Routes for breaching and protecting genetic privacy

We are entering the era of ubiquitous genetic information for research, clinical care, and personal curiosity. Sharing these datasets is vital for rapid progress in understanding the genetic basis of human diseases. However, one growing concern is the ability to protect the genetic privacy of the data originators. Here, we technically map threats to genetic privacy and discuss potential mitigation strategies for privacy-preserving dissemination of genetic data.Comment: Draft for comment

EU - Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and e-learning in Education Project - Phase II

The training needs analysis was conducted beteeen February and April 2015 for the EU funded project: ICT in Education in Kosovo. The processes required to perform the traning needs analysis have been. The design of a framework of competences; The identification of target groups; The creation and implementation of an online survey to assess the competence of education sector personnel against the competences contained in the framework; The collation, preparation and analysis of the survey data; and Reporting the research findings.European Union Office in KosovoEuropeAid/133846/C/SER/X

Online privacy: towards informational self-determination on the internet : report from Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 11061

The Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop "Online Privacy: Towards Informational Self-Determination on the Internet" (11061) has been held in February 6-11, 2011 at Schloss Dagstuhl. 30 participants from academia, public sector, and industry have identified the current status-of-the-art of and challenges for online privacy as well as derived recommendations for improving online privacy. Whereas the Dagstuhl Manifesto of this workshop concludes the results of the working groups and panel discussions, this article presents the talks of this workshop by their abstracts

Response to Privacy as a Public Good

In the spirit of moving forward the theoretical and empirical scholarship on privacy as a public good, this response addresses four issues raised by Professors Fairfield and Engel’s article: first, their depiction of individuals in groups; second, suggestions for clarifying the concept of group; third, an explanation of why the platforms on which groups exist and interact needs more analysis; and finally, the question of what kind of government intervention might be necessary to protect privacy as a public good

Privacy as a Public Good

Privacy is commonly studied as a private good: my personal data is mine to protect and control, and yours is yours. This conception of privacy misses an important component of the policy problem. An individual who is careless with data exposes not only extensive information about herself, but about others as well. The negative externalities imposed on nonconsenting outsiders by such carelessness can be productively studied in terms of welfare economics. If all relevant individuals maximize private benefit, and expect all other relevant individuals to do the same, neoclassical economic theory predicts that society will achieve a suboptimal level of privacy. This prediction holds even if all individuals cherish privacy with the same intensity. As the theoretical literature would have it, the struggle for privacy is destined to become a tragedy. But according to the experimental public-goods literature, there is hope. Like in real life, people in experiments cooperate in groups at rates well above those predicted by neoclassical theory. Groups can be aided in their struggle to produce public goods by institutions, such as communication, framing, or sanction. With these institutions, communities can manage public goods without heavy-handed government intervention. Legal scholarship has not fully engaged this problem in these terms. In this Article, we explain why privacy has aspects of a public good, and we draw lessons from both the theoretical and the empirical literature on public goods to inform the policy discourse on privacy