The 30 seconds kicks in as soon as you’ve finished reading this post.

The discussion around #stopsopaireland has focussed on the impact that internet blocking would have on fundamental rights of freedom of expression, and the EU legislative and policy frameworks and case law that exist to support that right and ensure it is protected in a balanced way.

There is another right that is important. The right to Privacy. In particular the right to Personal Data Privacy which is set out in Article 16 of the Lisbon Treaty. It is this Article that provides the basis for the EU’s Data Protection regime, changes to which were announced on Wednesday. Those changes will take a number of years to come into affect, assuming they are not bastardised and watered down beyond all recognition by national parliaments or the European Parliament responding to lobby groups.

But a functioning Data Protection framework is in existence day and it is policed in Ireland by the Data Protection Commissioner. Already this year they have engaged with the Dept of the Environment regarding the Household Charge database and with Dublin City Council regarding the transfer of personal data from Dublin City Council to a private company. And let’s not forget their audit of Facebook last year. And that’s just the high profile stuff that gets in the media. In my professional context I’m aware of the significant number of complaints they help people with each year as they strive to promote compliance with the Data Protection Acts in an increasingly complex information management environment and a financial culture where organisations and governments are trying to to less with more and often cutting the wrong corners in the process.

The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner serves the individual citizen, helping them with advice regarding their rights and acting to investigate and prosecute breaches of those rights. They also serve the Organisation (be that a Government department, a large multi-national, a local football team, or a student company selling jumpers on-line) providing education and advice (when asked) as to what steps should be taken to ensure the right balance is struck between the goals of the organisation and the rights of the individual. They don’t deal with just one sector of the economy. Anywhere personal data is being processed they have a role to play.

Saturday 28th January is World Data Privacy Day. It is one day in the year where Data Privacy is celebrated. Companies and regulators around the world have planned activities and events to celebrate the day (see here and here), but in Ireland it seems to be just another Saturday. Some of you might say that the Data Protection Commissioner should have lead the charge on this but, to be frank, they are under resourced in terms of numbers and budget and need to prioritise their efforts and energies to dealing with the actual and alleged breaches of people’s rights that come through their inbox every day.

So, to celebrate World Data Privacy Day 2012 I’m asking you to write an email to your TD, Minister, or other elected official asking them to comment, tweet, or in some other way make public

1. Their support for the principles set out in the Data Protection Acts and the proposed revised EU Regulation on Data Protection
2. Their commitment to ensuring the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner is properly funded and resourced to allow it to execute its duties under the Acts and the Lisbon Treaty in an effective and truly independent manner.
3. What one thing they will do by January 2013 to improve their personal knowledge of the Data Protection regulations.

I’ve even put sample text below so you can just cut and paste it. You can use the great contact form at Contact.ie to bulk contact your elected representatives (while you are there, why not donate to support the site), or you ca nmake the message personal and send it yourself from your own computer/phone/device/smoke ring maker. Heck, if you want to phone them or tweet them directly about this fire ahead.

+++ email text

Dear Sir/Madam

I write to you on the occasion of World Data Privacy Day, which is being celebrated globally on Saturday the 28th of January (mark your diary, it’s the same day next year).

Personal rights, particularly personal rights in relation to information and personal data, have been in the media a lot this past month. Much of the coverage could have been avoided had proper attention been paid to the requirements and obligations under the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003 which apply equally across a wide range of industry sectors, including Government

To celebrate World Privacy Day I would ask you to consider issuing a statement either by traditional press release, a blog post, or a tweet, that will tell your electorate where you stand on the following questions:

1. Do you support the principles set out int he Data Protection Acts and in the proposed revised Regulation on Data Protection announced this past week by Vice President of the European Commission Viviane Reding?
2. Are you committed to  ensuring the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner is properly funded and resourced to allow it to execute its duties under the Acts and the Lisbon Treaty in an effective and truly independent manner, as is required under EU Directive and the Lisbon Treaty?
3. What one thing will you do by this time next year to improve your personal knowledge of the Data Protection regulations.

Of these three questions, the second is one I feel is important.  Personal data is the currency of the new economy and it is a valuable commodity. The Regulator for the Personal Data Industry is the Data Protection Commisioner. One of the key lessons of the Financial crisis is that for a Regulator to be effective they must be correctly resourced and independent of Government or industry influences.

I appreciate your time on this and look forward to seeing your press release, blog post, or tweet expressing your support for #DataPrivacyDay, the principles of Data Protection, and the office and role of the Data Protection Commissioner.

====ends===

If you get responses please post a comment below so I can see what uptake (if any) there has been from our political classes.

Oh yeah, and it is being done by Regulation which means the rules will be the same across the EU.

But at its heart the fundamental principles remain the same. Organisations who seek to process personal data of individuals need to make sure that the ‘deal’ is fair. After all, to paraphrase Commissioner Reding’s comments at the DLD conference in Munich earlier this week

Personal information is the currency of the Information Age

And as with all markets where items of value are traded, checks and balances need to be in place to ensure the asset is valued appropriately and treated with care. Hence the focus in the new Regulation on concepts such as Privacy by Design, ensuring appropriate training of staff, specific requirements re: organisational governance and internal controls and clarity of documentation about the meaning, purpose, and methods of use of personal data. There is an economic trade off required to obtain the thing that is of value. That trade off is good management of Personal Data through the life cycle of the Information Asset.

