LIVE AS IF YOU WERE TO DIE TOMORROW. LEARN AS IF YOU WERE TO LIVE FOREVER (GANDHI).
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Question of the Week No. 9
Should an individual have an unqualified legal
right to control the collection, use, access and retention of personal
information about them and their activities?
I think there should be one, but I don't know if it would actually do very many people that much good. Like we have talked about a lot in class, the average consumer doesn't really understand the possible privacy issues with having their information readily available to people. I think that in order for a right like this to be effective and useful to people, there would have to be some sort of consumer education program implemented so people could be aware of the implications of this right. Either that, or they could just start repeating it a lot in movies like they do with the Miranda Rights, and then maybe people would get the gist of it. Just kidding.
There are two kinds of personal information. One is information that looks at an individual uniquely—such as purchase history, personal tastes, who they're friends with, etc—the other is information that is collected over some population of individuals—the things that 20-something males buy, or the literary tastes of honors students at the University of Utah. We should have the right to control how our individual information is stored and used, but not our information in aggregate. Even if the aggregate information is about a relatively small group (such as female honors student freshmen at the U) as long as the information doesn't uniquely identify an individual (or nearly uniquely do so) I don't think the individual should have control over it.
Given all the research that I have been doing on data brokers I have to say yes. Information collected on someone (be it accurate or not) can effect a persons everyday life and they should have at least a little control over how this data effects them, at least to the point that they can correct inaccurate data. But Sheyne made some good points I never even thought of. I agree that there is a difference between demographic information and personal information. You should be able to control personal information that will inevitably effect you but I see no harm in general data collected for studies and the like.
I read Mary's post about data brokers before responding to this question and I think that people should have the right to regulate what data can be collected about them. Sheyne brings up a very good point about the difference between personal data and demographic data but often times, these data are associated with each other and it would be easy to identify people. However, I would agree with Sheyne that demographic data should be free of regulations but the individual would regulate their personal data if these two types could be disassociated. Demographic data is often very useful for research purposes and I think there shouldn't be any regulation on that.
Yes, I think that there should be. I think there have been some good points raised already - namely, differentiating between aggregated data and uniquely collected data brought up by Sheyne, and the lack of consumer understanding brought up by Anne. I imagine most people wouldn't object to being part of a '20 year old business major' target audience, but would be opposed to knowing that their unique internet history, coupled with other personal information is utilized to target them. Additionally, to Anne's point, I feel that without proper knowledge and understanding of the risks, even having the power to control their information and data would probably fall on deaf ears. Still though, I believe that the current system is clearly flawed, as we've touched on numerous times in this class. Without most people knowing, a a good chunk of information gets out to entities that we may not want to have the information. Ultimately, it is information about the consumer, and the consumer should be able to decide.
While my instinct is yes, I also understand that it’s a bit impractical as well as unrealistic in terms of consumer actions. Most people don’t know their privacy rights and their ability to monitor them. Realistically, this won’t change if we are given this right. I agree with Anne that consumer education is needed to make this a viable plan. I also see Sheyne’s point, not all data is identifiable. In research, unidentifiable data that is still of a personal nature, such as demographics, is often used for research without consent or IRB oversight. The same principle could be applied to tech data. So, while legal rights to control all personal information would be nice, they should be qualified.
I would have to say yes. I like what Sheyne said and I can't say that I had thought of it before. I think I lean more towards his argument given Steffi's point that implementing those rights would be logistically difficult, especially in the aggregate. I think personally identifiable information is something that an individual should have control over and people should give express consent before that data is used. I also agree with Anne in that a consumer education program is vital for any of this talk about "privacy rights" to actually be useful to the public.
Although, question for Professor Dryer or anyone really and I definitely should have asked this before responding but it just occurred to me, what do we mean by unqualified legal right? Also, by "activities" do we mean online activities or just activities in general? Thanks, sorry I didn't ask sooner!
I think that people deserve the right to control their own information, but I also believe that it should be possible to sign away these rights. I think that there really isn't a one-size-fits-all solution. I love the possibility of using services like google, which I understand could not function on the level that they do currently without the data collection they perform. However, I also understand that some people may be uncomfortable with these practices, even if I personally have no problem with it.
I think this is an interesting question. It brings up a lot of points that have already been made, such as the lack of education the general public has in this area and the possible need to disassociate aggregate data and uniquely personal data. My ideas resonate with most of what has been said, but I agree with what Steffi said that there should still be qualifications. I am definitely in favor of there being a legal right to control the collection, use, access and retention of personal information, but I am not in favor of it being unqualified.
I also agree that an unqualified right to control personal information is impractical. I understand the prevailing sentiment of the class, and I believe there should be restrictions and ample safeguards against the collection of such data, should an individual want such protections.I would also go so far as to say that the individual should be allotted more such rights than exist under the status quo. However, given the omnipresent state of technology today, and the exponential growth it is seeing, I feel that a unilateral right such as the one proposed could be a hinderance to innovation. This is the very reason that I agree stringent safeguards to protect individual liberties should be ensured, but in this case I would argue that a slight tempering of individual rights could be in the communal interest.
