The trade off between upmost privacy and the public interest in Gathrer’s Grenfell Count
I originally wrote this on June 27th on Gathrer’s medium
There are a number of legitimate concerns regarding Gathrer’s attitude towards privacy. These concerns divided into three categories. They are:
- Legal: Does Gathrer violate the data-protection act?
- Ethical: Are families not in a sensitive situation, and is it right to give them the added concern of their loved ones’ data being made public?
- Pragmatic: Is it really necessary to make families’ data public in order to obtain a more accurate count of those missing?
Legal
Identity theft and the wrong-use of our data is a constant danger. The UK’s Data Protection Act seeks to safeguard these threats. That said, there is a public-interest-defence regarding the Data Protection Act. It is in effect and has been argued for by many MPs including Nick Clegg. In some cases, revealing data is in the public-interest. Gathrer argues that to be the case here.
There is a data protection data protection disclaimer at the very top of the Grenfell Count spreadsheet, on rows 14 and 15. Though this certainly is not an ethical argument, it is important to note, those deceased or presumed dead given they are missing, can have their personal data communicated in the public domain. Someone no longer with us, has no right that data. That said, it is important to be sensitive, and listen to family’s concerns and act sensitively and accordingly. Going back the data protection disclaimer this states:
Data protection: This data is provided in the public interest and in an open and honest way. We believe it falls under the public interest defence, given the current long painstaking procedure of obtaining relatives and friends’ statuses in the official way, public accountability of authorities, and the need for all residents to stay in touch to take legal action in future. And finally, filling in gaps regarding those present in the building that authorities might miss. Families and friends of relatives have thanked Gathrer for its efforts. https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1552/data-protection-and-journalism-media-guidance.pdf If you or your immediate family are in this list and you want information deleted, contact us at facebook.com/gathrer. Deletions will be completed in 24 hours. Inside editors, likewise must message facebook.com/gathrer to log deletions so duplicates are not added.
There is too a legal disclaimer, and the count is described as an ‘indicator’ and not as a definitive list.
Disclaimer: This list is incomplete, has errors and is only an approximate indication, as anyone can edit this. Check multiple versions over the course of days to check corrections. Confirm facts further before taking relevant action. At Gathrer, we try to pull in as much possible data as we can, thereby giving rangebound estimates via column D.
Where data is already public, that need not be opt-in. Where data is not yet public, that must be opt-in providing it is not data revealed falling under the public-interest-defence. That last remaining data, accounts for a small proportion of data on the spreadsheet. Now the only question that remains is, is Gathrer in the public interest? As our feedback article will show, opinion gathered from personal messages, tweets, likes, shares, comments and messages from families have supported Gathrer’s Grenfell Count. The following section on ethics will argue that it is in the public interest, in a more general way.
Ethics
Joshua, who started Gathrer though the ethics first and foremost before it began. It started off, after asking for the community’s feedback. Gathrer can be argued to be ethical for a variety of reasons:
- Lots of friends of victims want to know where their loved ones are too. Contacting the casualty bureau is a pain and they want an easier method to find an indication. They want a more seamless form of being updated. The process of not being updated properly, whether you’re a family, or a distant friend, postpone’s many families’ time to begin to mourn. It in many cases does not inform those too, who might not of been aware of their old friends’ death, given an unawareness of where they presently live. They deserve to begin to mourn too.
- Families ought to be able to contact one another in future to unionise legally, and need a database to do that. Their homes burnt down due, possibly, to illegal practices and ignorance. It is important that they unionise to allow their voices to be heard in the courts.
- It also makes the council and government more publicly accountable and prevents a whitewash.
- It helps more official organisations, to source more information that otherwise wouldn’t be obtained.
- Our methodology is rather relatively stringent with a combination of bottom-up and top-down, with 3 columns devoted to sources. See our methodology article to learn more. No illegal methods are used to obtain data, and in most cases it is data in the public domain.
- Gathrer would argue, to not find the missing, and to not act is banal and therefore unethical.
- Gathrer has corrected news articles in many cases, providing correct spelling of names and correct floor numbers. Its helping the BBC and the Telegraph, eventually, communicate a more accurate count to the wider public. The BBC and Telegraph have been in touch.
- A number of Grenfell residents, families of and those working with Grenfell residents, support what Gathrer is doing. See our feedback article, collating feedback to date, to see that.
- Less significantly, the general public, volunteers and perhaps some MPs support the Gathrer Grenfell Count initiative.
- It isn’t only important to amass feedback, but to amass feedback from the right sources. There are of course those who do not support the initiative. They have legitimate concerns too. First its important to note, in many cases, those with more pessimistic views of what Gathrer is doing have been folks who are not families, have not been working directly for families, or have been charged with the official right to represent those families.
In conclusion, we view ethics, from a consensual perspective. What is it that most people want? What is it that is in the public-interest? Certain admins might not like it, but it is the opinion of the entire community that matters. Not a few who might disagree, but the consensus with more weighting put on surviving residents followed by families of those in the building. Joshua has repeatedly stated:
As soon as it is clear, Gathrer’s Grenfell Count is not in the public interest, the initiative will stop. We will amass feedback, transparently and publicly, to stay true to that process.
Therefore it is very, very important, that families or indeed people who are not for the Grenfell Count, reach out. Contacting Joshua has been made incredibly easy to do. He is responsive.
Pragmatics
Finding the missing at Grenfell is a giant jigsaw puzzle. The Met, charities the council and ordinary people are all trying to finish it. We must know every single piece. Every single piece matters. Every single piece is a life.
In many cases, those at Grenfell at the time of the tragic fire, were not residents. They were on holiday, they were visiting friends, they were unofficial migrants.
Many apartments in Grenfell, held more people beyond their weight. Although we know there were 40 1 bedroom apartments, 80 2 bedroom apartments and 7 others including more bedrooms, it is important to note that these bedrooms could well of been holding > than the UK’s average capacity. Living in London is expensive. Many of these flats would of held small children, capable of sharing bedrooms with others.
So, what is clear is, the jigsaw is still yet to be completed. And completing it is more important than ever. In order to complete a jigsaw, we will have to see other pieces (other names in this case). We would benefit from coordinating as many brains as possible. Knowledge can come from the most unlikely of places and we must get as many folks involved as possible. That said, it is of course important, the jigsaw is completed in the right way, and in a sensitive way. That is why Joshua states:
Amassing continous feedback from survivors, families of victims, friends of victims, volunteers, volunteer organisations, legal and official organisations, is important. We need to know we are doing something serving the public interest. Something that achieves correct optimum between [legal : ethical : pragmatics]. That will change, and as soon as it is clear it Gathrer has to stop, it will.
Conclusion
We welcome your feedback. We will factor in that feedback publicly, and log it. Lots of work still has to be done in logging previous items of feedback, but once we have that in place, logging further feedback should be easy.