As a Data Governance and Information Quality guy I’m glad to see that the legislators in my third area of passion have finally caught up with the need to ensure organisations have defined Quality Systems with defined decision rights and accountabilities over Information as an Asset.

So, while many of the rules are new, their roots are old. Based on my reading of the version of the Regulation that was leaked just before Christmas revealed a Regulation with one foot in the camp of Fundamental Human Rights (and the trade offs that need to be made there for economic activity to take place) and the other firmly in the camp of Quality Management practices and principles, with a clear focus on creating a Constancy of Purpose in management towards the goal of striking a sensible balance and ensuring a fair deal in the processing of personal data.

And that is where the problem begins.

There is a window now for national governments and the European Parliament to make contributions to the Regulation. Many in national government and the EP will make sensible contributions that will evolve the framework and make it easier to implement in practice.

However, in a month where one Government Minister acted in blissful ignorance of the Data Protection Acts one week, another flew a policy kite that would require an illegal extension in scope of the database being built by the first Minister, and where the unelected officials of the largest City Council in the country appear to be unable to point to the legitimate grounds on which they transferred the personal data of over 100,000 residents to a private company, I hold out little hope of sensible debate and dialogue from the Irish body politic.

In a month where we greeted the year (for the second year in a row) with a story about poor planning of projects involving personal data (both under the stewardship of the same person) I hold out little hope of sensible engagement from the Irish body politic.

And in a month where the reversal of a bad law to control copyright on the Internet (SOPA) after leading websites across the world “went dark” we find a Junior Minister of the Government, in the Department that is in charge of attracting and retaining exactly those companies who opposed the US law, seeking to implement a similar law by Statutory Instrument with no debate or discussion, even after the legal position and EU policy position has changed in relation to Internet blocking, and only the opinions of the dying industry this law would protect seem have been sought in advance, I hold out little hope for the Irish Body Politic not to make an arse of this.

And as for the Irish media… with a few notable exceptions the absence of attention to Data Protection issues (except where it involves embarrassing a Government Minister and the copy can be lifted from this blog) is staggering. So yet again I hold out little hope of sensible engagement.

Adapting to the new Data Protection landscape will require individuals to change their mind set. But I fear that the entrenched attitudes in the body Politic and the traditional media may be such that Ireland (the little nation that faced trade sanctions in 2003 for not implementing Directive 95/46/EC by 1998 as we were required to) will fail to step up to the plate and drive the change in thinking and attitude necessary to achieve sustainable and sustained change in Data Protection practices in Ireland.

W. Edwards Deming wrote in his famous 14 Points for Transformation that it was essential for the transition that organisations “Institute Leadership”. I see precious little leadership in this area from our politicians and only dazzling pin-pricks of illumination from the main stream media. So I must keep my hope guarded in the face of the likely knee jerk reactions against the changes and the almost inevitable white noise of ignorance until the Regulation passes into law with a direct effect sometime in 2014.

Prove me wrong. Please.

Except that that isn’t what they had uncovered. The setting out of the statistics they had found in the sensationalised way they presented them was a gross distortion of the facts. A distortion that would, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, “be half way around the world before the truth had its boots on”).

The 9th Doctor

BBC’s iconic series of the same name. In a genre that often falls for the easy charms of technology to drive a story, The Doctor (a 930 year old, two-hearted time travelling Time Lord from the Planet Gallifrey) invariably highlights and thrives on the Human Factor – the innate potential, ingenuity and power of the human beings (a lesser species) who he befriends, protects, and travels with.

Over the years I’ve tried to adopt and adapt some of the principles of The Doctor’s approach to leading Information Quality and Governance change projects:

There is nothing that can’t be solved by confectionery

The good Doctor in a number of his incarnations (4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th as memory serves)  was renowned for, in moments of high tension, proffering some confectioneries (specifically Jelly Babies) to help lighten the mood and distract thought. They were an incredible tool that enabled him to befriend others and buy time to develop cunning plans. Doctor Who Jelly Babies (video montage)

The key lesson is that it is often useful to have a “quirky” way to break down barriers and get conversations going. The Doctor has Jelly Babies. I’ve used various props. Kathy Hunter of DQM Group made extensive use of home baked cakes and biscuits when she was in a previous role to help open conversations.

It’s Bigger on the Inside

The Doctor’s space ship/time machine is a Blue Box. It is a Blue Box because the advanced circuitry that let it change appearance to blend in in different timelines got stuck on “Blue Box” on a trip to London around 1963 (the year the series was first broadcast). The thing about the Blue Box is that it is “bigger on the inside”, a fact that The various companions’s to The Doctor remark on whenever they enter the Blue Box for the first time. Bigger on the Inside (Youtube) . Invariably, The Doctor takes the surprise in his stride, often forgetting how big a shot it is to people when they see the size of his Blue Box for the first time.

The Doctor’s Blue Box is called the TARDIS, which stands for Time and Relative Dimensions in Space. By being able to engineer time and space The Doctor’s race, the Time Lords could build infintely large space craft that could fit into a small space (like the back of a props van on a TV show).

What’s the parallel with Information Quality? Well, those of us who have worked in Information Quality often forget that it is a discipline that is very much “bigger on the inside”. When people look at Information Quality from the outside, they might be forgiven for thinking that it has the general dimensions of a Blue Box (so to speak) and it is only when they venture inside that they realise there’s more to it than meets the eye. If your perception of IQM is that it is Data Profiling and some Cleansing, it can be quite a shock when you uncover the Change Management challenges, the human psychology issues, and the legal and regulatory issues that can affect Information Quality strategies.