I think there should be one, but I don't know if it would actually do very many people that much good. Like we have talked about a lot in class, the average consumer doesn't really understand the possible privacy issues with having their information readily available to people. I think that in order for a right like this to be effective and useful to people, there would have to be some sort of consumer education program implemented so people could be aware of the implications of this right.
ReplyDeleteEither that, or they could just start repeating it a lot in movies like they do with the Miranda Rights, and then maybe people would get the gist of it. Just kidding.
There are two kinds of personal information. One is information that looks at an individual uniquely—such as purchase history, personal tastes, who they're friends with, etc—the other is information that is collected over some population of individuals—the things that 20-something males buy, or the literary tastes of honors students at the University of Utah. We should have the right to control how our individual information is stored and used, but not our information in aggregate. Even if the aggregate information is about a relatively small group (such as female honors student freshmen at the U) as long as the information doesn't uniquely identify an individual (or nearly uniquely do so) I don't think the individual should have control over it.
ReplyDeleteGiven all the research that I have been doing on data brokers I have to say yes. Information collected on someone (be it accurate or not) can effect a persons everyday life and they should have at least a little control over how this data effects them, at least to the point that they can correct inaccurate data. But Sheyne made some good points I never even thought of. I agree that there is a difference between demographic information and personal information. You should be able to control personal information that will inevitably effect you but I see no harm in general data collected for studies and the like.
ReplyDeleteI read Mary's post about data brokers before responding to this question and I think that people should have the right to regulate what data can be collected about them. Sheyne brings up a very good point about the difference between personal data and demographic data but often times, these data are associated with each other and it would be easy to identify people. However, I would agree with Sheyne that demographic data should be free of regulations but the individual would regulate their personal data if these two types could be disassociated. Demographic data is often very useful for research purposes and I think there shouldn't be any regulation on that.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that there should be. I think there have been some good points raised already - namely, differentiating between aggregated data and uniquely collected data brought up by Sheyne, and the lack of consumer understanding brought up by Anne. I imagine most people wouldn't object to being part of a '20 year old business major' target audience, but would be opposed to knowing that their unique internet history, coupled with other personal information is utilized to target them. Additionally, to Anne's point, I feel that without proper knowledge and understanding of the risks, even having the power to control their information and data would probably fall on deaf ears. Still though, I believe that the current system is clearly flawed, as we've touched on numerous times in this class. Without most people knowing, a a good chunk of information gets out to entities that we may not want to have the information. Ultimately, it is information about the consumer, and the consumer should be able to decide.
ReplyDeleteWhile my instinct is yes, I also understand that it’s a bit impractical as well as unrealistic in terms of consumer actions. Most people don’t know their privacy rights and their ability to monitor them. Realistically, this won’t change if we are given this right. I agree with Anne that consumer education is needed to make this a viable plan. I also see Sheyne’s point, not all data is identifiable. In research, unidentifiable data that is still of a personal nature, such as demographics, is often used for research without consent or IRB oversight. The same principle could be applied to tech data. So, while legal rights to control all personal information would be nice, they should be qualified.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say yes. I like what Sheyne said and I can't say that I had thought of it before. I think I lean more towards his argument given Steffi's point that implementing those rights would be logistically difficult, especially in the aggregate. I think personally identifiable information is something that an individual should have control over and people should give express consent before that data is used. I also agree with Anne in that a consumer education program is vital for any of this talk about "privacy rights" to actually be useful to the public.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, question for Professor Dryer or anyone really and I definitely should have asked this before responding but it just occurred to me, what do we mean by unqualified legal right? Also, by "activities" do we mean online activities or just activities in general? Thanks, sorry I didn't ask sooner!
ReplyDeletePerceptive question about what is meant by an "unqualified right," one which we will discuss in class.
DeleteI think that people deserve the right to control their own information, but I also believe that it should be possible to sign away these rights. I think that there really isn't a one-size-fits-all solution. I love the possibility of using services like google, which I understand could not function on the level that they do currently without the data collection they perform. However, I also understand that some people may be uncomfortable with these practices, even if I personally have no problem with it.
ReplyDeleteI think this is an interesting question. It brings up a lot of points that have already been made, such as the lack of education the general public has in this area and the possible need to disassociate aggregate data and uniquely personal data. My ideas resonate with most of what has been said, but I agree with what Steffi said that there should still be qualifications. I am definitely in favor of there being a legal right to control the collection, use, access and retention of personal information, but I am not in favor of it being unqualified.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that an unqualified right to control personal information is impractical. I understand the prevailing sentiment of the class, and I believe there should be restrictions and ample safeguards against the collection of such data, should an individual want such protections.I would also go so far as to say that the individual should be allotted more such rights than exist under the status quo. However, given the omnipresent state of technology today, and the exponential growth it is seeing, I feel that a unilateral right such as the one proposed could be a hinderance to innovation. This is the very reason that I agree stringent safeguards to protect individual liberties should be ensured, but in this case I would argue that a slight tempering of individual rights could be in the communal interest.
ReplyDelete