While digital exclusion is real for many members of our communities, there is little argument that digital transformation provides enormous opportunities for governments to serve citizens more effectively. The appeal of simple and convenient interactions is obvious, and the allure of customisable or personalised services is equally understandable.  

Digital services are fed by data, and in the case of many government services, highly personal data. It’s a rare service that can be completely anonymised and it follows that the more specific the data is, the more personally unique the service can be made. A vision of personalised, proactive services beckons, and who wouldn’t, for example, want the government to automatically pay them all the entitlements they may be eligible for without having to apply?  

The desire to achieve such visions is admirable and there is no reason they shouldn’t be explored. But they must be considered through a broad lens of ethics, not just information safety.  

Beyond obvious considerations of exclusion, accessibility, correcting for biases, basic consent, data security and information management, matters such as data over-harvesting, nuanced and revocable consent, surveillance, coercion and control, and protecting democratic principles also need to be considered.  

While it may seem hyperbolic to mention totalitarianism and personalised government services in the same sentence, three things should be borne in mind:  

1. data is an enabler of population-level controls (If you have never thought or worried about government over-reach, you are living in a circle of privilege that is worth reflecting on. Not all policies have been benign in all segments of society, even in the generally propitious history of Australia.)
2. good intentions today cannot protect against bad actions in the future 
3. democracy is fragile and must not be taken for granted.  

On this basis, digital services must be designed with eyes wide open to both broader implications and potential unintended consequences. For ethical digital design and data use, one needs to consider the following questions:  

• Just because you can, should you?  
• How broad is your social license?  
• How will you ensure that you’re being a savvy shopper and not relying on vendors who do not need to consider the same range of broader implications?  
• How will you build with those impacted? 
• Who is missing from your discussions?  
• How can you minimise the data to be harvested? 
• How can you create radical transparency? 
• How will you create clear, nuanced and revocable consents for the data you collect?  
• How will you explore future scenarios, invite divergent views and scan for unintended consequences?  
• What do you need to do to make the process and the service/outcome fair and equitable? 
• What do you need to do to make the process and the service/outcome inclusive? 
• What do you need to do to make the process and the service/outcome accessible for all?  
• What’s the exit strategy if things go wrong?  
• What are the avenues of recourse for those who may experience the consequences of your decisions?  

Governments already have immense power over citizens. And as technology amplifies and governments undergo digital transformation, it is best to use it wisely.  

Ania Karzek

+ posts

A policy wonk by trade, Ania has spent more years in government than she’d care to admit to, across a variety of agencies. She has also seen how the other half live, having held consulting and operational management roles in the private, university and not for profit sectors. Ania has a passion for connecting the art of the possible with the due diligence of whether we should. Endlessly fascinated by ‘why?’, she believes in moonshots and doing cool stuff with technology…. as long as we do it with our eyes wide open.

This author does not have any more posts.