Big Data Ethics

Big Data ethics involves adherence to the concepts of right and wrong behavior regarding data, especially personal data. Big Data ethics focuses on structured or unstructured data collectors and disseminators. Big Data ethics is supported, at EU level, by extensive documentation, which seeks to find concrete solutions to maximize the value of Big Data without sacrificing fundamental human rights. The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) supports the right to privacy and the right to the protection of personal data in the respect of human dignity. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30867.4304

The EU data protection reform and the challenges of big data: Tensions in the relations between technology and the law

In this article, we examine key features of the new EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the light of implications of big data technologies. We will focus specifically on the original regulatory approaches introduced by the GDPR relying on risk assessment and management and on self-defense by Internet users, seeking to interpret them in view of a law-technology lag versus a law-technology driving perspective, meaning a legislative policy guided essentially by the intent to foster technological innovation and competitiveness in the Digital Single Market. Indeed, the current EU data protection reform seemingly fails to provide the appropriate caution that should be expected from a law designed to protect a fundamental human right. Notwithstanding the declared aspirations of the GDPR, the decision-making power on what and how to collect, store, and process personal data is leaning to the operators and data controllers to the disadvantage of data subjects and supervisory authorities. While technological conditions, namely the automatisation inherent to data mining and data analytics, render the effectiveness of key data protection principles harder to pursue, it is also true that the increasing suppleness of the regime is furthered by the Regulation’s own regulatory choices.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

The Supervisors' Mirror Image Regarding Doctoral Supervision

UIDB/04647/2020 UIDP/04647/2020Studies regarding doctoral education can focus the PhD student, the supervisor, higher education institution (policy, curriculum, professional career support, culture, among others). PhD students, supervisors and higher education institution, constitute three keys for the same door (doctoral education), and without one of them, the door can´t be well open. Choose which of them should be analyzed is the researcher responsibility, as present data and look carefully to it. During the last years' doctoral education and the doctoral supervision process at UNL as been studied, looking to PhD students, supervisors and institution [1-5]. In the present research, the focus is on supervisor perception. It is important to know supervisor opinion, to attempt and captures their perceptions regarding the doctoral supervision process. When the supervisor thinks and responds to surveys regarding supervision, he/she is presenting an image of himself/herself. This study occurred among the PhD supervisor population at a Science engineering school (Faculdade de Ciências Tecnologia) at Universidade Nova de Lisboa, a Portuguese Higher education institution, with a footprint in the research area. It was possible to capture the image that reflected in the mirror when the supervisor looked. The unexpected image reflected is of a researcher and not a supervisor. When they look to their doctorates, they generally see future technicians/ qualified workers and not a future researcher. Nonetheless, they consider that to finish the PhD, doctorates have to acquire the research profile. This mismatch is consistent with the reality, where attrition exists and many students think to live the academy after the enrollment in the PhD.publishersversionpublishe

Eavesdropping Whilst You're Shopping: Balancing Personalisation and Privacy in Connected Retail Spaces

Physical retailers, who once led the way in tracking with loyalty cards and `reverse appends', now lag behind online competitors. Yet we might be seeing these tables turn, as many increasingly deploy technologies ranging from simple sensors to advanced emotion detection systems, even enabling them to tailor prices and shopping experiences on a per-customer basis. Here, we examine these in-store tracking technologies in the retail context, and evaluate them from both technical and regulatory standpoints. We first introduce the relevant technologies in context, before considering privacy impacts, the current remedies individuals might seek through technology and the law, and those remedies' limitations. To illustrate challenging tensions in this space we consider the feasibility of technical and legal approaches to both a) the recent `Go' store concept from Amazon which requires fine-grained, multi-modal tracking to function as a shop, and b) current challenges in opting in or out of increasingly pervasive passive Wi-Fi tracking. The `Go' store presents significant challenges with its legality in Europe significantly unclear and unilateral, technical measures to avoid biometric tracking likely ineffective. In the case of MAC addresses, we see a difficult-to-reconcile clash between privacy-as-confidentiality and privacy-as-control, and suggest a technical framework which might help balance the two. Significant challenges exist when seeking to balance personalisation with privacy, and researchers must work together, including across the boundaries of preferred privacy definitions, to come up with solutions that draw on both technology and the legal frameworks to provide effective and proportionate protection. Retailers, simultaneously, must ensure that their tracking is not just legal, but worthy of the trust of concerned data subjects.Comment: 10 pages, 1 figure, Proceedings of the PETRAS/IoTUK/IET Living in the Internet of Things Conference, London, United Kingdom, 28-29 March 201

Data protection in mHealth

http://www.ester.ee/record=b4575675*es

Transparency in transatlantic trade and data law

Transparency continues to occupy a patchy and uneven place in EU and US relations in key economic and regulatory areas. This patchiness plays out in a variety of ways including in downgrading by the US of the EU in diplomatic and regional standing albeit non-expressly in recent times. The chapter explores the shifts in practices on transparency in EU-US cooperation from a legal perspective. It focuses on EU-US trade negotiations and data transfer cooperation. Transparency provides a useful point of departure as it is a common value and instrument for the US and EU, yet one that seems to be utilised very differently. Transatlantic relations increasingly show a tension between the government to government model of transparency. In the EU-US data protection regime of the Privacy Shield a complex constellation of subjects is emerging and its genuine enforcement appears open to significant doubt. In trade, the European Parliament increasingly attempts to participate and involve citizens’ rights in new EU-US negotiations and raise civil liberties, citizens’ mobility rights and public interest themes. In light of these developments, this chapter considers how EU and US are becoming divergent in how they handle both communication with each other and toward citizens. The EU is increasingly becoming an organised transparent actor toward the US and trying to increase transparency toward citizens through different instruments, whereas at the moment we see in the US a disruptive environment of information flows and an administration that disrupts the traditional lines of allies and non-allies in how it behaves