Data protection for the common good : developing a framework for a data protection-focused data commons

This research is part of Janis Wong’s doctoral research, which is funded by the University of St Andrews St Leonard’s College, School of Computer Science, and School of Management.In our data-driven society, personal data affecting individuals as data subjects are increasingly being collected and processed by sizeable and international companies. While data protection laws and privacy technologies attempt to limit the impact of data breaches and privacy scandals, they rely on individuals having a detailed understanding of the available recourse, resulting in the responsibilization of data protection. Existing data stewardship frameworks incorporate data-protection-by-design principles but may not include data subjects in the data protection process itself, relying on supplementary legal doctrines to better enforce data protection regulations. To better protect individual autonomy over personal data, this paper proposes a data protection-focused data commons to encourage co-creation of data protection solutions and rebalance power between data subjects and data controllers. We conduct interviews with commons experts to identify the institutional barriers to creating a commons and challenges of incorporating data protection principles into a commons, encouraging participatory innovation in data governance. We find that working with stakeholders of different backgrounds can support a commons’ implementation by openly recognizing data protection limitations in laws, technologies, and policies when applied independently. We propose requirements for deploying a data protection-focused data commons by applying our findings and data protection principles such as purpose limitation and exercising data subject rights to the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework. Finally, we map the IAD framework into a commons checklist for policy-makers to accommodate co-creation and participation for all stakeholders, balancing the data protection of data subjects with opportunities for seeking value from personal data.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

What’s in it for us? Benevolence, national security and digital surveillance

This article challenges suggestions that citizens should accept digital surveillance technologies (DSTs) and trade their privacy for better security. Drawing on data from nine EU countries, this research shows that citizens’ support for DSTs varies not only depending on the way their data are used but also depending on their views of the security agency operating them. Using an institutional trustworthiness lens, this research investigates three DST cases – smart CCTV, smartphone location tracking, and deep packet inspection – that present escalating degrees of privacy risk to citizens. The findings show that the perceived benevolence of security agencies is essential to acceptability in all three cases. For DSTs with greater privacy risk, questions of competence and integrity enter citizens’ assessments.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Online learning as a commons : supporting students' data protection preferences through a collaborative digital environment

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of technology in education, where higher education institutions had to implement online teaching models overnight, without time for due consideration of appropriate data protection practices or impact assessments. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) attempts to limit the negative effects caused by the digitisation of education such as lecture capture, tutorial recording, and education surveillance. The GDPR, however, may be insufficient in removing the power imbalance between students and their institutions, where students as data subjects have no choice but to accept their institutions’ terms or be locked out of academia. To increase protection of students’ autonomy, we propose an online learning data protection-focused data commons to support their agency with regards to protecting their personal data. We explain how a commons could apply to online learning, then develop and test an application to put the commons into practice. From our results, we find that although over 50% of students trust universities and staff with their online learning personal data, more transparency on institutional policies and data protection rights can support higher online learning participation rates, help mitigate potential data protection harms, and give students agency over their personal data beyond consent. We conclude that further research is required to move away from consent as the lawful basis for tutorial recordings, support inclusive online learning pedagogies, and balance the implementation of educational technologies with the need to deliver online learning to benefit students’ academic experience.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Big Data and surveillance: Hype, commercial logics and new intimate spheres

Big Data Analytics promises to help companies and public sector service providers anticipate consumer and service user behaviours so that they can be targeted in greater depth. The attempts made by these organisations to connect analytically with users raise questions about whether surveillance, and its associated ethical and rights-based concerns, are intensified. The articles in this special themed issue explore this question from both organisational and user perspectives. They highlight the hype which firms use to drive consumer, employee and service user engagement with analytics within both private and public spaces. Further, they explore extent to which, through Big Data, there is an attempt to expand surveillance into the emotional registers of domestic, embodied experience. Collectively, the papers reveal a fascinating nexus between the much-vaunted potential of analytics, the data practices themselves and the newly configured intimate spheres which have been drawn into the commercial value chain. Together, they highlight the need for conceptual and regulatory innovation so that analytics in practice may be better understood and critiqued. Whilst there is now a rich variety of scholarship on Big Data Analytics, critical perspectives on the organising practices of Big Data Analytics and its surveillance implications are thin on the ground. Combined, the articles published in this special theme begin to address this shortcoming

Questioning surveillance

The aim of this article is to make suggestions that could empower different socio-political groups to question surveillance. It does so by formulating sets of questions that different stakeholders can ask of themselves, of the private sector, and of government, including intelligence agencies. It is divided into three main parts. The first part provides some background on resilience in surveillance societies. It defines the terms and identifies features of resilience and today’s surveillance society. The second part lays out a set of questions addressed to each of the stakeholder groups. The questions are intended to promote consideration of a proposed or existing surveillance system, technology, practice or other initiative in terms of the necessity and proportionality of the system, and of whether stakeholders are being consulted. The third part offers a list of measures that can be taken to increase resilience in a surveillance society, to restrict the scope of surveillance systems to what can be legitimately justified, and to minimise the impacts of surveillance systems on the individual, groups and society

IRISS (Increasing Resilience in Surveillance Societies) FP7 European Research Project, Deliverable 3.2: Surveillance Impact Report

External research report produced for the European Commission as part of the FP7 IRISS project: Increasing Resilience in Surveillance Socieities, containing European case studies on the varying formats of neighbourhood watch, including the cultural and historical factors which may influence the creation of neighbourhood watch groups in the first instance. Overview of neighbourhood watch in the United Kingdom and analysis of the changing role of the police in relation to community policing and the impact which this has had on the primary purpose of neighbourhood watch organisations.This deliverable was written as part of the IRISS project which received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under Grant Agreement No. 285593. Additional co-authors: Alessia Ceresa, Chiara Fonio, Walter Peissl, Robert Rothman, Jaro Sterbik Lamina, Ivan Szekely, Beatrix Vissy, Wolfgang Bonß, Daniel Fischer, Gemma Galdon Clavell, Reinhard Kreissl, Alexander Neumann, Nils Zurawsk

Beyond the security paradox:Ten criteria for a socially informed security policy

This article is based on a research that has been funded by the EU project “SurPriSe: Surveillance, Privacy and Security: A large scale participatory assessment of criteria and factors determining acceptability and acceptance of security technologies in Europe”, which received funding from the FP7 program, under the grant number: 285492.This article investigates the normative and procedural criteria adopted by European citizens to assess the acceptability of surveillance-oriented security technologies. It draws on qualitative data gathered at 12 citizen summits in nine European countries. The analysis identifies 10 criteria, generated by citizens themselves, for a socially informed security policy. These criteria not only reveal the conditions, purposes and operation rules that would make current European security policies and technologies more consistent with citizens’ priorities. They also cast light on an interesting paradox: although people feel safe in their daily lives, they believe security could, and should, be improved.PostprintPeer reviewe

BHPR research: qualitative1. Complex reasoning determines patients' perception of outcome following foot surgery in rheumatoid arhtritis

Background: Foot surgery is common in patients with RA but research into surgical outcomes is limited and conceptually flawed as current outcome measures lack face validity: to date no one has asked patients what is important to them. This study aimed to determine which factors are important to patients when evaluating the success of foot surgery in RA Methods: Semi structured interviews of RA patients who had undergone foot surgery were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis of interviews was conducted to explore issues that were important to patients. Results: 11 RA patients (9 ♂, mean age 59, dis dur = 22yrs, mean of 3 yrs post op) with mixed experiences of foot surgery were interviewed. Patients interpreted outcome in respect to a multitude of factors, frequently positive change in one aspect contrasted with negative opinions about another. Overall, four major themes emerged. Function: Functional ability & participation in valued activities were very important to patients. Walking ability was a key concern but patients interpreted levels of activity in light of other aspects of their disease, reflecting on change in functional ability more than overall level. Positive feelings of improved mobility were often moderated by negative self perception ("I mean, I still walk like a waddling duck”). Appearance: Appearance was important to almost all patients but perhaps the most complex theme of all. Physical appearance, foot shape, and footwear were closely interlinked, yet patients saw these as distinct separate concepts. Patients need to legitimize these feelings was clear and they frequently entered into a defensive repertoire ("it's not cosmetic surgery; it's something that's more important than that, you know?”). Clinician opinion: Surgeons' post operative evaluation of the procedure was very influential. The impact of this appraisal continued to affect patients' lasting impression irrespective of how the outcome compared to their initial goals ("when he'd done it ... he said that hasn't worked as good as he'd wanted to ... but the pain has gone”). Pain: Whilst pain was important to almost all patients, it appeared to be less important than the other themes. Pain was predominately raised when it influenced other themes, such as function; many still felt the need to legitimize their foot pain in order for health professionals to take it seriously ("in the end I went to my GP because it had happened a few times and I went to an orthopaedic surgeon who was quite dismissive of it, it was like what are you complaining about”). Conclusions: Patients interpret the outcome of foot surgery using a multitude of interrelated factors, particularly functional ability, appearance and surgeons' appraisal of the procedure. While pain was often noted, this appeared less important than other factors in the overall outcome of the surgery. Future research into foot surgery should incorporate the complexity of how patients determine their outcome Disclosure statement: All authors have declared no conflicts of interes

Workplace surveillance: an overview

This article attempts to review the proliferation of research findings about surveillance in the workplace and the issues surrounding it. It establishes a number of points of departure when considering the issue of workplace surveillance, before reviewing some of the more critical issues. First, it establishes that organizations and surveillance go hand in hand; and that workplace surveillance can take social and technological forms. Personal data gathering, Internet and email monitoring, location tracking, biometrics and covert surveillance are all areas of development. There is also evidence that groups of employees are appropriating information and communication technologies to stare back at their employers, exposing unsavoury practices and organizing collectively, prompting new thinking about resistance. Organizations watch employees primarily to protect their assets, although the nature and intensity of surveillance says much about how a company views its employees. Workplace surveillance has consequences for employees, affecting employee well-being, work culture, productivity, creativity and motivation. If no alternative can be found, managerial attention to task design, supervisory processes, employees' expectations about monitoring, and an appraisal of the company's operating environment can mediate its downsides. It is argued that in many ways the normality of workplace surveillance, and the prevalence of arguments about how to 'do it better', make it difficult to radicalize. As part of what is seen as 'good' management practice, it can confer benefits on the employee if conducted in a humane, balanced way, and is considered on a case-by-case-organization-by-organization-basis. However, the introduction of broader debates around information use, rights, power and social structure highlights how surveillance in the workplace may serve to perpetuate existing inequalities and create new ones