Tag Archives: data ownership

Did the Party accidentally vote for a Surveillance State?

By Rosemary Runswick | Mon 23rd March 2026 - 3:15 pm

A social media ban for under-16s is a controversial topic, it’s a measure many consider authoritarian, but some see the potential value; after all, social media has been linked to declining mental health in children. But a ban would be the worst solution, not only due to the fact it could disconnect vulnerable children from their communities as others have already warned, but because it is in fact a potential national security risk. Banning Social Media for under-16s could only work in one way; through the establishment of mass-surveillance.

As we have already seen with the need for ID to view content for over-18s, this surveillance state would not be Government owned, but outsourced to private companies. This is dangerous for a few reasons, most obviously being that these companies already collect and sell our data for a profit to whoever wants to push their agenda, whether that be harmless advertising or more worryingly, political manipulation. Additionally, whichever company got hold of all this data would instantly become a focal point for data breachers who would want access to a whole range of private accounts, from your bank account to your phone.

Sarah Kunst, who is involved with several Lib Dem donor groups had the following to say to me on the topic:

I invest in cybersecurity and the ban has me freaking out because the only way to enforce it is handing over all biometric data and IDs to companies like Persona (backed by Peter Thiel, already gives info to the US Government). It will be the biggest betrayal of British people possibly ever because, if there is a hack of the biometric database, it will mean that everyone is forever compromised (unless you get new eyes!) and the fraud vector is unimaginable. I truly think supporting it is treasonous and I cannot fathom how security services didn’t shut this horrific idea down.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged social media ban | 13 Comments

Paddy’s Dangerous Idea No. 2

By Kirsten Johnson | Thu 3rd January 2019 - 8:14 am

Following on from my post last week on Paddy’s Dangerous Idea No. 1, I am delving into his second proposal. Paddy argued:

We have long understood that property owning rights are one of the foundation stones of democracy. Yet each of us gives away our most intimate of property free and daily to the most powerful corporations, who make millions and millions from it. I am talking of course, about our personal data.

Why do we Lib Dems not assert the citizens right to own their own data and to have control over how it is used? Why about proposing a law – perhaps a European one – which says to Messrs Amazon, Google, Starbucks etc, that they can use our personal data for their commercial purposes, but only with our permission and if they give us a share of the profits. Can you think of anything which would more alter the relationship between these masters of the commercial universe and the customers whose information they exploit for such enormous profit? Can you think of anything which would more empower the citizen in the market place? Isn’t that what we Lib Dems are supposed to be about? So?

I really like this idea. Ownership of our own data gives us not only control over who does what with our data but means we can expect to be paid if others use our data, especially if they make money from it. It might seem radical, but it makes a lot of sense.

The arguments over whether we own our bodies and separated bodily material have been extensively debated. If we do own our bodies, shouldn’t our data also be owned by us – isn’t our data inherently who we are?