Often we hard-core practitioners take it for granted that its is bigger on the inside, because we’re on the inside looking out.

People First, Technology Second

Quite apart from the long running love affair The Doctor has had with the Human Race, every adventure winds up with The Doctor being outrageously brilliant as a Time Lord, but more importantly inspiring and encouraging brilliance in his Companions and others around him. Whether it is calling in favours from old enemies (in return for some jelly babies perhaps) or rallying demoralised troops in the face of battle or unnatural enemies, The Doctor puts people first, often appearing willing to sacrifice himself to protect others.

Technology is applied in innovative and outlandish ways to meet the objective of protecting people. Even The Doctor’s trusted sonic screwdriver is not used as a tool in its own right but as a means of enabling things to happen and for information to be gathered to support decision making.

From an information quality management point of view it is important that we remember this lesson – the technology should not dictate the solution and, ultimately, it is people who are the brilliant and innovative sources of solutions to problems. A Data Profiler will tell you that the data looks broken. A human being will figure out the best solution (new business rule, new tools etc).

In short, to paraphrase The Doctor: “People are FANTASTIC!!”

Conclusion

I’m very much of the view that we can learn a lot from arts and literature about ourselves and who we can aim to be in how we approach things. Science fiction TV programmes are no different to the works of Shakespeare in this regard. Perhaps we can achieve more sustainable successes in our Information Quality travels by learning some lessons from The Doctor:

1. Everybody likes Jelly babies – (what is your equivalent?)
2. Not everyone can see that this is actually Bigger on the Inside… and when they step into the world of Information Quality it can be a bit of a shock to the system.
3. Technology doesn’t fix things. People fix things, occasionally using technology to get there. Remember that people are FANTASTIC!!

• Data Protection Compliance is the Quality System where by the obligations and expectations which arise under Data Protection/Privacy laws are met consistently
• Information Quality programmes involve, by definition, the implementation of a Quality Management System
• Information/Data Governance… well, that’s another form of Quality Management System
• Complying with other forms of industry or Governmental regulation… well, the best way to achieve those objectives is through some form of systemic approach to meeting or exceeding expectations.

In my experience Compliance and Governance initiatives and strategies tend to fall into three camps:

1. Documentation Driven by “Rules Wizards”, with extensive policy and procedure documentation, usually from the comfort of an Ivory Tower in the Business that is comfortably removed from GEMBA
2. Technology Triggered by “Techno-Lords”, usually from within the bowels of the organisation’s IT department, which is also often at a distance from the place where the work is actually getting done.
3. Awareness and Attitude Oriented: Driven by a “Coalition of the Willing”, with a focus on policy that is actually executed through the appropriate use of supporting technologies and a strong focus on the “Human Factors” that lead to awareness and understanding of the required changes.

Often it is difficult to see which kind of initiative you are dealing with. In organisations that have a “Document Driven” approach, management take comfort in the fact that they have documented procedures and policies for everything therefore everything is in control. In “Technology Triggered” initiatives, the management of the organisation places a blind faith in the power of technology to protect, prevent, detect, and mitigate issues.

Both approaches are doomed to failure. Neither, no matter how sophisticated, can ever deliver anything other than “small ‘c’” compliance. Because Quality Systems are about more than just documentation or technology. Real quality requires a sustainable change in attitudes and awareness. After all, Deming’s 1st two points of Management Transformation are not “Write documents” or “Get good technology”: They is “Create a Constancy of Purpose” and “Adopt the New Philosophy”.

Purpose and Philosophy require that the organisation look at the attitudes that are there. It is as important to understand and articulate a Vision for the Quality System… and to make sure that that Vision is embedded in the mind-sets and attitudes of the staff in the organisation.

At a conference in London in 2005 Joyce Orsini of Fordham University shared a story with me of a trip W.Edwards Deming (she was working with Deming at the time) took to an automobile manufacturer in the US in the mid 1980s. On this trip the plant manager took great pride in showing off the robots (technology) that they were using to manufacture the cars. Deming noticed that every time the robot arm swung over the car it dented the boot (trunk) lid of the car. He asked if this was part of the Quality Standard (Policies). The Plant Manager said no, it wasn’t, but they had a man at the end of the production line with a hammer to knock the dent back out.

A lack of awareness about the operation and objectives of the Quality System and what it meant as a value system meant that no-one in the plant seems to have questioned the operation of the Quality System.

Without Awareness and Attitude the investment in Documentation and Technology that form part of the Quality System will ultimately have sub-optimal return.

That Code of Practice was presented to the Minister for Justice in July 2010, long before the dissolution of the Dáil in January 2011. There was one administrative step required to give it full legal effect. That step has not yet been taken.

Apparently, carelessness with Personal Data (and, in the case of the Security Breach Code of practice, financial data as well) would appear not to be a ‘real crime’ in the eyes of the Dept of Justice. Despite the fact that it costs the UK economy £27bn per annum.

Given that Fine Gael spearheaded moves to improve the protection of personal data privacy through a Private Members bill proposed by Simon Coveney TD, and during their election campaign they trumpeted the policy of “getting tough on white-collar crime” perhaps they should start with a holistic view of the culture of business and begin with one common element across all business, whether it is Financial Services, Healthcare, Telecommunications, or plumbing – the fact that every business, at some level, processes personal data about individuals in order to conduct business.

What would I like to see from the new Govt which will take the reins of power in the coming week or so?

