The role of databases that store personal details has been very topical recently. Please read the story at this URL from the BBC on 4th November 2015:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34715872
What are your thoughts on huge databases that are mined for interesting patterns? What problems and opportunities do you foresee? What will it mean for GIS?
Please post your comments by 8pm on Friday of next week (18th) for the 1% mark
Paul McKenzie
Personally, mining databases would be ok in some circumstances. It depends on the datasets to be analysed, and each individuals perception of what's acceptable. Making each ISP store an individuals web history could be of concern. It may be seen as an invasion of privacy, tracking people's activity, whether their activity is illegal or not.
ReplyDeleteOn a positive note, it would theoretically aid law enforcement in monitoring illegal sites, such as enforcing copyright legislation by targeting illegal downloading.
For GIS, the new legislation could provide a wealth of new datasources, if collected we activity was eventually made available for use. There would be major obstacles preventing this, due to privacy concerns.
Privacy is not and should not be an absolute right. The purported aim of data protection legislation is to protect personal data from unwarranted release, that may cause an individual harm, however there is also a balanced argument for covert collection and storage of ‘private’ data to be used for the common or public good. That, I believe is the aim of the Investigatory Powers Bill – to find a balance. It is clear that because of technological advances, the sheer volume of available geospatial data is increasing, however despite increased surveillance and data capture, public opinion is generally content with the ‘balance’ thus far and for the average individual there is no clear sign that personal privacy is being radically jeopardised nor unknowingly surrendered, under the proposed bill.
ReplyDeleteAgree with you on this ...I don't think the Bill will in reality have a negative effect on personal privacy (real or perceived) as online activity is tracked and recorded by commercial organisations...data collected in this way (including geospatial) could be extremely useful for many areas of scientific research however much of our online activity represents a biased data set as we are 'guided' through internet searches and social media activity by the google / Facebook filters and promoted links..large databases held by governments filtered for anonymity are more useful for research, but for surveillance access to individual internet activity is essential
DeleteI'm not sure I agree with the slow creep into the public's 'private' lives. Yes law enforcement and Intelligence agencies need access to the online activities of their targets, but it would be an impossible task to monitor or scan such a huge amount of data, even with modern surveillance systems - they still require human input. I think the main concern, from an individual perspective, is KNOWING that your data may be collected, by whom, and for what purpose. On a positive, it could provide a wealth of information for research purposes, provided the data collection methods etc. stand up to scrutiny and can offer an unbiased product.
DeleteWith the rapid progression into the "Digital age" the biggest controversy has and probably always will be the privacy vs. surveillance dispute. Personally I believe that in today's society which is filled with constant threats of terrorism that increased access to and mining of databases and other surveillance techniques will be critical for a more secure future. Obviously not all individuals within the UK are going to agree with this lack of privacy but the restrictions laid in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) are quite reasonable. With an elected judicial body or specific ministers in charge of granting authorisation of certain powers of the bill I think that a balance will be maintained and there will be a reduced risk of improper use of the statute. Generally increased access to a wide range of databases is going to aid the investigation of crimes, missing persons cases and even trading standards (increasingly more important since Brexit).
ReplyDeleteAs always when technology and politics intertwine GIS will be impacted. It will be interesting to see new development within the GI industry as more data will be available to certain bodies and therefore new applications can be developed. With surveillance and national security improvements the government, especially the Ministry of Defence will be looking to use GIS to implement this data towards defense strategies and to aid the fight against terrorism.
Sorry, I replied to the previous post above but had to comment on this one too when I saw MoD mentioned! RIPA does go some way to address the surveillance v. privacy issue in the UK in terms of targeted surveillance operations, and it, combined with the Freedom of Information Act (after a few terrorists in Northern Ireland sumitted requests on the information held on them), created a lot of restrictions in holding data on individuals, especially in databases due to data protection and classification issues. So how much value they will gain from this data mining remains to be seen.
DeleteFinding the balance between personal privacy and necessary surveillance is a controversial issue. However as terrorism and criminal activity is becoming increasingly digital, there is a need to improve the surveillance of internet activity in order to maintain public safety. Some concerns will be raised over how invasive the tracking of internet activity is and how it is breaching your right to privacy however as the saying goes 'if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear'. If the data is only being used for the benefit of public safety, the security of the UK and for emergencies and being carefully monitored by the Investigatory Powers commission, then personal privacy should not be majorly compromised and the public should be supportive of this law.
