Skip to main content

Home/ ODI Data Infrastructure, Institutions & Data Access Initiatives/ Group items tagged Medical

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Ben Snaith

Patterns of data institution that support people to steward data themselves, or become ... - 0 views

  • it enables people to contribute data about them to it and, on a case-by-case basis, people can choose to permit third parties to access that data. This is the pattern that many personal data stores and personal data management systems adopt in holding data and enabling users to unlock new apps and services that can plug into it. Health Bank enables people to upload their medical records and other information like wearable readings and scans to share with doctors or ‘loved ones’ to help manage their care; Japan’s accredited information banks might undertake a similar role. Other examples — such as Savvy and Datacoup — seem to be focused on sharing data with market research companies willing to offer a form of payment. Some digital identity services may also conform to this pattern.
  • it enables people to contribute data about them to it and, on a case-by-case basis, people can choose whether that data is shared with third parties as part of aggregate datasets. OpenHumans is an example that enables communities of people to share data for group studies and other activities. Owners of a MIDATA account can “actively contribute to medical research and clinical studies by granting selective access to their personal data”. The approach put forward by the European DECODE project would seem to support this type of individual buy-in to collective data sharing, in that case with a civic purpose. The concept of data unions advocated by Streamr seeks to create financial value for individuals by creating aggregate collections of data in this way. Although Salus Coop asks its users to “share and govern [their] data together.. to put it at the service of collective return”, it looks as though individuals can choose which uses to put it to.
  • it enables people to contribute data about them to it and decisions about what third parties can access aggregate datasets are taken collectively. As an example, The Good Data seeks to sell browsing data generated by its users “entirely on their members’ terms… [where] any member can participate in deciding these rules”. The members of the Holland Health Data Cooperative would similarly appear to “determine what happens to their data” collectively, as would drivers and other workers who contribute data about them to Workers Info Exchange.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • it enables people to contribute data about them and defer authority to it to decide who can access the data. A high-profile proposal of this pattern comes in the form of ‘bottom-up data trusts’ — Mozilla Fellow Anouk Ruhaak has described scenarios where multiple people “hand over their data assets or data rights to a trustee”. Some personal data stores and personal information management systems will also operate under this kind of delegated authority within particular parameters or settings.
  • people entrust it to mediate their relationships with services that collect data about them. This is more related to decisions about data collection rather than decisions about access to existing data, but involves the stewardship of data nonetheless. For example, Tom Steinberg has described a scenario whereby “you would nominate a Personal Data Representative to make choices for you about which apps can do what with your data.. [it] could be a big internet company, it could be a church, it could be a trade union, or it could be a dedicated rights group like the Electronic Frontier Foundation”. Companies like Disconnect.Me and Jumbo are newer examples of this type of approach in practice.
  • it enables people to collect or create new data. Again, this pattern describes the collection rather than the re-use of existing data. For example, OpenBenches enables volunteers to contribute information about memorial benches, and OpenStreetMap does similar at much larger scale to collaboratively create and maintain a free map of the world. The ODI has published research into well-known collaboratively maintained datasets, including Wikidata, Wikipedia and MusicBrainz, and a library of related design patterns. I’ve included this pattern here as to me it represents a way for people to be directly involved in the stewardship of data, personal or not.
  • it collects data in providing a service to users and, on a case-by-case basis, users can share that data directly with third parties. This pattern enables users to unlock new services by sharing data about them (such as via Open Banking and other initiatives labelled as ‘data portability’), or to donate data for broader notions of good (such as Strava’s settings that enable its users to contribute data about them to aggregate datasets shared with cities for planning). I like IF’s catalogue of approaches for enabling people to permit access to data in this way, and its work to show how services can design for the fact that data is often about multiple people.
  • it collects data by providing a service to users and shares that data directly with third parties as provisioned for in its Terms and Conditions. This typically happens when we agree to Ts&Cs that allow data about us to be shared with third parties of an organisation’s choice, such as for advertising, and so might be considered a ‘dark’ pattern. However, some data collectors are beginning to do this for more public, educational or charitable purposes — such as Uber’s sharing of aggregations of data with cities via the SharedStreets initiative. Although the only real involvement we have here in stewarding data is in choosing to use the service, might we not begin to choose between services, in part, based on how well they act as data institutions?
  • I echo the point that Nesta recently made in their paper on ‘citizen-led data governance’, that “while it can be useful to assign labels to different approaches, in reality no clear-cut boundary exists between each of the models, and many of the models may overlap”
Ben Snaith

Privacy not a blocker for 'meaningful' research access to platform data, says report | ... - 0 views

  • The report, which the authors are aiming at European Commission lawmakers as they ponder how to shape an effective platform governance framework, proposes mandatory data sharing frameworks with an independent EU-institution acting as an intermediary between disclosing corporations and data recipients.
  • “Such an institution would maintain relevant access infrastructures including virtual secure operating environments, public databases, websites and forums. It would also play an important role in verifying and pre-processing corporate data in order to ensure it is suitable for disclosure,” they write in a report summary.
  • A market research purpose might only get access to very high level data, he suggests. Whereas medical research by academic institutions could be given more granular access — subject, of course, to strict requirements (such as a research plan, ethical board review approval and so on).
1 - 3 of 3
Showing 20 items per page