Big data development initiatives such as that conducted by French surveillance camera telecommunication company, Orange, in Côte d’Ivoire have shown that even a basic mobile phone traffic surveillance system data set can enable conclusions about social divisions and segregation on the basis of ethnicity, language, religion or political persuasion. What about consent? Because big data is derived from aggregated data from various sources (which are not always identifiable), there is no process to request the consent of a person for the resulting data that emerges. In many cases, that data is more personal than the set of data the person consented to give. In October 2012, MIT and the Université Catholique de Louvain, in Belgium, published research 16 channel dvr proving the uniqueness of human mobility traces and the implications this has on protecting privacy. The researchers analysed the anonymised data of 1.5 million mobile phone network camera
users in a small European country collected between April 2006 and June 2007, and found that just four points of reference, with fairly low spatial and temporal resolution, were sufficient to uniquely identify 95 per cent of them. This showed that even if anonymised datasets do not contain name, home address, phone number or other obvious identifier, the uniqueness of individuals’ patterns (i.e. top location of users) information could be linked back to them. Advocates for big data for development argue that there is no need to request consent because they concern themselves with unidentifiable anonymised data. Yet, even if one actor in one context uses data anonymously, this does not mean that the same data set will not be de-anonymised by another actor. The UN Global Pulse can promise that they will not do anything that could potentially 16channel dvr
violate the right to privacy 8 channel dvr and permit re-identification, but can they guarantee others along the process ensure the same ethical safeguards apply?
Post je objavljen 23.08.2014. u 10:17 sati.