What does the government know about us? Where are they keeping this information and who can see it? And what else are they planning? These are the questions that the Open Rights group tries to answer in our new spoof website Statebook.

A quick glance shows you the travel, communication, employment and education databases that hold information on you. It doesn't take long to realise that the picture the state can build about individuals is very revealing.

This accumulation of data about us is becoming intrusive and may change our society for the worse. Data leaks, internet data retention, plans for increased surveillance on your everyday communications on the net: it feels like public policy is going in the wrong direction.

Even the government seems to recognise the public concern, albeit answering this with a tilt in Jacqui Smith's rhetoric, rather than substantial shifts in policy. For instance, when announcing plans for massive and intrusive new powers to capture internet traffic data, including Facebook messages, Smith spun this as a concession to privacy advocates, as the plans for a huge central database have been shelved. Meanwhile, alleged plans for GCHQ to monitor internet traffic data and content – denied by GCHQ – remain outside of proper public debate.

Smith recently announced a review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). Again, the story we were told was that the government is waking up to privacy concerns, as councils are misusing powers of surveillance under RIPA. The real reason for this review is likely to be because EU commissioner Viviane Reding is starting proceedings to take the UK to court over RIPA, as it has been found to give inadequate protections to private citizens.

Finally, Jacqui Smith announced that DNA records of the innocent would be destroyed. This is a belated response to the European court verdict that the DNA database breaches human rights by retaining the DNA records of people who have been investigated but never found guilty.However the spin has quickly been found to mask an attempt to fudge the court's verdict. Innocent people's DNA will be destroyed – but after 12 years for a violent or sexual offence, or six years for a less serious offence. In the eyes of the government, some people are less innocent than others, it would seem.

What's needed is a wholesale change of direction. First, ministers need to think about the world we live in. Data is easier to collect, store and analyse all the time. Second, privacy relies on data security, and it is difficult and expensive to bolt them onto big IT projects once completed. Third, IT systems rely on people, who tend to be quite bad at security. Big databases with large numbers of users will be insecure. It's a fact of life, so systems need to take this into account.

In order to deal with these problems, the government needs to be more expert. It still seems that very few computer experts are hired, leaving ministries at the mercy of salesmen and consultants.

The public needs to grapple with these issues head on, too. We're building a new world with new technologies. They can be used for good and ill, and the choices are being made now.

Politicians won't think about the wider questions unless we make them. Fortunately, the digital age is also a social revolution, and gives us new abilities to network and campaign. Let's make our voices heard.