ReplyDeleteThe new legislation may lead to multiple new data sources being made available for GIS use and this would allow for new applications of the data, for example, criminal investigations or the search for missing people however as always, the privacy of individuals would need to be considered.
I think the fundamentals of access to personal online activty data for security purposes are accepted by the majority of the general public (I.e. if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about) however identity theft could have implications here. All online activity has locational data attached so GIS data / geodemograohic databases are being generated constantly and most users are willing participants - I think the main concerns will still be a mistrust of governments own ability to guarantee security of data in large DBs containing sensitive medical or financial geodemographics and this may impact access to some GI data for external parties (such as researchers) in the future while internal government departments will retain full access.
ReplyDeleteI watched this last night (in stages - its 3hours long!) But he has an interesting take on the world today & partly cyberspace and politics for those of you interested! (You can get it on the iPlayer) http://www.BBC.co.UK/iPlayer/episode/p04b183/adam-curtis-hypernormalisation
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe term "data mining" is a term often argued about; as what data is "important" can be different to people; so this argument is probably the most important.
ReplyDeleteAlso- anther important question is what analysis would they do with the data?
As Sarah said, terrorism etc. is becoming more digital, can the data be 100% safe from hackers or from those wishing to use the data to cause harm?
I think overall the benefits outweigh the risks, but the risks will always be there, its best to keep in mind the potential risks throughout the process which many companies/ organisations who mine data forget, and end up being hacked.
the fact the government are becoming more aware of the dangers is good.
Its good for those utilising databases for information as (eventually) it will become public (after being made anonymous) which will allow the data to be interpreted differently, and perhaps give further insights.
-Chloe
I think databases can be a hugely powerful resource for GIS to investigate general trends and patterns, for example exploring if there are spatial clusters of certain types of illnesses – which in turn could show where more funding and medical resources are required. However, the issue for me is how anonymous that data is and how it’s used. If the data contains personal information that can be directly linked to a named individual then there should be a moral obligation to anonymise that person in any research.
ReplyDeleteIt concerns me that some organisations use big databases to build personal profiles of individuals and then use this information to target them in other ways – particularly if the person hasn’t agreed to their information being used in this way. Sadly, though in this age of global terrorism there is a need for monitoring the internet activities of individuals for nefarious goings-on and so we find ourselves in a trade-off between personal privacy and ensuring national security.
Grouping data could be a solution, but there is a risk that the grouping process can be undone, if information from other datasources is available, using methods such as reverse geocoding.
DeleteI thought the BBC article was very interesting, and while data and large data sets can aid in delivering national security and support frontline staff fighting crime. The Bill in question that purports to do that, also reinforces many of criticisms people make of datasets compromising privacy.
ReplyDeleteI think the bill itself is highly problematic written to enshrine in law the 'grey area' actions of the GCHQ (Government Communication Headquarters). The aspect of the bill regarding Bulk Personal Datasets was activated before parliamentary discussion was held on it, its pertinent to note that 'Bulk Personal Datasets' actually refers to datasets containing personally identifiable information and therefore raises a number of privacy issues.
The argument is often made that we are currently inhabiting a post-privacy world, with all the integrated data stores of many of web 2.0 features, that we have traded privacy for convenience. Is that really a good enough argument to accept mass surveillance by a government of its people? The investigatory powers bill, or snoopers bill as its commonly known has legislated for such surveillance as no other democratic country has ever done before.
Two features which to my mind are particularly worrying is it makes it even easier for the police to pursue journalists sources. Historically when police do pursue journalist sources they are more likely to be whistle blowers than threats to national security. Protecting journalist sources is rarely incompatible with national security, yet a free and open press is seen to be a cornerstone of developed democracies. The joint committee on the draft investigatory powers bill did recommend safeguards to protect Journalists and there sources, these were not included in the bill.
Secondly, the bill has reinforced the Wilson doctrine and added a number of sensitive professions to its safeguards. Consequently members of parliament receive protections from which their citizens are exempt, as do ministers of religion. This exceptionalism raises further worrying questions. Either it is a case of people with sensitive professions requiring protection from the law (the law should not pose a threat) or it is a case of certain professions receiving certain privileges (the law should be equal), either way it is hard to interpret it as benign legislation which serves the common good
Just letting yous all know there is a documentary about the exploitation of tracking digital fingerprints airing on RTE ONE at 10.15 tonight called "Cloud control: who owns your data", heard about it on the radio yesterday as the presenters discussed their own opinions on the matter, very interesting. The documentary will also be featured in the Cork Film Festival this year!!
ReplyDeleteI think mining databases is acceptable, depending on the datasets. It is very easy to say you are for it, but I’m sure every individual here would not like being constantly monitored. However during current times it is apparent that national security will always win over an individual’s privacy.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of GIS, data mining is crucial in cases such as monitoring air quality. This article is an interesting read if anyone has the time: https://www.ijert.org/view-pdf/7323/analysis-a-application-of-gis-based-air-quality-monitoring-state-of-art It shows just how important data is to GIS in these type of studies!
Hi Colin, I agree, for me it is more about how the datasets were acquired and what they will be used for. If the datasets were collected openly, honestly and with good understanding and permission with the individual knowing what their information will be used for, I think there are huge benefits to this. However, when thinking about the issue of security, it only works when the criminals do not know if they are under surveillance. It is a very trick subject but looking at the comments on the original BBC article (an this is no way a scientific analysis!), it would seem the majority of people that viewed that article would prefer to protect their privacy (over a lifetime) rather than sporadic terrorist incidents but not all will agree.
DeleteObviously the privacy issue will never go away when it comes to mining datasets (or any form of information storing). As stated above, the risks of cyber crime are always going to be there and the questions regarding "who sees the data?" will come up. But, again, as stated above by Sara, if you have nothing to hide, is there really anything to worry about?
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think that the benefits outweigh the risks, but not everyone will see it that way. It's a tricky situation and often a controversial topic!
Hi Judith,
DeleteIt is certainly the $64 million question!
What if a government said they were using it for the sole reason of national security but were in fact using it for alternative reasons also.
Re, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.... I have nothing to hide but I wouldn't want my next door neighbour to know what I bought my wife for Christmas and they may just work for GCHQ... ;)
Years ago I worked in a bank. When I met new people and they asked where I worked I'd say the name of the bank to them and if they banked with the company I worked for, I could tell straight away by the expression on their face. They knew that if I wanted to (not that I did or would or should) I could access their personal information e.g. balance, accounts, spending, etc. and there was nothing they could do to prevent this. I didn't ever do or say anything to suggest as such but to me it shows how personal it becomes when it is you as an individual that has to start looking over your shoulder because big brother is watching whether we like it or not.
This is an interesting and contentious issue, and one that focuses on privacy verses national or security interests. Advances in digital technology means that information about each and every individual is captured and stored in a variety of ways and by many organisations. Today I know that I have been observed by several CCTV cameras,logged on to a networked computer, completed internet searches for work and personal use, withdrawn money from a cash point, returned a library book- all part of a normal day mediated by and through digital technology in some form. The process of oversight is somewhat reassuring but there is mention of the 'grey' area associated with activities by GCHQ and similar organisations. There is certainly a need to revise our definition of privacy and associated boundaries as we willingly use and contribute to digital data.
ReplyDeleteFor GIS, having access to a range of data sources is beneficial for planning, monitoring and researching across a range of sectors. There will undoubtedly be some information that is restricted/unavailable.
DeleteI notice that the Investigatory Powers Act was approved by Parliament on Wednesday.
I personally do not feel there is a problem with mining databases and if you dont have anything to hide why should you have a problem with it? They are doing it to protect you! Obviously this view is not widely accepted by the general public so the big challenge in years to come is to try and find the right balance between privacy and access that people can agree on.
ReplyDeleteThere are a number of positives for lowering the privacy levels. Koerner (2009) states that removing privacy and protection of personal data would have a positive effect on the speed, precision and quality of healthcare.
It could impact on the GIS industry in a positive way as more datasets could be released from information taken via data mining.
