Reflection

Oh, if only we had as many people asking questions as the Republic of Estonia has data to answer them.

Perhaps proper data governance would then be valued more highly, and the necessary services and capabilities would be developed. Estonia’s e-state is older and more mature than that of many other countries, and as a result we have accumulated a substantial body of data. It is true that at least once a year someone complains about how complex and inconvenient access to data can be, or asks, ‘Why can’t we simply look it up?’ In other words, there is a clear demand for secondary use of data. Estonia needs this.

Unfortunately, at least once a year – and regrettably more often – we also read in the press how an Estonian organisation has ‘revolutionised’ secondary use and, whether through negligence or with the help of cybercriminals, has allowed data to become public.

And what of it? Is privacy not dead anyway in the age of social media and artificial intelligence?

The problem is that society does not know – or does not fully grasp – how much power can be exercised over a person when everything about them is known. Social media users can be more easily persuaded to buy products or even to change their beliefs. Wider circulation of health data would undermine the very logic of health insurance and make the lives of leaders and politicians more precarious, exposing them to blackmail.

In one version of an Estonian folktale, the Devil had resolved to prevent the builder of St Olaf’s Church in Tallinn from placing the cross on the roof. The builder’s protection lay in keeping his name secret, as knowing a person’s name was believed to confer power over them. The name was unwittingly revealed by his wife, who, while singing to their child one evening, promised that once the church was finished, Olev would return home with treats. Later, as Olev was setting the cross in place, someone shouted from below, ‘Olev, Olev, the cross is crooked!’ Startled, he fell from the tower and died. Our forebears – like many indigenous peoples around the world – understood the power that a name can hold over a person.

One of the most tragic contemporary examples of data reuse comes from Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the United States. A biometric database and related equipment created for the state fell into the hands of the Taliban, making it far easier to identify those they deemed undesirable.

Should we allow fear to hold back innovation?

No. Fear clouds judgement and stifles action.

We must ensure that our institutions are strong and adhere to their principles. At the same time, we must prepare for a future in which, for example, budget cuts or shifts in management culture weaken institutional memory and organisational safeguards. To mitigate this risk, privacy-enhancing technologies should be introduced to make unauthorised or unintended secondary use of data as difficult as possible, including within organisations themselves.

How can this be achieved? Public authorities in Estonia are currently facing budget reduction targets. Investments in data and artificial intelligence under Estonia’s AI strategy are justified by the prospect of reducing future costs by streamlining the state – with technology replacing human labour. Should the aim be a smaller or a stronger Statistics Estonia?

The current Official Statistics Act both permits and restricts the processing of state data. Statistics Estonia may process data but is not allowed to share them. My wish is that Statistics Estonia should not have greater capacity to track individuals through location data than the Police and Border Guard Board. At the same time, I want more value to be created from data in Estonia. We do not have the resources to duplicate this function and expertise elsewhere.

By European standards, Statistics Estonia is highly innovative and forward-looking. Should it perhaps become a Data Agency instead?