Group items tagged

Excellent, thanks for this. The "nothing to hide" argument also rests on the absurd premise that the authorities all have pure motives and will not abuse their power with this level of access to private information. To assume that all authorities, everywhere, all have noble intentions and pure motives is absurd as assuming that all human being are perfect....

Even though it is a few years old, the topic is still relevant--and maybe even more so in the wake of Snowden. Although most of us do truly believe we have 'nothing to hide', we are all naively unaware of just how easily something innocent can be twisted to nefarious means. At the same time, if we are all being watched, are any of us really being watched? Something to ponder.

The big problem is the concept of privacy. In Brazilian law we have three kinds of personal information (data): public, private, and restricted. The difference between public and private information is matter of personal choice, in others words, each one may decide what is matter of the public or private information. The restricted informations are those that we are required by law to give the government, but the government cannot disclose without authorization. The privacy issue is respect for this choice between private and public data. When government or anybody disrespects this choice, we have a problem. I think in virtual ambience the users ignore those distinctions and make a big mess. If in one hand government and big players have been stealing our data, in other hand the users don't have necessary care about his own private information.

"Nothing to hide as at now" might be correct as a current status but not for the future. Human beings we always behave like we have control of our future. I may have nothing to hide as at now but in 10 years time when I ran for political office my past will surely halt me.

True, however our real name / our real identity, if used consistently across the variety of online audiences we engage with, permits Big Data to be aggregated, defining our activity as a distinct entity, giving it greater value in the analytics marketplace -- whether we have anything to hide or not ... What price do you wish to place on your digital self as an online product is the real question.

Makes a great point. I used to think that way, if I have nothing to hide I don't have to worry about what others find about me. But is true there is no need for everyone to have access to every single detail about you. And the point Kim and Philip made is really important, with more information available and more companies interested in making profit of it becomes more difficult to maintain control of who access your information and what it is used for.

The article raises two important points: (1) the right to know how information is being used and (2) the right to correct incorrect inferences being made from sometimes an incomplete information sets. I begin with the assumption that,despite how I take care to protect information, there are individuals and institutions that will find ways of dong so. So I want the right to appeal and set the record straight.

This would be a good addition to the next addition of our core reading list.

Thank you for sharing this. I can agree on that even though we have nothing to hide, it is matter of violating our right to keep it to our selves. However, I can say that it people's opinion for public-surveillance cameras in cities and towns may be different. The cameras may have good usage in order to solve or prevent crimes. It depends on how it is used I guess.

I like to differentiate 'privacy' which is a right every human should have, from 'privatisation' which is corporate mandates that suggest the right to hide or share information - mostly based in monetization. Technology has given us access to each other in ways never imagined, and until humanity reaches a higher order of compassion toward and consciousness with each other, this issue will eat at the very fabric of our society until our security obsessions destroy us.

Thanks for your sharing. The example of the government has installed millions of public-surveillance cameras in cities and towns, which are watched by officials via closed-circuit television in Britain makes me reflect on two aspects. Firstly, in my personal opinion, I think public-surveillance cameras provide citizens a better sense of security especially during nights. Secondly, the key point here is how the officials deal with the documentation of public-surveillance cameras, will citizens' privacy be exposed to public?

Similar example to what Adobe software has done with collecting information…users/students seem to have to accept this "new-normal" of spying, etc.

I agree. Cameras should be there for security, not for surveillance. But just like the Adobe software, before we use it we have to "agree" on its' terms. I believe very few actually read those agreements, because we have to use the software, "agreeing" on those terms might just be "agreeing" on allowing them to collect our information. I live in Vancouver, BC. I know there are people who dislike the idea of the buses with cameras. I personally like that idea, it makes me feel like I am protected. When I was in high school in Victoria, BC, I feel safe taking the taxi even when it is late, because they have cameras in every one of them. When I was in Hong Kong, I feel insecure taking a taxi even when it is noon. So even if some of our information or our identity is given away, I agree on the idea of having cameras on buses and taxi's. I wonder if there is a gender difference on this, and there is also a gender gap of taxi drivers, maybe that is also why I personally feel insecure. Back to the point, if the purpose of cameras is for security, I agree to that. If it is for surveillance, I do not think it is essential; referring to the Harvard University attendance, at least they should inform the students about it.

