"Data about who we are can never truly capture the intangibility of our identities, no matter how long that drop-down menu is." On the face of it, only the most ket-addled tech bro would disagree – even if these days they do seem to be the ones calling most of the shots. But on the other hand, is it reasonable or even hypothetically desirable to expect our full intangible identities to be apprehended every time we need to access goods or services? True, part of the problem here is that I've had this on the shelf for a couple of years, and even back in those faraway halcyon days of 2023, some of its points would have been more newsworthy, less accepted planks of the discourse. Coming to it now, with spurs including the announcement of the publisher's demise, ID cards rearing their ugly head again, and my algorithmic recommendations from Amazon Music in particular somehow contriving to get even worse when the bar had already been set at an abyssal level, too many of the warnings have already played out. Data collected without bad intentions can too easily find its way into malign hands? After DOGE and MAGA got their hands on the USA's databases of what used to be its citizenry, I think we all know about that one. As for the suggestion that repeated breaches and scandals regarding things like the Met's iniquitous Gangs Matrix can threaten trust in democracy: remind me again what that used to be? But where this ought to leave Rahman looking prescient, the book is undermined by consistently swinging the pendulum too far the other way, generally refusing – except in one rather odd hypothetical about vaccines – to countenance or even acknowledge the possibility that anyone in a non-hegemonic position might ever be acting deceitfully, maliciously or simply in error. Meaning the recommendations tend to be airy and unrealisable, progressive buzzwords just as seductive and unhelpful as the technocratic sort that created the problem in the first place. Gods know it's not a fondly remembered show these days, and there are sound reasons for that, but Little Britain pointed out the heart of the problem more than 20 years ago with the 'computer says no' sketch. And yes, both the world and individual identities have only grown more complex since, and forms have struggled to keep pace, but you could still derive from that better, more concrete recommendations than anything offered here: make sure forms always have a space for notes when the tickboxes don't suffice; make sure that anyone affected by imprecisions and mistakes can contact a human with the power to override the system about that; make sure people with the training to have a reasonable chance of telling the chancers and nutters from those who've been the victim of a real injustice are on the other end of that contact.
All of which said, if I hadn't read this I might never have encountered Kwame Anthony Appiah's brilliant term 'the Medusa Syndrome': "what the state gazes upon, it tends to turn to stone".