1. Tie up the loose ends. Put the Code of Practice on a fully formed legal footing (and perhaps bump up the penalties that can be levied)
2. Begin the process of renewing the Data Protection Acts. Even in advance of the new EU Directives in May and further down the road there are a number of things which can and should be done:
   1. Consolidate and simplify the legislation.
   2. Implement clear penalties for infringement of the Acts and penalise non-compliance
   3. Provide clear statutory frameworks to encourage compliance (e.g. Voluntary disclosure, whistleblower protections)
   4. Make clear the alignment between Data Protection regulation and other areas of good corporate governance.
3. Require Enterprise Ireland and the various business development incubators that are promoting entrepreneurship to include some information/training/guidance on Data Protection principles and practice in their supports for start-ups (I’ve been through a Business Development programme and, despite the importance of personal data to the business models of 90% of the participants it was not even mentioned as a topic).
4. Make the Office of the Commissioner revenue generating to a greater extent by having higher potential penalties and ensuring that prosecutions are taken to the fullest extent of the available penalties. In the UK the maximum penalty for a breach is £500k. Here it is, on a good day, only a fraction of that.

Finally, the Government should ensure that the Data Protection Commissioner has adequate funding, resources, and supports to properly conduct and execute their responsibilities under the legislation. Whether that is achieved through the absorption of other agencies into the Commissioner’s remit is a matter for the Government (and the Commissioner) to decide on.

Some people might have gotten the impression that I’m obsessed with Fine Gael. I’m not. I’m obsessed with Data, specifically the management of data and information in manner that ensures quality outcomes through quality data governed with due regard to relevant legislation.

On courses I teach on Data Protection and Information Quality I often make reference to “The Joe Duffy Effect” to describe the brand impacts that can arise if organisations don’t take care to manage information as a complex and valuable asset. The term refers to Joe Duffy, a talk radio host on Irish radio. Joe enjoys taking the side of the common man, usually. Occasionally he makes a jape of not getting the point, whether by accident or design we may never know. But organisations who fall foul of the “Joe Duffy Effect” can find themselves fighting rear guard actions against an often intractable foe.

Last week Joe spoke with Jacob, a South African living in Ireland who had received a pre-recorded voicemail to his phone from Michael Martin. Jacob’s tale can be heard in Technicolour on the RTE website.

From the call we glean that:

1. A voicemail was received by Jacob on the 9^th of February with a pre-recorded message (which Jacob played)
2. He has apparently received SMS messages from Fianna Fail with calls for volunteering and campaigning.
3. He is not a member of Fianna Fail
4. He has not asked for Fianna Fail to contact him and does not know where they got his number.
5. The mobile in question is used as an internal work mobile and is not listed. His number is only listed with the Road Safety Authority.

In the broadcast Joe tells Jacob that we live in a democracy.

Correct. We live in a democracy. Specifically we live in democracy where we have decided that the Right to Privacy, while not absolute, is a right that must be defended. Just because we are a democracy it does not give politicians an automatic carte blanche to process data regardless of where or how it has been obtained. These rights to privacy are enshrined in law, in the Constitution and in EU Treaty obligations. Yes, there are balances, mitigations and exemptions with respect to how that right is exercised and protected – but it is still a democratic right of the individual.

During the course of the call, a comment from Fianna Fail was read out saying that they didn’t have Jacob’s number. That is at odds with the evidence – to whit: one recording. And if I’ve learned one thing from watching CSI is that evidence trumps counter claim every day.

So, what is the Data Protection issue here:

• Fair Obtaining – Jacob is not a member of the party and was not aware of how his number came to be called and texted. Granted his phone seems to be for work purposes, but the electronic Privacy regulations apply to business as well as personal data. Also, while he may use the phone for work purposes a big question to ask here is who is paying the bill – him, or a company. If he pays the bill the phone may actually be a personal phone used for business purposes (Sole Trader data is a tricky area in Data Protection land).
• Governance and control of data and/or data processors – Fianna Fail claimed not to have Jacob’s number. The fact that a Fianna Fail party message was left by voicemail and various SMS messages were sent to him suggests that they do. Or if not them then someone working on their behalf. Under the Data Protection Acts, the Data Controller is responsible for the actions of the Data Processor unless the Data Processor acts outside the parameters of the formal contract in writing that governs the Data Controller/Data Processor relationship. So… while it may be true that FF HQ don’t have Jabob’s number, someone processing data on behalf of Fianna Fail does. Fianna Fail not knowing whether or not they had the data suggests a weakness in internal control and governance.
• Accuracy – Joe D. suggested to Jacob that maybe the messages were being sent because of a wrong number. Personal data needs to be kept accurate and up to date. FF should have taken steps to correct the error rather than denying that they have the data. Ultimately FF carry the can for the actions of the Data Processor.

Of course, there is the distinction to be made between normal “direct marketing” and the processing of personal data by a candidate for elected office. Basically during an election personal data is “fair game” for politicians, provided they have obtained it correctly first and have clear consents for contact. Which puts the discussion of “auto dialling” or “power dialling” on the table. According to the Data Protection Commissioner’s website:

The use of automatic dialling machines, to call individual subscribers at random for direct marketing purposes, is prohibited, unless subscribers’ consent has been obtained in advance.  Unsolicited fax messages to individual subscribers are likewise prohibited.