Personally I feel data mining is great as it is gathering and analysing raw data and making it useful, it just depends on the type of data that is being used. If its something like crime hot spots in Northern Ireland, population and health services there is no harm. And as Theresa May said we are living in a digital age now, and computers are essential to our everyday lives, everything revolves around technology and big data is shaping the way that we live and work. Although with this, privacy is always going to be an issue just like Judith said and in terms of this proposed legislation its going to invade are privacy in one way or another whether we like it or not. The benefits that will hopefully come out of this is that terrorist and cyber attacks will be limited or stopped altogether with better surveillance. In terms for what it will mean for GIS is that some data sets may not be provided due to security reasons which will make it hard to store and analyse data but there will always be a way around it.
ReplyDeleteI think privacy laws or other similar laws which appear to pose a direct threat to individual’s privacy, probably appear to be far more intrusive than they are in reality. Perhaps this is due to politicians and the media not communicating by using evidence based examples, or case studies, often enough with the public. For example, Mrs May states that “This law is needed to fight crime and terror.” This is a very vague statement and it would probably make individuals feel safer if they knew how this law would impact them directly, such as how likely it would be that government organisations viewed their data, or perhaps the opposite if it was more often than originally thought. To me it appears that politicians and the GIS industry would benefit if these proposed privacy laws were put under more scientific scrutiny, in order to provide evidence based reasons for passing such laws, which were communicated more clearly to the public.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of privacy in a society where pervasive technologies have become the social norm seems unlikely. Do we honestly know who is monitoring us on a daily basis? We live in a society where we divulge personal information on the internet every day. Michael Goodchild referred to this as ‘volunteered geographic information’ back in 2007, even before social media became the ‘heartbeat’ of modern day society. The idea of drafting new legislation to allow the government to act more swiftly to ‘protect’ society certainly raises a number of issues. 'Protection', 'threat', 'terrorism' and 'security' are the four main words that stood out for me when reviewing this report by the BBC. I personally feel that the government is using fear to gain greater access to the public’s personal information. By using fear, the government is ultimately making people feel that these measures will benefit society. A similar tactic was used by the USA’s administration post 9/11 when they introduced the ‘Patriot Act’. Personally, I find it hard to believe that this data will always remain secure and not be mishandled. In 2007 the United Kingdom tax authorities lost 25 million files of individuals information, can the government honestly protect every single piece of data they ‘mine’ through? Regardless of my feelings, these large datasets can be huge to the world of GIS. GIS is pivotal in mapping out these large datasets and discovering key patterns that could potentially appear. Ultimately, I feel that it is impossible for every piece of information that is ‘data mined’ to be protected and remain secure forever.
ReplyDeleteThe increase use and speed of advancement in technology and databases is developing far faster than rules, regulations and law can keep up.
ReplyDeleteWith many databases extract their information from the ‘world wide’ web where each country has its own rules, regulations, laws and opposing political views trying to manage such diversity is practically impossible.
Knowledge is derived from information and the information held within databases is data. If you build a database with no data, whilst it is practically useless, there is no issue. Add in some legitimate data obtained with the knowledge and permission of an individual and ensure it will only be used for the intended purpose, not shared without permission and kept securely, there is still no problem.
Whilst there is a huge amount of different types of data available from a variety of sources, there are definitely problems with how some personal and private data is collected and used today.
We have governments who say they need access to everyone’s data to ensure they can keep the country safe. We have individuals who post personal information about themselves and of friends and family (who may not want their information shared) everyday for the world to see via social media. We have some companies that share data with unknown 3rd parties and others that do not keep data secure enough despite the knowledge that data is big business for both legitimate and criminal activities and we have companies that use little tricks to gain data legally but dishonestly.
Data is everywhere and the results you can obtain from analysing it correctly can help you achieve some incredible things and this goes for good, the bad and the ugly and this is why data is a valuable commodity.
The opportunities are endless and continue to grow but again this can be both positive and negative depending on who is using it and for what purposes. Will we ever get a balance? Personally, I think not, there are too many variables to consider but that does not mean we shouldn’t try to achieve it but this needs to come from a combined effort from all areas including governments, corporations and the general public around the globe.
We are continually moving forward as a race (with some exceptions!) and whilst technology is advancing at an amazing speed and allowing us to delve into the magic of algorithms and mathematical probabilities, this is only good if the data being gathered is good, honest data being used to improve the world for the better no matter the source.
The same goes true for GIS. Databases and the ability to mine data using a variety of algorithms again creates endless possibilities. With Geography crossing over with so many other subject matters, this is an exciting time to get involved in this relatively new field.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere are many who believe that the collection of this data is an infringement of privacy rights these people avoid things like social media and the use of mobile phones which is called getting off the grid. Others believe their privacy is being infringed because they can be tracked through their cell phones and have created a phrase for this called geoslavery and geopiracy .Some feel that in a modern society it is a necessity to collect data in order to maintain the security and safety of their lives and they feel that if they are not committing any crime they have nothing to hide. Privacy to one person might mean a different thing to another, take for example parents worried about the protection of their children, they might install location finding software on their children’s smart phones. An incapacitated soldier would be very delighted to know his comrades knew his location to aid in his recovery. This debate is sure to continue long into the foreseeable future as technology improves and evolves.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the European Commission the primary uses of the internet among European citizens in 2016 were for accessing news (68%), shopping (65%) and social networks (63%). Keeping this information on every citizen in the UK for 12 months in the hope of catching a tiny minority of transgressors, seems like a waste of resources and time.
ReplyDeleteI don’t see the draft ‘Investigatory Powers Bill’ changing much from a personal privacy point of view. The bill will create a legal framework for data mining and possible spying on individuals by security services, a process that GCHQ has been undertaking for quite some time. Internet service providers already keep vast amounts of data on our internet use, so again, I don’t really see it as a major issue for personal privacy. However, the main thrust of the argument for this bill is that it will increase national security and make it easier for security and law enforcement agencies to monitor suspected criminals and terror networks.
Personally, I believe this bill will do little to tackle crime or terrorism. The general public, terrorists and criminals already use virtual private networks (VPN) and TOR software to hide their internet activities and/or identities. This bill is likely to drive greater innovation in the encryption of data and the use of encryption services. Much of the business of organised criminals is now conducted through the ‘dark web’, a recent study by Kings college found 50% of sites hosted on the dark web are associated with criminality; illegal pornography, illicit drugs and arms sales. No amount of logging the publics internet usage will change this.
The fact that the police only require a signature to access this ‘mined’ data is obviously open to abuse, blackmail being the obvious one. Elsewhere this type of data mining has proved both ineffective for increasing security and costly. A similar system in Denmark was scrapped when costs reached €1 billion per annum, though there are calls for a reintroduction of the scheme. In the US the volume of data being collected by the NSA is claimed to be hampering its efforts to tackle terrorism as the volume of information is just too great to analyse effectively.
I also find the idea of the Wilson doctrine being written into law rather troubling: why should certain members of society be outside this law? Originally Harold Wilson stated that MPs could be placed under surveillance if necessary. Is this condition to be withdrawn?
Large scale datasets have proved invaluable in the field of geodemographics. That these huge datasets, when they become available, will be valuable to the GIS community is without doubt. However, other than for sales and marketing I find it difficult to envisage how people’s internet activity will generate data useful for the public good - but only time will tell.
This privacy and invasion of privacy is one that has been topical and will continue to be so as technological advances are made. It is a personal opinion, as some people are very happy to voluntarily give lots of personal information on the world wide web via facebook, instagram etc. Whereas others do not wish to interact in such open and free sources. It is more concerning when companies admit to 'misplacing' customers personal information i.e. Talk Talk and the likes of Hilary Clinton is under investigation for potential comprise of US security putting highly sensitive and confidential data sets at increased risk and unethical work practices!
ReplyDeleteThis debate on privacy will continue on as long as technology is further integrated into our lives. It does give GIS a bad image with the general public, but the potential of it is incredible.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem with this issue is the idea that privacy can’t be clearly defined. The public do have a right to privacy but what does that mean? People have a perception of privacy which in some cases will just never be realistic. However other people embrace the use of this technology and its benefits, social media would be an example. If databases were used responsibly for defense and crime purposes; then people could accept the inevitable outcome of increased monitoring in the coming years.
I believe the introduction of these new surveillance laws are necessary in this day and age. The mining of online data will not only allow the government to track individuals who have been involved in crime, but as stated in the article, will also act as a means of safety to the rest of the public.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of privacy is unclear and because of this i think many individuals develop unrealistic expectations regarding it. The only concern there should be is regarding the monitoring of individuals that do not require it. However, i believe we need to trust our government to do whats best for us and i think that the implementation of these laws will help, rather than hinder, each individual living in the country.