6 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2024
    1. The criteria for human-subjects protections depend on an unstated assumption that we argue is fundamentally problematic: that the risk to research subjects depends on what kind of data is obtained and how it is obtained, not what is done with the data after it is obtained. This assumption is based on the idea that data which is public poses no new risks for human subjects, and this claim is threaded throughout the NPRM.

      This is interesting because what is considered good data? what if people were aware of what type of data was being collected, would they feel as if they are enough?

    2. Ethical codes often emerge after a crisis event. The Common Rule developed out of a rule-making process initiated in response to a series of breaches to the public trust, especially those committed by physician-researchers. Following the Nazi-era medical atrocities, the Nuremberg Code (Nuremberg Code, 1949) and the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 1964) established ethical norms for human-subjects research, while building on the 1931 Guidelines for Human Experimentation (Ghooi, 2011).

      assuming this happens in order for the individuals behind the process of collecting data do this in order to see where the common affects that the crisis caused?

    3. there is real urgency to define what a “human subject” is in Big Data research and critically interrogate what is owed to “data subjects.” What lessons might we learn from the history and implementation of human-subjects research protections in order to better address these growing conceptual and structural discontinuities?

      so even the data scientists themselves don't know what data subjects should be considered? how so?

    4. For the most part, the basic science conducted in these fields has had only distant contact with human data. Researchers represent themselves as dealing with systems and math, not people—human data is treated as a substrate for testing systems, not the object of interest in itself.

      so individuals do see people as actual human beings and not just data? This once again was also mentioned in "Data of The Atlas of AI" during the mugshots of prisoners, and how it was just for purposes of data collecting and not because they actually wanted photos of the prisoners.

    5. “the authors are aware of, and respectful of, the privacy of [subject name removed] and his relatives and have thus only used data in the public domain” (Hauge et al., 2016: 5). This claim is particularly striking, as it is difficult to see how tracking a specific individual (and their family) to such an invasive degree could be considered respectful of their privacy.

      Just like how it says itself in the passage, how DOES it even become respectful knowing that the person behind of which they are taking the data from is not aware that their privacy is being invaded.

    1. For the others on his list, it's as simple as keeping an eye out for all the key words listed above. Before clicking "I agree," do a quick search (or just CTRL+F) for:Third parties and affiliates.Opt-out.Arbitration (You will find a whole section dedicated to arbitration usually).Waive or waiver.

      what if people are on their smartphone devices? would it be as easy?