段和方法,它可能仅仅是一个时髦词汇。如果把治理的要点放在使国家、市民社会、市场、网络这些不同工具和机制的互相协作上,治理就会成为一个有创造性的和深刻的分析方法。     

EMPOWERMENT,INNOVATION, AND SERVICE: LAW SCHOOL PROGRAMS PROVIDE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND INSTILL A COMMITMENT TO SERVE

Law schools around the country seek to fill the legal needs of their communities in ways that are both innovative and mutually beneficial to clients and students. This article describes five pro bono and clinical programs, at the University of Richmond School of Law, The Earle Mack School of Law at Drexel University, Catholic University Columbus School of Law, the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, and Vermont Law School, where law students, under the supervision of law professors or community professionals, provide assistance or legal representation to underserved and often marginalized populations needing help with family law problems, including parents accused of abuse and neglect, youth aging out of foster care, homeless families, survivors of domestic violence, homeless veterans with addiction problems, and female prisoners. To develop their programs, the five law schools from the outset collaborated with partners in the community, and they continue to do so as their programs expand and evolve. In addition to helping and empowering clients, these law schools are providing experiential learning opportunities that are transformative for their students. The authors hope that these programs will be instructive for law schools, other academic institutions, the legal community, and community organizations in developing creative collaborations to ensure better access to justice.     

Dark Networks as Organizational Problems: Elements of a Theory 1

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we try to understand and interpret why and how dark networks manage to survive despite massive control efforts by nation states, thus demonstrating a high degree of resilience. We approach this question from an organizational perspective looking at the (organizational) changes dark networks undergo in adapting to attempts to destroy them. We draw on insights based on the analysis of how Al Qaeda changed after the massive control efforts by some of the world's most powerful nation states since their attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001. In order to develop more general propositions, we contrast the Al Qaeda case with the development of the organizational structure behind the cocaine trade from Colombia to the United States after it had become the object of massive control efforts by the U.S. during the 1990s. Through the analysis we inductively develop a theoretical framework for the analysis of dark networks. Central to this framework is the assumption that dark networks, which are resilient, manage to rebalance differentiation and integration mechanisms in their internal structure and adjust to the new requirements in their task environment based on the actors, their linkages and resources available in order to persist and maintain some capacity to act. We further identify drivers and facilitators stemming from larger societal and political problems that create the motivation for new people to join dark networks. The analysis shows that control efforts that are directed towards the organizational extinction of dark networks will be likely to fail as long as the central problems behind their existence are not tackled. We conclude by sketching out an agenda for future organizational research on covert and illegal networks and organizations.