Is everyone happy sharing transport & mobility data? No!

Over the last week I have been continuing with my work to provide a more detailed & relevant breakdown of each of the recommendations containing in the DfT MaaS Code or Practice. Although the pace of these releases has slowed down (partly reflecting the need to ensure consistency with what I’ve written previously and partially because of other work commitments) I have manged to publish another one on the topic of “Data considerations to facilitate MaaS” and focused on recommendation 21/68 that MaaS schemes use data sharing agreements based upon the ICO’s Code of Practice to ensure good practice and compliance with data protection legislation. https://medium.com/@hayden.sutherland/dft-maas-code-of-practice-recommendation-21-68-f0b83dd063f8

This has also led me to reflect on the results of a recent survey for the Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation (CIHT) outlined: https://www.dhirubhai.net/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7123305309560803328/

In this report they show how much their respondents agree with each of the 7 principles in the DfT Transport Data Strategy: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1136478/dft-transport-data-strategy.pdf

These principles being:

1. Data should be open by default and using open standards*
2. Data should be protected and appropriately governed, maintaining public trust, while not using security and privacy as blockers to innovation where privacy protecting solutions can be found
3. Data and algorithms should be used ethically
4. Data generated through public investment should be used for public benefit
5. Data from new mobility services should be shared where appropriate**
6. We should test the market before commissioning new services and solutions
7. Where these principles are not met and the case for intervention can be made, we will consider the use of regulation or legislation

?*This complies with the Government Digital Service's Technology Code of Practice: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/technology-code-of-practice/technology-code-of-practice

**The use of the caveat 'where appropriate' can be seen as a way for transport providers and mobility schemes to avoiding sharing data (putting forward an excuse based on what they think is 'appropriate'). However, this would then conflict with the first principle that “Data should be open by default and using open standards”.

Note: It would also then open up data owners to a challenge by DfT, who have clearly stated in the Transport Data Strategy "our central data team will act as a focal point to challenge why data is not being made openly available, with a presumption of open by default. We will engage with data owners to test the cases put forward for why this cannot be achieved".

Why disagree with a data sharing principle?

The highest amount of disagreement in the survey was with principle #2 “Data should be protected and appropriately governed, maintaining public trust, while not using security and privacy as blockers to innovation where privacy protecting solutions can be found”. And although no reason for this level of disagreement [15%] was given, I can’t help but think that a certain number of those who responded:

• Have previously considered or actually blocked the sharing of data because it requires security and privacy controls (e.g. its too difficult ) - see above reference to the ICO Data Sharing Code of Practice
• Are unhappy about encouraging innovation via data sharing (e.g. it’s a barrier to market entry that they are unwilling to lower)
• Are becoming concerned about the increasing amount of data sharing being discussed and considered across the transport & mobility sector (e.g. this behaviour changes mindsets, introduces different ways of working / standards and maybe even acts as the basis for new legislation eventually)

Hopefully this was just a percentage of people who mis-read or misunderstood the question…