Advertisement

The Privacy/Transparency Balance in Open Government

Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 32)

Abstract

This paper explores strategies for balancing privacy with transparency in the release of government data and information as part of the growing global open government movement and within an evolving technological context. Government data or information may contain many different types of personal information. In some cases, transparency will require the release of this personal information; in other cases, the release of personal information will not advance the goals of government transparency. The situation is complicated by the availability of technologies that facilitate widespread dissemination of information and that allow for the mixing and mining of information in ways that may permit the reidentification of individuals within anonymized data sets. This paper identifies a number of strategies designed to assist in identifying whether data or information contains personal information, whether it should be released notwithstanding the presence of personal information, and what techniques might be used to minimize any possible adverse privacy impacts.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for the Geothink project of which this research forms a part.

References

  1. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2013) Opinion 06/2013 on Open Data and Public Sector Information (‘PSI’) Reuse. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2013/wp207_en.pdf
  2. AusGoal (2011) Restrictive Licence Template. Retrieved from: http://www.ausgoal.gov.au/restrictive-licence-template
  3. Austin LM, Pelletier F (2005) Synthesis of the comments on JTAC’s discussion paper on open courts, electronic access to court records, and privacy (Prepared on Behalf of the Judges Technology Advisory Committee for the Canadian Judicial Council, 2005). Retrieved from: https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_techissues_Synthesis_2005_en.pdf
  4. BAILII Privacy Policy (2016) Retrieved from: http://www.bailii.org/bailii/privacy.html
  5. Bennett CJ, Raab C (2006) The governance of privacy: policy instruments in global perspective. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Berzins C (2008) Personal information in the adjudicative decisions of administrative tribunals: an argument for limits. Advocates’ Q 34(3):261–284Google Scholar
  7. Borgesius FZ, Gray J, van Eeechoud M (2015) Open data, privacy, and fair information principles: towards a balancing framework. Berkeley Technol Law J 30(3):2073–2130Google Scholar
  8. Cameron-Huff A (2014) Why Google can’t build a case law search engine in Ontario. Retrieved from: http://www.cameronhuff.com/blog/ontario-case-law-private/index.html
  9. Candeub A (2013) Transparency in the administrative state. Houston Law Rev 51(2):385–416Google Scholar
  10. CanLII Privacy Policy (2016) Retrieved from: https://www.canlii.org/en/info/privacy.html
  11. Cavoukian A (2009) Privacy and government 2.0: the implications of an open world. Ontario, Information and Privacy Commissioner. Retrieved from: https://www.ipc.on.ca/images/Resources/priv-gov-2.0.pdf Google Scholar
  12. Cavoukian A, Dix A, El Emam K (2014) The unintended consequences of privacy paternalism. Information and Privacy Commissioner, Toronto. Retrieved from: https://www.ipc.on.ca/images/Resources/pbd-privacy_paternalism.pdf Google Scholar
  13. Conroy A, Scassa T (2015) Promoting transparency while protecting privacy in open government in Canada. Alberta Law Rev 53(1):175–206Google Scholar
  14. Daries JP (2014) Privacy, anonymity, and big data in the social sciences. ACM Queue 12(7):1–12. Retrieved from: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2661641
  15. Davies TG (2014) Open data policies and practice: an international comparison (September 5, 2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2492520 or  http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2492520
  16. Dobby C (2015) Canadians upset with Romanian Website that exposes court case details. The Globe and Mail (4 January, 2015). Retrieved from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/canadians-upset-over-romanian-website-that-exposes-court-case-details/article22284367/
  17. El Emam K (2013) Guide to the de-identification of personal health information. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. El Emam K, Fineberg A (2009) An overview of techniques for de-identifying personal health information. CHEO Research Institute, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  19. Fraser R, Willison D (2009) Tools for de-identification of personal health information. Report Prepared for the Pan-Canadian Health Information Privacy (HIP) Group. Retrieved from: https://www.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/component/edocman/supporting-documents/500-tools-for-de-identification-of-personal-health-information
  20. Government of Canada (2002) Privacy impact assessment policy. Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat, Ottawa. Retrieved from: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12450 Google Scholar
  21. Greenleaf G (2011) Free access to legal information, LIIs, and the free access to law movement. In: Danner R, Winterton J (eds) IALL international handbook of legal information management. Ashgate, Aldershot/Burlington VT, pp 201–228Google Scholar