That is why it is important to know who the “subscriber” is to Jacob’s phone. If it is a limited company or similar legal entity, then it is not a call to an “individual” subscriber. If it is his phone or he is a sole trader or part of a partnership, then it is possible that he is an “individual subscriber” and as such the use of an autodialler to RANDOMLY call numbers for direct marketing would be illegal. Dialling from a preloaded list is OK. So long as the list has been fairly obtained and takes into account NDD Opt-out requests etc. And then there is the grey area of the Political exemptions from the Data Protection Acts.

The DPC has issued guidelines to all political parties before the election. My sense is that these guidelines may have been breached in this case.

During previous election campaigns, the Commissioner received numerous complaints from individuals in receipt of unsolicited SMS (text) messages, emails and phone calls from political parties and candidates for election.  In many cases, the individual had no previous contact with the political party or candidate and was concerned at the manner in which their details were sourced.  Subsequent investigations revealed that contact details were obtained from sources such as sports clubs, friends, colleagues and schools.  Obtaining personal data in such   circumstances would constitute a breach of the Data Protection Acts, as there would be no consent from the individual for their details to be obtained and used in this way.

So.. Fianna Fail need to know where their Data Processors are getting their data from. The evidence says they have Jacob’s phone (and who knows who elses’) but don’t know they have Jacob’s phone. That suggests that the Data Controller is not in Control of the Data. Which is a problem in and of itself.

Fine Gael are not the only Data protection flaunters in this election. Fianna Fail have had their moments too. The Green Party STILL don’t have a Privacy statement. And I’m sure the others have slipped up along the way as well. But that is a discussion for another day.

Fine Gael have launched their “Twolicy Page”. I won’t comment on the hideous neologistic portmanteau that is “Twolicy”, other than to say it that seems to have been dreamed up by a pat.

What strikes me about the “Twolicy” page is that it is yet another import of an American election campaign tool into Irish Politics, particularly with the concept of the “E-Canvasser”. Fine Gael dynamically tell us that the E-Canvasser (perhaps some distant cousin of the “Cyber Reporter” who has emerged as the colour piece of the day on certain Irish current affairs shows?) will

“knock on all cyber doors by delving into the depths of Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Flickr and more! Through the simple medium of sending e-mails, facebooking and tweeting messages of support for Fine Gael you can pledge your commitment to fixing the Irish economy.”

This is a strategy which exists to some extent in Irish politics even today. Many of the letters to Madame Editor are crafted examples of “Astroturfing” – something that appears to be a grass roots movement but is not. I first became aware of the concept back in 2002 when I spotted the Republican Party in the US running “GOPTeamLeader.com” (which, thanks to the interweb waybackmachine I can bring to you in hideous technicolour). Basically the party recruits a team of volunteers who are tasked with sending “on-message” communications to the media (which in 2001 was the newspapers, TV, and radio). In return, the GOP provided a set of reward points (like Green Shield Stamps) which could be saved up and exchanged for rewards such as barbecues, autographed photographs of the Reichsfuerher candidate, and (if memory serves me correctly, an RV.

Fine Gael liken this to door to door canvassing. However that analogy does not hold true because the Internet is not a housing estate or public street. Drop a bus load of eager canvassers on my door step and they will be able to

1. See my house
   
2. See my neighbours’ houses
   

They will not need to ask my neighbour to throw leaflets over my back wall. They will see the big sign in my hall window warning them of the fate that will befall them should they ring the bell and seek discourse (“Warning – political nut lives here”). And most of them are clued in enough to know that the “no canvassers” sticker in the window means that stuffing my letter box with bumph will just be providing stimulus to the paper recycling industry.

The Internet is different. Social media is different. Whoring out your personal contact list to a political party is different. And because it is different, we find ourselves to an extent in uncharted territory with regard to the Data Protection implications of Social Media driven Astroturfing.

Right now I have a contact list of 413 followers on Twitter for my personal account. I have a second twitter account that is for my business. People who follow me know (from my profile and what I tweet about) that I’m a Data nut and I do data protection and information quality training so content about those things will pop up in my timeline. People who follow me also know I’m a bit of a politics geek and enjoy holding our leaders to account. But I try and keep my business tweeting separate from my personal tweeting. And when I whore myself out too much on Twitter, I get friendly DMs from people or I get unfollowed.

This is because the contact details of my friends are information I have gathered for domestic purposes. As such the Data Protection Acts don’t apply. If I was to sign up to be an e-Canvasser (and I can’t get the image of a canvasser handing out bags of yokes out of my head) we would then face the question of whether I was still processing that data for Domestic use or whether I had become a Data Processor working on behalf of Fine Gael, a Data Controller.

The key question would seem to be how much control Fine Gael are exerting over the content and communication from their e-Canvasser Astroturfers, and whether they are offering any form of reward or incentive for people to encourage them to pimp out their domestic contact lists.

If Fine Gael are simply being “passive” and are relying on individuals to act on content that is made available, then there is probably no substantial issue here. It is a case of a person finding content on the web that they think would be of interest to their personal network. We do this every day. It is the way the social web works. Of course, that then raises the question of why they would need you to sign up to their team for this purpose… surely the type of political nut blogger who would retweet or repost their bumph would do so anyway without having to be officially flagged as an “E-Canvasser”?

If Fine Gael are being “neutral” and are simply flagging content to people who have signed up and asking them to do what they see fit with it, then this too is probably OK. The analogy would be the charity that Tweets out a fundraising message and asks their followers to retweet it to send the fundraising virally. The charity has not asked you to commit to being an active fundraiser on their behalf.

However, if Fine Gael are specifying specific content into specific constituencies at specific times and are exercising control over the content of the messages that are being sent, then we are into a potentially problematic area.

The e-Canvasser would not on the Fine Gael payroll. But they would be, in effect, processing personal data on behalf of Fine Gael as part of the “Fine Gael Team”. It would be interesting to find out how much direct “editorial” control that FG are placing on the Facebook Statuses that people are “donating” (and where does this fit in SIPO? What is the monetary value of a person’s Facebook status?) or the emails to “family and friends”. This is personal data that was given to them for a domestic purpose, not for the purposes of canvassing for Fine Gael. Once they commence a “active” canvassing then the use of the data has likely changed from “domestic” to political and the Data Protection Acts would apply. If Fine Gael are directing the timing of messages, the content of messages, and/or the audiences for messages then the e-Canvasser is being directed in their processing by the Data Controller, Fine Gael. And, as Data Controller, Fine Gael would need to ensure that there was clarity about the new political use of the personal data and a clear mechanism for the Data Subject (the canvasser’s family and friends) to opt-out would need to be in place – and FG would, of necessity, need to push this responsibility down to the Canvasser.

Otherwise, FG would not have obtained the data fairly for the purposes of electoral canvassing. It would be no different than if they had asked the local GAA club to email all their members to let them know about Fine Gael’s new policy on tax relief on sliotars and faceguards for hurlers. And that is the kind of thing that the Data Protection Commissioner has already warned against.

Things become an order of magnitude more complicated if Fine Gael are running any kind of incentive scheme for e-Canvassers to drive up the publication of their AstroTurf message.

Of course, Fine Gael have probably thought this through and will have the necessary protocols in place to ensure that there is a mechanism for a Canvasser’s friends to opt out of receiving Fine Gael campaign materials by email, Facebook or Twitter. They have probably realised that people have the same reaction to junk mail on-line as they do at their door step and need to have the ability to put up an on-line “No Canvassers” sign.

Currently the only opt-out mechanism I can see is to unfriend people, unfollow them or block them. Which is exactly what I would do in the physical world if a friend of mine kept ramming leaflets and policy statements from a political party into my face.

Of course, in the absence of such an opt-out facility, Fine Gael (as Data Controller) and the e-Canvasser (as Data Processor) would need to be cautious of falling foul of SI526 2008 (the e-Privacy regulations) which carry a fine of €5000 per breach, capped at €50,000 for an individual. While Twitter and Facebook might not be mentioned in the legislation, email is in section 13(1).

b) A person shall not use or cause to be used any publicly available electronic communications service to send an unsolicited communication for the purpose of direct marketing by means of electronic mail, to a subscriber, who is a natural person, unless the person has been notified by that subscriber that for the time being he or she consents to the receipt of such a communication. 

[edit to clarify some points raised by @tjmcintyre]

Now, the DPC has ruled in the past that there is an exemption covering the Direct Mail (including email and texting)

carried out in the course of political activities by a political party or its members, or by a candidate for election to, or a holder of, elective political office

Question: is the eCanvasser the political party (I would argue yes if FG are exerting sufficient control that they would become a Data Controller)? In which case, the processing is possibly covered.

But I would suggest that this exemption assumes that the email or tweet would be clearly coming from Xyz@partyname.ie or an individual clearly identifying themselves as a member of the party or publicly known to be a candidate for election or an elected official. Getting an email from “yourbestmate@gmail.com’ telling you to go and look at Fine Gael policies, where that email has been sent on the instruction of and under the Control of the party or candidate would seem to me to fall outside the scope of issues already decided.

[/edit]

So, the upshot is that while physical world canvassers have to be careful of yappy dogs, cats that bite and political nuts who have hard questions, eCanvassers need to consider both the social acceptability and potential legality of pimping out their personal contact lists on behalf of a political party. Such tactics are de rigeur in the US. But the US does not operate with the same privacy legislation as Ireland, so ideas imported from overseas must be vetted properly to ensure that no Compliance risks arise.

I would be interested to see what the Data Protection Commissioner’s response to or advice on formal ecanvassing that places the data at arms length but creates a de facto Data Processor/Data Controller relationship would be, particularly if that relationship is not obvious to the recipient of the email or tweet. [update] Perhaps it would be sufficient for the emailer or tweeter to clearly flag that they are part of a formal eCanvassing team acting on behalf of and under the instruction of Fine Gael?[/update]

[update] But the issue of whether the change of use of the data from domestic to overtly political will, in my personal view, give rise to questions of whether the data has been obtained fairly for that new purpose, which is a point already clearly settled in the mind of the DPC.[/update]

For those of you in Ireland who reside under a rock or in a cave or readers from outside of Ireland, Your Country Your Call is a competition/website which has been set up on (apparently) a Charitable basis with backing of  number of organisations who have, until recently, been happy to be completely behind the scenes for what one must assume are laudable reasons grounded in humility, modesty and a sense of service.

The goal of YCYC is to find the magic bullet idea that can trigger a renaissance in the Celtic Tiger. Two prizes are on offer for the people who comes up with two ideas and a fund has been established to help develop these mould breaking concepts into  real industries (not a business… an industry).

Simon has made a number of cogent arguments on Tuppenceworth about the terms and conditions of entry which basically mean that the promoters of YCYC own the winning idea and control the purse strings for the development and direction of the idea. That’s bothersome enough.

My issue with YCYC is that it is actually a wasted opportunity that has the hallmarks of  the level of thinking that got us into the current financial mess that the country is in.  If we hype it it will happen. If we generate a general sense of it being built at some point in the future they will come. The general gist of the response to criticism thus far has not been a million miles from the comments made about people who raised concerns about the Irish economy just before the wheels fell off. Apparently it is unpatriotic to question who is behind this and how they are being funded.

Apparently if we all hold hands and think happy thoughts then, just like Peter Pan, we’ll be able to fly, never grow up, and pick pointless fights with our own shadows.

But I digress. My problem with YCYC is that a large amount of money is being poured into it. It has been confirmed that €2 million is being poured into this, when you take prize funds, the development kitty and the general costs associated with a big media splash.  Even if we are as generous as people are seeming to be and assume that the media splash is being done pro bono, we still have a  figure of around €2 million attached to YCYC (see discussion around this comment on ValueIreland’s website)

What other type of model might YCYC have pursued to more effectively make use of this pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, other than a competition model the terms and conditions of which read to me like the ones associated with a Battle of the Bands or a phone in competition to win a car?

How about beefing up funding to EXISTING supports for entrepreneurship in Ireland such as the County Enterprise Boards, LEADER programmes, or the enterprise incubation programmes associated with the various Universities and Institutes of Technology?

• The upper limit for a feasibility study grant from a CEB is around €5000. That €2million could support 400 studies into new business ideas, each of which would need to have a business model slightly better than “Underpants- Question mark – Profit” to get the funding.
• Funding for graduate entreprenuers through the CORD scheme provides up to €30k in funding to participants on an enterprise incubation scheme through an Institute of Technology or University. The €2 million would fully fund 66 additional CORD places around the country, with enough over for a big bang press launch. Even if the money was only to partially fund these places, it would help support real innovation and entrepreneurship.

I would have to ask why the promoter and financial backers of YCYC decided to by-pass the existing support structures that exist for new business ideas in this country. Is it that the organisers thought the existing structures to be inefficient or broken in some way?

This question is all the more pressing to me given that it seems that a chunk of this money (15%) came from the Irish Government, specifically, it seems, the Dept of Enterprise Trade and Employment. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is the Irish Govt. Department which is responsible for County Enterprise Boards. So, rather than fund them more the Dept seems to have been happy to transfer taxpayer’s money to a private initiative.

At least that is what seems to be suggested by Padraig McKeown’s Twitter reply to Tuppenceworth.ie about which department’s budget the €300k was coming from (warning, you’ll need to scroll down on this to see all the relevant comments). This is also an interesting question given recent comments and posts elsewhere speculating about the future of the County Enterprise Boards.

• €300k from the Department equates to 60 Feasibility study grants or 10 CORD funded Incubation centre places.

I’m sure that someone will row in about now with the argument that the Dept can’t just transfer €300k to the CEBs or to the Incubation Centres willy-nilly. But that is exactly what seems to have happened to facilitate a transfer of €300k to YCYC with no (at least as far as I can see) announcement or fanfare that this was being done.

As for the remaining €1.7million that is in the kitty for YCYC? As each CEB operates as a seperate limited company, there would have been no impediment (that I can see) to these backers simply making the fund available as an Innovation Fund which the CEBs or Incubation Centres could draw on to fund grants and other supports for start-up businesses.

So. I’m left with a sense that Your Country Your Call is:

1. A poorly thought out muddle with a worrying lack of clarity about where issues such as Intellectual Property rights to any idea sit (the Terms & Conditions do seem to be clear that the IP vests to the promoters of #YCYC).
2. An initiative that may be laudable in its intent, but perhaps has not been properly thought through – perhaps the use of existing supports that exist under the auspices of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Enterprise Ireland.
3. An initiative that the Government Dept (Enterprise Trade & Employment) responsible for promoting enterprise and employment thought worthwhile investing a significant sum of money into an initiative which keeps the IP to any idea, at what can only be the expense of existing programmes for Enterprise support that exist in the country or, at the very least, at the expense of beefing up those programmes in a structured and sustainable way.
4. YCYC is a wonderful feat of PR puffery with little real potential to deliver the economic kickstart that is required in Ireland, but doesn’t the website look pretty.
5. The priority of the government and the sponsors of this initiative is to promote a forum for fuzzy thinking and “end of the rainbow” speculation at the expense of the existing supports for business start-ups which have a track record of supporting local SME development around the country.

At best it is a noisome distraction and puffery that might, by some sheer accident of chance, uncover a true gem of an idea (that the innovator of which cannot grasp the value of) which will restart the economic engines. At worst, it is a noisome distraction that has diverted funding from existing enterprise support frameworks that exist in the country, apparently with the blessing of the responsible government minister.

Of course, I could be totally wrong.  Maybe the Department of Enterprise had €300k that was sitting around doing nothing and which the CEBs and University Campus incubators had said no to when it was offered to them. Maybe the €1.7 million war chest was touted around the Campus Incubators and the CEBs but was politely declined as well. Perhaps the President of DCU could shed some light on this as he is on the Steering board of YCYC?

Maybe the terms and conditions of YCYC will not put off serious thinkers with real viable ideas to shake things up in the economy which they’ll be happy to part with for a hundred grand.

Personally, I’ll continue with my strategy of knuckling down to graft on my business plan, keeping an eye on costs, and working to build a set of services and products that, while not changing the world, will change that part of it that I’ve spotted needs changing, with a view to creating value and generating employment for others over time.

