Abstract
In the last two decades, we have experienced a tremendous growth of the digital infrastructure, leading to an emerging web ecosystem that involves a variety of new types of services. A characteristic element of this web ecosystem is the massive increase of the amount, availability and interpretability of digitalized information—a development for which the buzzword “big data” has been coined. For research, this offers opportunities that just 20 years ago were believed to be impossible. Researchers now can access large participant pools directly using services like Amazon Mechanical Turk, they can collaborate with companies like Facebook to analyze their massive data sets, they can create own research infrastructures by, e.g., providing data-collecting Apps for smartphones, or they can enter new types of collaborations with citizens that donate personal data. Traditional research ethics with its focus of informed consent is challenged by such developments: How can informed consent be given when big data research seeks for unknown patterns? How can people control their data? How can unintended effects (e.g., discrimination) be prevented when a person donates personal data? In this contribution, we will discuss the ethical justification for big data research and we will argue that a focus on informed consent is insufficient for providing its moral basis. We propose that the ethical issues cluster along three core values—autonomy, fairness and responsibility—that need to be addressed. Finally, we outline how a possible research infrastructure could look like that would allow for ethical big data research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Allan, R. (2009). Virtual research environments: From portals to science gateways. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
Anthes, G. (2015). Data brokers are watching you. Communications of the ACM, 58(1), 28–30.
Berendt, B., & Preibusch, S. (2014). Better decision support through exploratory discrimination-aware data mining: Foundations and empirical evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 22(2), 175–209.
Carusi, A., & Reimer, T. (2010). Virtual research environment—collaborative landscape sudy. A JISC funded project. Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/vrelandscapereport.pdf (Last Access: December 9 2016).
Christen, M., Domingo-Ferrer, J., Draganski, B., Spranger, T., & Walter, H. (2016). On the compatibility of big data driven research and informed consent based on traditional disease categories—the example of the Human Brain Project. In L. Floridi & B. Mittelstadt (Eds.) Ethics of biomedical big data (pp. 199–218). Cham: Springer.
Custers, B., Calders, T., Schermer, B., & Zarsky, T. (Eds.). (2013). Discrimination and privacy in the information society (Vol. 3) of studies in applied philosophy, epistemology and rational ethics. Berlin/London: Springer.
Domingo-Ferrer, J. (2011). Coprivacy: An introduction to the theory and applications of co-operative privacy. SORT-Statistics and Operations Research Transactions, 35, 25–40.
Domingo-Ferrer, J., & Muralidhar, K. (2016). New directions in anonymization: Permutation paradigm, verifiability by subjects and intruders, transparency to users. Information Sciences, 337–338, 11–24.
Domingo-Ferrer, J., Sánchez, D., & Soria-Comas, J. (2016). Co-utility: Self-enforcing collaborative protocols with mutual help. Progress in Artificial Intelligence, 5(2), 105–110.
Druschel, P., Backes, M., & Tirtea, R. (2012). The right to be forgotten—Between expectations and practice. ENI SA. Available at: https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/the-right-to-be-forgotten. Last Access: December 9 2016.
Duşa, A., Oellers, C., & Wolff, S. (2014). A Common agenda for the European research infrastructures in the social sciences and humanities. In A. Duşa, D. Nelle, G. Stock, & G. G. Wagner (Eds.), Facing the future: European research infrastructures for the humanities and social sciences (pp. 225–234). Berlin: SCIVERO Verlag.
EDPS. (2013). European sata protection supervisor, see: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-data-protection-supervisor_en. Last Access: December 9 2016.
European Data Protection Regulation. (2012). The approved version is available at the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/index_en.htm. Last Access: December 9 2016.
Farago, P. (2014). Understanding how research infrastructures shape the social sciences: impact, challenges, and outlook. In A. Duşa, D. Nelle, G. Stock, & G. G. Wagner (Eds.), Facing the Future: European Research Infrastructures for the Humanities and Social Sciences (pp. 21–34). Berlin: SCIVERO Verlag.
Hajian, S., & Domingo-Ferrer, J. (2013). A methodology for direct and indirect discrimination prevention in data mining. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 25(7), 1445–1459.
Hajian, S., Domingo-Ferrer, J., & Farràs, O. (2014). Generalization-based privacy preservation and discrimination prevention in data publishing and mining. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 28, 1158–1188.
Hoofnagle, C. J., Soltani, A., Good, N., Wambach, D. J., & Ayenson, M. D. (2012). Behavioral advertising: The offer you cannot refuse. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 6, 273–296.
Jain, P., Kumaraguru, P., & Joshi, A. (2013). @i seek ‘fb.me’: identifying users across multiple online social networks. WWW (Companion Volume): 1259–1268. Available at: http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/paper/html/id/624/-I-seek-fb-me-Identifying-Users-across-Multiple-Online-Social-Networks. Last Access: December 9 2016.
Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 5802–5805.
Liu, K., & Terzi, E. (2010). A framework for computing the privacy score of users in online social networks. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, 5(1), Article 6.
Malhotra, A., Totti, L., Meira, W. Jr., Kumaraguru, P., & Almeida, V. (2012). Studying user footprints in different online social networks. In Proceedings of ASONAM 2012 (pp. 1065–1070). arXiv:1301.6870.
Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79, 119–157.
Nunes, A., Calado, P., & Martins, B.. (2012). Resolving user identities over social networks through supervised learning and rich similarity features. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM symposium on applied computing. (pp. 728–729).
Review Group. (2013). See https://www.dni.gov/index.php/intelligence-community/review-group. Last Access: December 9 2016.
Romei, A., & Ruggieri, S. (2013). A multidisciplinary survey on discrimination analysis. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 29(5), 1–57.
Ruggieri, S., Pedreschi, D., & Turini, F. (2010). Data mining for discrimination discovery. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, 4(2), Article 9.
Soria-Comas, J., & Domingo-Ferrer, J. (2015). Big data privacy: Challenges to privacy principles and models. Data Science and Engineering, 1(1), 21–28.
Tene, O., & Polonetsky, J. (2012). Privacy in the age of big data: A time for big decisions. Stanford Law Review Online, 64(63), 63–69.
Turow, J. (2011). The daily you: How the new advertising industry is defining your identity and your world. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Van den Hoven, J. (1997). Computer ethics and moral methodology. Metaphilosophy, 28(3), 234–248.
Van den Hoven, J. (2008). Information technology, privacy, and the protection of personal data. In J. Van den Hoven & J. Weckert (Eds.), Information technology and moral philosophy (pp. 301–321). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van den Hoven, J., Helbing, D., Pedreschi, D., Domingo-Ferrer, J., Gianotti, F., & Christen, M. (2012). FuturICT—The Road towards Ethical ICT. European Physical Journal—Special Topics, 214, 153–181.
Vosecky, J., Hong, D., & Shen, V. (2009). User identification across multiple social networks. In Proceedings of the first international conference on Networked Digital Technologies, NDT ’09, IEEE, pp. 360–365.
Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York City: Basic Books.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Christen, M., Domingo-Ferrer, J., Herrmann, D., van den Hoven, J. (2017). Beyond Informed Consent—Investigating Ethical Justifications for Disclosing, Donating or Sharing Personal Data in Research. In: Powers, T. (eds) Philosophy and Computing. Philosophical Studies Series, vol 128. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61043-6_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61043-6_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61042-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61043-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)