Kelvyn Taylor

One of my most prized possessions is a collection of copies of the magazine Science Journal, a publication that was eventually incorporated into New Scientist magazine.

I treasure these increasingly delicate volumes not because of any real intrinsic value, or because of the struggle it took to convince my parents to fork out six shillings a month for them, but because they contain some technological gems. Some that I’ve rediscovered recently are fascinating, like a 1970 news item about the Post Office’s proposed 30km experimental waveguide communications link that might transmit “300,000 simultaneous telephone conversations or 200 colour TV channels”.

Others are not only fascinating, but also very prescient in hindsight. For example, one article from the October 1970 special issue entitled Computers in the Seventies was written by Alexander “Sandy” Douglas, then a professor of computational methods at the London School of Economics. According to Wikipedia, Douglas was also the person who wrote the first computer game, Noughts and Crosses, for the EDSAC 1 computer as part of his PhD thesis on human computer interaction.

The article is best summarised by its introduction: “The computer is merely a tool - like the pen or the typewriter. But in the wrong hands it can inflict hardship, even oppression, with ruthless efficiency. Society must resist any erosion of rights as confidential data are computerised and merged into huge national information systems.”

It goes on to look at the possible impact of computers on businesses and society at large, with particular emphasis on privacy concerns. He predicted that mass computerisation of personal data would happen by degrees, using excuses of reducing data duplication to increase efficiency and cut costs “...leading inexorably to the setting up ­ unchecked ­ of the mechanism for the perfect, unassailable police state”.

Dramatic perhaps, but maybe a little too close for comfort considering events of recent years. Remember that at the time of the article credit cards only just existed in the UK, and the first camera surveillance systems were appearing in some US banks.

All very interesting for social historians, but why have I picked on it for this column? It was prompted by reading a recent column in IT Week written by John Higgins about the proliferation of ID schemes in both the public and private sectors.

This refers to a recent Treasury report on ID assurance written by Sir James Crosby. It is pretty scary if you read it in conjunction with Sandy Douglas’ 1970 predictions, as many of the arguments put forward to justify a single ID scheme relate to improving efficiency and accuracy or reducing data redundancy.

Another recent report also touches on the problem of data security and privacy, but from a totally different angle. Microsoft Research has just published a report entitled Being Human: Human-Computer Interaction in the Year 2020.

This report, the result of a 2007 conference on human-computer interaction (HCI), looks at the challenges in the next decade or so, based on trends in social and technological environments. It is a bit of a blue-sky article, but also has some interesting and thoughtful tidbits on privacy and security implications.

My point is that consumers may indeed prefer the convenience of unified ID schemes, but they should be made aware of the potential Big Brother downsides. I personally feel more comfortable with the idea of a slightly ramshackle collection of different authentication schemes, since, as Sandy Douglas pointed out all those years ago “a tyranny is only tolerable because of its inefficiency”.

Like this story? Spread the news by clicking below:

 del.icio.us     Digg this     reddit!