It’s my country. It’s my call.

After more than a decade of falling points and expanding career options, all signs were that getting into a reasonably fulfilling college course would be just a matter of filling in the forms. But the great recession has put paid to that. Certain courses are no longer attractive at all, such as those leading towards a career in property or construction. The inevitable swing towards the sciences or any course that might feed into Brian Cowen’s beloved “smart economy” will increase competition for places. This year more people will sit the Leaving Cert than ever before. And now there’s talk of a wave of the newly unemployed going back to college.

Oh. To put that another way:

Over reliance on the benign nature of an economic model in which effectively turning up and having a pulse assured you of a foot on the entry level (at least) rungs of an asset acquisition ladder has resulted in a shock adjustment when the dynamics of that economic model change due to external factors and internal market forces.

To me, this sounds a lot like what happened in the property bubble and crash in Ireland, when lots of people chased moderate amounts of property with apparently bottomless pots of mortgage money available from banks, resulting in prices rocketing. A lot of people over stretched themselves financially to buy a property and then found themselves in a state of shock when the arse dropped out of prices and they were left paying a gallon sized mortgage on a half-pint asset value. Which is interesting, given that she is the Property Editor of the Irish Times.

The points system is a very crude mechanism for managing supply and demand in the Irish 3rd level education system. The purpose it serves is simply to set a price on a particular path of learning based on complex factors such as:

• Supply
• Demand

Other factors which historically influenced the price included the actual price of going to University. When I started in UCD back in 1994, I had to pay a few thousand pounds in fees as well as administration charges. In the late 199os the then Labour government removed fees in an effort to open up access to education. It was a flawed idea as financial ability is not the driver or motivator to going to college in areas historically affected by high unemployment. Not actually having any role models or examples of success in education and a variety of other factors are as powerful (if not more powerful) inhibitors towards someone from a poorer socio-economic area going to college (particularly where grants and scholarships might otherwise be available for the financial aspects).

So, in the absence of fees we are left with just supply and demand.

In the absence of fees, universities are struggling to provide services and have had to cut back on course numbers and on numbers of courses to manage costs. Many University heads have argued for the reintroduction of some form of fee so that they can maintain their ability to keep the lights on and the blackboards primed for action. Ultimately, this has affected the available supply of places on courses.

Ms. Mulcahy is correct to point out that the arrival of 12000 or so mature students (23 years or over, not an army of the middle aged ) into the equation has increased demand for places. But she starts to diverge from reality a little when she begins to argue that they shouldn’t be allowed to go back to college, particularly when she implies explicitly states that they are “leaving the job search” to spend time “ogling young ones”.

This phrases are pejorative and prejudiced in the extreme. It is equally as likely that, having spent a number of years working and paying taxes and developing practical skills and experience, these mature students have identified that to achieve career progression in their field they need to have some additional qualifications on their resume.  Perhaps they had finished college with an Arts degree back in the 1990s but have found that after spending 10 years working in a particular industry they want to study in that field instead? In that case they won’t qualify for free fees or maintenance grants and will be paying their way to “learn something new”.  Or perhaps (like some relatives of mine) simply decided that while they had the points to get into a good course in college back in the early 2000′s, they were much happier making money in real estate or telecommunications or any other ‘boom’ industry.

My personal experience of having mature students in my class at undergrad level in the 199os and when I was teaching at postgrad level is that they tend to be more motivated, less inclined to focus on how they will be graded and more inclined to focus on whether they actually know their stuff, and more willing to engage in discussion about topics for the benefit of the entire class.  Perhaps the fact that they have actually had to either give up work or take on a big financial commitment to come to college means that they actually don’t mind working hard. And this was not a “grey workforce”. Remember that a mature student is anyone over 23.

Ultimately, what it meant for me as an undergrad was that I had to pull my socks up as these motivated people were my competition for grades. For the Leaving Cert class of 2010 it means that that competition for grades has started a few months earlier than it would have, because Supply and Demand and market forces has meant that the price of going to college is going up.

Because 3rd level education is not a right or an entitlement. It is an opportunity, an investment, a prize for hard work and ability. Free fees has masked this because there is no pain point before you get to college. Other than the points race.

If the offspring who inspired Ms Mulcahy’s rant  cannot motivate themselves to work for their Leaving Cert and not have to be given grinds and cramming classes, then perhaps they are not yet ready for the self-directed grown up world of 3rd level learning. My personal experience of  ’hot-housed’ students in 3rd level who lack intrinsic motivation to learn and work has been that they often wind up struggling once the stabilizers and training wheels of grinds are no longer available to them.

But I’m sure that most of the 12000 mature students who are coming in from the cold are going to be motivated and ready for self-directed learning. I’m also sure they are more than willing to take responsibility for their own learning.

Other than that, perhaps Ms Mulcahy will start arguing in favour of the development of new funding mechanisms for 3rd level institutions that will enable them to scale their available supply of places to meet demand in future, but will also allow them to avoid carrying inefficient overhangs of resources which have no work to do (e.g lecturers with no courses to teach).  Of course, that might mean her and her friend having to actually pay a bit more for junior’s University education. But then… that’s economics for you.

Dear Leaving Cert Class of 2010: 3rd level education is not a right. It is a privilege. You need to work for it. If you don’t, someone else will and it will not be Mammy’s fault, or the Government’s fault, or the CAO’s fault. 2010 is when you need to learn that you are responsible for your future. Just like all the mature students applying for the CAO are taking responsibility for theirs.