(Update at the end of this post.)
In the 1960s, at Yale University, Stanley Milgram conducted his controversial, but still well-known today, obedience experiments, which found that test subjects were much more likely to obey instructions from someone they perceived to be in authority, even if they were reluctant to follow the instructions.
This effect is sometimes known as the authority bias, and I’m actually seeing the same effect in practice at the moment, involving a local authority.
The local authority in question is assessing the “Exempt Accommodation” status of domestic violence refuges run by my client. For decades the status has been approved based on the service provided by the refuges (which is commissioned by the local authority itself) and they way they operate.
The local authority has requested… details that would disclose highly sensitive information, and special categories of personal data, about women and children who may well be living in fear for their lives…
This year, however, the local authority has requested named and detailed support plans for all residents, plus details of all interactions between the staff and the victims of abuse. Details that would disclose highly sensitive information, and special categories of personal data, about women and children who may well be living in fear for their lives to a number of unknown people.
While I understand the need to weed out fraudulent cases of “supported housing” provision, there are other, non-invasive ways to evidence that my client’s refuges are not fraudulent and are in fact meeting the criteria to be classed as Exempt Accommodation.
So why the request for the detailed records that identify individual women?
Where Authority Bias seems to be at play is both internally at the local authority, and externally. The LA itself, despite many detailed discussions and emails, seems to see no issue in requesting this level of detail as (I’m paraphrasing) “only the housing benefit team will see the refuge residents’ details”. Team members who – potentially – could include partners of women staying in the refuges, for all anyone knows.
And I’m seeing it externally too. I’ve spoken to a variety of colleagues in the sector about this issue over the last few days, and while some people agree with me that it feels wrong, to say the least, I feel that some may have fallen victim to the Milgram effect; several people have assumed that there’s no reason to argue against it, “because it’s a local authority…”
We must be sure there is a fair and lawful purpose for any collection of personal data, no matter how official or well-meaning the organisation involved appears to be, or even is.
Bias of all sorts affects us all, but authority bias seems to be one that I’m a little less susceptible to than some others (although there are many biases I do struggle with). This has been known to get me into hot water from time to time! But this is a case I’m convinced is worth fighting for, even if it makes me unpopular; we must be aware of authority bias, and we must be sure there is a fair and lawful purpose for any collection of personal data, no matter how official or well-meaning the organisation involved appears to be, or even is.
I’m not here to point fingers or apportion blame; I want to collaborate with the social housing sector to raise awareness of the importance of purpose in data processing. Will you join me?
Let’s work together to ensure that we don’t follow instructions about data collection without considering the people behind the data.
By protecting purpose, we protect people. Let’s put purpose first.
If you’re not already on the CP Data Protection mailing list, join now to hear more about our fight against the Authority Bias and the campaign to #StartWithPurpose.
Update:
After many, many more emails, meetings and late night phone-calls, we came to a compromise with the Local Authority that the client and I are happy with, in terms of the service-users’ privacy. It required a lot more work for the client, but the Local Authority finally agreed to accept a report that collated the hours spent on providing support to women and children in each refuge. This was instead of the detailed reports they originally wanted, showing the details of every single interaction, for every woman and family in a refuge. From the collated reports, the LA could ascertain that “enough” support was provided to the refuge residents to make the refuges “Exempt Accommodation”, making them exempt from the rent cap for the amount that can be paid via benefits.
We never got an answer from the Local Authority about why they couldn’t, or wouldn’t, accept the refuges are Exempt Accommodation based on the way they operate and the way their services are commissioned (commissioned by another department of the LA itself) which is the way the status had been assessed for literal decades prior to this. I suspect it’s linked to cost-reduction, and trying to limit the number of properties that are classed as Exempt Accommodation, because it costs the LA more to fund. But that’s a short-sighted “solution”, as it can result in the loss of these vital refuges and other support services, which has a negative impact on the area, and on society, in the long-term.