Thanks for such great questions on my article critique as follows! I will try my best to answer every question I received.
Q: Is there a reason why author discuss discretion besides personal data privacy issues? Does it affect author’s research object if she/he mess up with the two concepts.
A: I think confusion between discretion and privacy is common among many people when they try to determine what is private and what is not. In a sense, these two concepts always go hand in hand. If the research question is on personal privacy protection, I will not take the authors' stance as mistaken. However, what they try to discuss is how researchers of learning analytics can conduct their studies without violating privacy, so the privacy here should be treated as an objective issue that can be observed by different stakeholders rather than something totally up to the agent him/herself.
Q: I’m intrigued by the point about the dynamic definition (or not?) of privacy? Do you think we have the right to first grant access to our data and then revoke it? That seems to fit with the analogy of inviting someone to your home, but it sounds like it would make things difficult for the researchers’ planning.
A: That's true! The other critique I mentioned in my article but not the presentation is about the low feasibility of someone's right to withdraw his/her data after being collected, which is also suggested by the authors. And this kind of volatility of one's discretion is an important reason why I propose to distinguish privacy from discretion clearly. Moreover, I suggest that dynamics of privacy according to the context and time could be better taken advantage of if the authors tried to draw proper lines to differentiate private and public cyberspaces with regard to the three dynamic boundaries of digital privacy they bring up in the paper, i.e. discourse, identity and temporality.
Q: Could you explain me more about what you meant by “just because you invite people doesn’t mean house is not private?”
A: It is an analogy I use to tell the difference between discretion and privacy. As my answer to the first question shows, physical privacy in modern society can be an objective concept that is well-defined in law. Although I can walk into the host's residence by invitation this time, I am not sure if I can the same invitation or permission next time. And such uncertainty might well hinder the procedure of research if researchers merely rely on users' generosity.
Q: How could we reach a consensus of defining the boundaries of privacy, when we all come from different backgrounds?
A: It is a very good question that I expected the authors to address in their paper but they didn't. One reason accounting for it might be the difficulty of reaching a consensus among people with diverse backgrounds as you said. But in spite of the diversity, protocols signed by different online groups are likely to be a good way to define the objective boundary of digital privacy. Of course, before the agreement is reached, a large quantity of negotiation will be inevitable.
No comments:
Post a Comment