This line caught my eye: "The study was approved by the US federally mandated Institutional Review Board, which assesses research and determined that the study "did not constitute human subjects research" and therefore did not require prior permission from those captured by the study." I have been debating with my own campus IRB over what constitutes human subjects research and what doesn't--they seem to be operating under the idea that if it's not invasive medical studies involving blood or drugs, it's not really human subjects. I think the issue in this Harvard study is that the IRB also has a clause that if you are collecting data in public spaces and not interacting with the people there, it doesn't require IRB approval; the question is whether these classrooms should be considered public spaces. My feeling is they aren't--in order to be in a room at a particular time, a person has to have chosen to attend that class, and within college classes it is assumed that the students can know that what they say is to some extent private among their classmates and professor. Even if the photos were destroyed after analysis, the fact remains that there were cameras inside what I would consider private spaces, without the consent of the people doing what they might feel is dangerous work (given the current assault on public intellectuals and academic freedom). My guess is that Harvard could easily have asked all the relevant parties to sign consent forms at the beginning of a semester but not indicated on which days they would be filming--people would probably continue doing what they normally do either way, but at least would have the option of asking not to be filmed. There's always a way to set up an area in a lecture hall where the cameras couldn't reach, so students who didn't want to be on film could opt out.

Thank you so much for sharing this article, I meant to read it a few days ago and got side-tracked!

Thanks for sharing this! I have mixed feelings about this article. At first, I was super opposed to the whole initiative Harvard did to their students because I would feel that my privacy has been violated completely, but after realizing that there are many more subtler forms of violations in privacy online (social media sites, tracking cookies etc.) I wasn't as opposed to the article. Although initially, students were not informed about their surveillance, there were told in the aftermath, and their information was destroyed. When using social media sites or installing new applications, there are terms of agreement before continuing on with the installation in which personally I don't read at all. Those terms and conditions have statements inside which notify us of tracking personal information which I have not read earlier but am still not opposed to giving. The information is probably sold to advertisers and we're probably not aware of it but we still give them the information via the signup of the program. Hence, even though there are contradictory views and feelings about their initiatives, we should be more aware and cautious of other forms of surveillance when we sign up for things (e.g. social media sites etc.)

Thank you for sharing. This does raise some concern. I guess there may be good and bad with cameras installed in the school. The cameras installed without students' consents may be violating their privacy and rights. However, it may prevent wrong doings, i guess. When my friend was doing final exam, the prof asked the whole class to put their belongings in front of the classroom, but when he went to pick up his stuff after he was finished, his bag was missing. Through the security camera, they were able to see who stole his stuff.

Did any body else remember George Orwell's novel (1984). By accepting this type of behavior we accepting the image of a holly power that is ethical, care and neutral. Does this exist? and who will monitor the observers?

I think this is a really good point, who will monitor the observers? What kind of power do those people hold and what are they doing with all those information? It makes people uncomfortable.

Interesting news! It's surprising to get to know that Harvard University places cameras without letting students know, photographs them during lectures to measure attendance. This reminds me of my high school in China. When I was in high school, I remember that cameras were installed at the back of every classroom to prevent students from distraction in class or cheating during exams. It mainly worked as threatening students, from my understanding. Because you never know when the camera will be opened, actually, it never opened. What happened in Harvard University just reminded me of that, which is quite satiric.

Thanks for sharing this article. In my personal opinion, I think the action of secretly installed the cameras from Harvard University violates students' privacy. If it's just for measuring classroom attendance, I think Harvard University could definitely find a much better way instead of installing the camera.