  22. Janssen K (2012) Open government data and the right to information: opportunities and obstacles. J Community Informatics 8:2. online: http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/952/954
  23. Kitchin R (2014) The data revolution: big data, open data, data infrastructures & their consequences. SAGE Publications Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Mayer-Schönberger V, Cukier K (2014) Big data. Mariner Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. McLachlin B (2003) Courts, transparency and public confidence – to the better administration of justice. Deakin Law Rev 8:1–12Google Scholar
  26. Mewhort K (2012) Creative commons licenses: options for Canadian open data providers. (2012) Report for the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic. Retrieved from: https://cippic.ca/sites/default/files/Creative%20Commons%20Licenses%20-%20Options%20for%20Canadian%20Open%20Data%20Providers.pdf
  27. Meyerhoff-Nielsen M, Krimmer R (2015) Reuse of data for personal and proactive service: an opportunity not yet utilised. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278023437_Reuse_of_Data_for_Personal_and_Proactive_Service_An_Opportunity_Not_Yet_Utilised
  28. Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (2014) Guide to undertaking privacy impact assessments. Retrieved from: https://www.oaic.gov.au/resources/agencies-and-organisations/guides/guide-to-undertaking-privacy-impact-assessments.pdf
  29. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (2014) Personal information retention and disposal: principles and best practices. Retrieved from: https://www.priv.gc.ca/information/pub/gd_rd_201406_e.asp
  30. Ohm P (2010) Broken promises of privacy: responding to the surprising failure of anonymization. UCLA Law Rev 57:1701–1777Google Scholar
  31. Open Government Partnership (2011) Open Government Declaration. Retrieved from: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/open-governmentdeclaration
  32. PIPEDA Report of Findings No. 2015–002, [2015] C.P.C.S.F No. 2, [2015] S.C.C.P.V.P.C. No 2Google Scholar
  33. Queensland, Office of the Information Commissioner (2013) Proactive disclosure and publication schemes. Retrieved from: https://www.oic.qld.gov.au/guidelines/for-government/access-and-amendment/proactive-disclosure/proactive-disclosure-and-publication-schemes
  34. Roy J (2014) Open data and open governance in Canada: a critical examination of new opportunities and old tensions. Future Internet 6(3):414–432. doi: 10.3390/fi6030414
  35. Scassa T (2014) Privacy and open government. Future Internet 6:397–413. doi: 10.3390/fi6020397. Available at: http://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/6/2/397
  36. Scassa T, Conroy A (2016) Strategies for protecting privacy in open data and proactive disclosure. Canadian J Law Technol 14:215–262Google Scholar
  37. Schauer F (2011) Transparency in three dimensions. Univ Ill Law Rev 4:1339–1358Google Scholar
  38. Schneier B (2015) Data and goliath: the hidden battles to collect your data and control your world. W.W. Norton & Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Sherman J (2013) Court information management: policy framework to accommodate the digital environment. Canadian Judicial Council, Ottawa. Retrieved from: http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/AJC/Policy%20Framework%20to%20Accommodate%20the%20Digital%20Environment%202013-03.pdf Google Scholar
  40. Solove DJ (2004) The digital person: technology and privacy in the information age. New York University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Thompson SA (2014) Unlocking Ontario public sector salary data. Media Canadian Assoc Journalists 16(2):27Google Scholar
  42. United Kingdom, Information Commissioner’s Office (UK ICO) (2012) Anonymisation: managing data risk code of practice. ICO, Cheshire. Retrieved from: https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1061/anonymisation-code.pdf Google Scholar
  43. United Kingdom, Information Commissioner’s Office (UK ICO) (2014) Privacy Impact Assessment Code of Practice. Retrieved from: https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1595/pia-code-of-practice.pdf
  44. United Kingdom, Information Commissioner’s Office (UK ICO) (2016) Retaining Personal Data (Principle 5). Retrieved from: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/principle-5-retention/
  45. Veljkovic N, Bogdanovic-Dinic S, Stoimenov L (2014) Benchmarking open government: an open data perspective. Gov Inf Q 31(2):278–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Winn PA (2004) Online court records: balancing judicial accountability and privacy in an age of electronic information. Symposium – Technology, Values, and the Justice System. Washington Law Rev 79:307–330Google Scholar
  47. Wright D, deHert P (eds) (2012) Privacy impact assessment. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  48. Yu H, Robinson DG (2012) The new ambiguity of open government. UCLA L Rev Disc:178–208Google Scholar
  49. Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M (2014) Open data policies, their implementation and impact: a framework for comparison. Gov Inf Q 31(1):17–29. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Ottawa, Faculty of LawOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Carleton University, Department of Law and Legal StudiesOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations