Advertisement

Privacy in Research Ethics

  • Kevin MacnishEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

This chapter considers the importance of privacy in contemporary research and how best to deal with some of the challenges raised around privacy. It opens with a number of questions about privacy which will be considered in the chapter, including a consideration as to the impact that privacy has on research. Consideration is given to the history of how privacy has been treated (in the West) before looking at key issues of what privacy is and why it is valuable. The current debate focuses on concerns relating to national security, social media, and data analytics, while, looking ahead, the Internet of Things, facial recognition, and the potential for ubiquitous surveillance are raised. Finally, the chapter considers a number of means for managing privacy within the research context: consent, secure storage, anonymization and pseudonymization, and the difficulties that arise when working with groups of people.

Keywords

Confidentiality Consent Internet of things Social media Facial recognition Surveillance Anonymization National security Data analytics 

References

  1. Allen AL (1988) Uneasy access: privacy for women in a free society. Rowman & Littlefield, TotowaGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen AL (1999) Privacy-as-data control: conceptual, practical, and moral limits of the paradigm. Conn Law Rev 32:861Google Scholar
  3. Arthur C (2014) Facebook emotion study breached ethical guidelines, researchers say. The Guardian, 30 June 2014, sec. Technology. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-emotion-study-breached-ethical-guidelines-researchers-say
  4. Bauman Z, Lyon D (2012) Liquid surveillance: a conversation, 1st edn. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK/MaldenGoogle Scholar
  5. Benn S (1971) Privacy, freedom, and respect for persons. In: Pennock J, Chapman R (eds) Nomos XIII: privacy. Atherton Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentham J (1995) The Panopticon writings. Verso Books, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Bishop L, Gray D (2017) Ethical challenges of publishing and sharing social media research data. In: Woodfield K (ed) The ethics of online research, vol 2. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 161–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. boyd d (2014) It’s complicated: the social lives of networked teens, 1st edn. Yale University Press, New Haven, ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  9. boyd d, Crawford K (2012) Critical questions for big data. Inf Commun Soc 15(5):662–679.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boye K, Vowles RB (2002). Kallocain (trans: Lannestock G), New edition. Madison/London: The University of Wisconsin PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Bradbury R (2008) Fahrenheit 451, 4th edn. Harper Voyager, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Cadwalladr C, Graham-Harrison E (2018) Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. The Guardian, 17 March 2018, sec. News. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election
  13. DeCew JW (2000) The priority of privacy for medical information. Soc Philos Policy 17(2):213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deleuze, G (1990) Postscript on the societies of control. L’Autre 1 (May)Google Scholar
  15. Doyle T (2009) Privacy and perfect voyeurism. Ethics Inf Technol 11:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eggers D (2014) The circle. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Erwin A (2018) Attempt to access former IRA man’s Boston College tapes “replete with errors” court told. The Irish Times, 16 January 2018. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/attempt-to-access-former-ira-man-s-boston-college-tapes-replete-with-errors-court-told-1.3357750
  18. Etzioni A (1999) The limits of privacy. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. EU Parliament, 2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)Google Scholar
  20. Foucault M (1991) Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison, New edn. PenguinGoogle Scholar
  21. Funder A (2004) Stasiland: stories from behind the Berlin Wall, New edn. Granta Books, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  22. Gavison R (1984) Privacy and the limits of the law. In: Schoeman FD (ed) Philosophical dimensions of privacy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 346–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gavison (1992) Feminism and the public/private distinction. Stanford Law Rev 45(1):1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hill K, Mattu S (2018) The house that spied on me. Gizmodo, 7 February 2018. https://gizmodo.com/the-house-that-spied-on-me-1822429852
  25. Ienca M, Vayena E (2018) Cambridge Analytica and online manipulation. Scientific American Blog Network, 30 March 2018. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/cambridge-analytica-and-online-manipulation/
  26. Inness JC (1996) Privacy, Intimacy, and Isolation, New edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jernigan C, Mistree BFT (2009) Gaydar: Facebook friendships expose sexual orientation. First Monday 14(10). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2611/2302
  28. Judges. n.d. Holy Bible: New International Version. 3:12–30Google Scholar
  29. Lever A (2005) Feminism, democracy and the right to privacy. SSRN scholarly paper ID 2559971. Rochester: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2559971
  30. Locke JL (2010) Eavesdropping: an intimate history. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. MacAskill E, Dance G, Cage F, Chen G, Popovich N (2013) NSA files decoded: Edward Snowden’s surveillance revelations explained. The Guardian, 1 November 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded
  32. Macnish K (2016) Government surveillance and why defining privacy matters in a post-Snowden world. J Appl Philos, May.  https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Macnish K (2017) The ethics of surveillance: an introduction, 1st edn. Routledge, London/New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Manson N, O’Neill O (2007) Rethinking informed consent in bioethics, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Matthew. n.d. Holy Bible: New International Version. 6:6Google Scholar
  36. McDonald H (2016) Boston College ordered by US court to hand over IRA tapes. The Guardian, 25 April 2016. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/25/boston-college-ordered-by-us-court-to-hand-over-ira-tapes
  37. Moore A (2008) Defining privacy. J Soc Philos 39(3):411–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nathan DO (1990) Just looking: voyeurism and the grounds of privacy. Public Aff Q 4(4):365–386Google Scholar
  39. Nissenbaum HF (2009) Privacy in context: technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Obama B (2016) Remarks by the president in precision medicine panel discussion. Whitehouse.Gov, 25 February 2016. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/25/remarks-president-precision-medicine-panel-discussion
  41. Ohm P (2009) Broken promises of privacy: responding to the surprising failure of anonymization. UCLA Law Rev 57(6):1701–1777Google Scholar
  42. Orwell G (2004) 1984 nineteen eighty-four, New edn. Penguin Classics, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Parent WA (1983) Privacy, morality and the law. Philos Public Aff 12(4):269–288Google Scholar
  44. Polonetsky J, Tene O (2012) Privacy in the age of big data: a time for big decisions. Stanford Law Rev Online 64(February):63Google Scholar
  45. Posner R (1984) An economic theory of privacy. In: Shoeman F (ed) Philosophical dimensions of privacy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Preston A (2014) The death of privacy. The Guardian, 3 August 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/03/internet-death-privacy-google-facebook-alex-preston
  47. Rachels J (1975) Why privacy is important. Philos Public Aff 4(4):323–333Google Scholar
  48. Regan PM (1995) Legislating privacy: technology, social values, and public policy. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  49. Roessler B, Mokrosinska D (eds) (2015) Social dimensions of privacy: interdisciplinary perspectives. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Salmons J (2017) Getting to yes: informed consent in qualitative social media research. In: Woodfield K (ed) The ethics of online research, vol 2. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 111–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sampson F (2016) “Whatever you say…”: the case of the Boston College tapes and how confidentiality agreements cannot put relevant data beyond the reach of criminal investigation. Policing J Policy Pract 10(3):222–231.  https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pav034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scanlon TM (1975) Thomson on privacy. Philos Public Aff 4(4):315–322Google Scholar
  53. Solove DJ (2002) Conceptualizing privacy. Calif Law Rev 90(4):1087–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Squires J (1994) Private lives, secluded places: privacy as political possibility. Environ Plann D Soc Space 12(4):387–401.  https://doi.org/10.1068/d120387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tavani HT, Moor JH (2001) Privacy protection, control of information, and privacy-enhancing technologies. Comput Soc 31(1):6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thomson JJ (1975) The right to privacy. Philos Public Aff 4(4):295–314Google Scholar
  57. Tobitt C (2018) Observer’s Carole Cadwalladr: I became a “news slave” in pursuing Cambridge Analytica data harvesting scoop – Press Gazette. The Guardian, 22 March 2018. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/observers-carole-cadwalladr-i-became-a-news-slave-in-pursuing-cambridge-analytica-data-harvesting-scoop/
  58. Townsend L, Wallace C (2017) The ethics of using social media data in research: a new framework. In: Woodfield K (ed) The ethics of online research, vol 2. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Turkle S (2017) Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other, 3rd edn. Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  60. Wang Y, Kosinski M (2018) Deep neural networks are more accurate than humans at detecting sexual orientation from facial images. J Pers Soc Psychol 114(2):246–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Warren SD, Brandeis LD (1890) The right to privacy. Harv Law Rev:1–19Google Scholar
  62. Weinstein M (2013) Is privacy dead? Huffington Post (blog), 24 April 2013. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weinstein/internet-privacy_b_3140457.html
  63. Westin AF (2003) Social and political dimensions of privacy. J Soc Issues 59(2):431–453.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Williams ML, Burnapp P, Sloan L, Jessop C, Lepps H (2017) Users’ view of ethics in social media research: informed consent, anonymity and harm. In: Woodfield K (ed) The ethics of online research, vol 2. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 27–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Woodfield K, Iphofen R (2017) Introduction to volume 2: the ethics of online research. In: Woodfield K (ed) The ethics of online research, vol 2. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zamyatin Y (1993) We (trans: Brown C). New edn. New York: Penguin ClassicsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations