Data as infrastructure? A study of data sharing legal regimes

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Ducuing
Keyword(s):  
Data Sharing ◽  
Network Industries ◽  
Data Governance ◽  
The Public ◽  
Vehicle Data ◽  
Essential Facility ◽  
Physical Infrastructure ◽  
Legal Regimes ◽  
Context Specific ◽  
Different Sources

The article discusses the concept of infrastructure in the digital environment, through a study of three data sharing legal regimes: the Public Sector Information Directive (PSI Directive), the discussions on in-vehicle data governance and the freshly adopted data sharing legal regime in the Electricity Directive. While aiming to contribute to the scholarship on data governance, the article deliberately focuses on network industries. Characterised by the existence of physical infrastructure, they have a special relationship to digitisation and ‘platformisation’ and are exposed to specific risks. Adopting an explanatory methodology, the article exposes that these regimes are based on two close but different sources of inspiration, yet intertwined and left unclear. By targeting entities deemed ‘monopolist’ with regard to the data they create and hold, data sharing obligations are inspired from competition law and especially the essential facility doctrine. On the other hand, beneficiaries appear to include both operators in related markets needing data to conduct their business (except for the PSI Directive), and third parties at large to foster innovation. The latter rationale illustrates what is called here a purposive view of data as infrastructure. The underlying understanding of ‘raw’ data (management) as infrastructure for all to use may run counter the ability for the regulated entities to get a fair remuneration for ‘their’ data. Finally, the article pleads for more granularity when mandating data sharing obligations depending upon the purpose. Shifting away from a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution, the regulation of data could also extend to the ensuing context-specific data governance regime, subject to further research.

scholarly journals Benchmarking Crisis in Social Media Analytics: A Solution for the Data-Sharing Problem

2021 ◽  
pp. 089443932110122
Author(s):  
Dennis Assenmacher ◽  
Derek Weber ◽  
Mike Preuss ◽  
André Calero Valdez ◽  
Alison Bradshaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Algorithm Design ◽  
Computational Social Science ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Social Media Analytics ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Media Data

Computational social science uses computational and statistical methods in order to evaluate social interaction. The public availability of data sets is thus a necessary precondition for reliable and replicable research. These data allow researchers to benchmark the computational methods they develop, test the generalizability of their findings, and build confidence in their results. When social media data are concerned, data sharing is often restricted for legal or privacy reasons, which makes the comparison of methods and the replicability of research results infeasible. Social media analytics research, consequently, faces an integrity crisis. How is it possible to create trust in computational or statistical analyses, when they cannot be validated by third parties? In this work, we explore this well-known, yet little discussed, problem for social media analytics. We investigate how this problem can be solved by looking at related computational research areas. Moreover, we propose and implement a prototype to address the problem in the form of a new evaluation framework that enables the comparison of algorithms without the need to exchange data directly, while maintaining flexibility for the algorithm design.

scholarly journals United States response to the COVID-19 pandemic, January–November 2020

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Mathew Alexander ◽  
Lynn Unruh ◽  
Andriy Koval ◽  
William Belanger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Contact Tracing ◽  
Public Health Response ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Past ◽  
Health Response ◽  
Physical Infrastructure ◽  
Key Policy ◽  
United States Healthcare

Abstract As of November 2020, the United States leads the world in confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and deaths. Over the past 10 months, the United States has experienced three peaks in new cases, with the most recent spike in November setting new records. Inaction and the lack of a scientifically informed, unified response have contributed to the sustained spread of COVID-19 in the United States. This paper describes major events and findings from the domestic response to COVID-19 from January to November 2020, including on preventing transmission, COVID-19 testing and contact tracing, ensuring sufficient physical infrastructure and healthcare workforce, paying for services, and governance. We further reflect on the public health response to-date and analyse the link between key policy decisions (e.g. closing, reopening) and COVID-19 cases in three states that are representative of the broader regions that have experienced spikes in cases. Finally, as we approach the winter months and undergo a change in national leadership, we highlight some considerations for the ongoing COVID-19 response and the broader United States healthcare system. These findings describe why the United States has failed to contain COVID-19 effectively to-date and can serve as a reference in the continued response to COVID-19 and future pandemics.

scholarly journals Analysis of corporate political activity strategies of the food industry: evidence from France

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (18) ◽  
pp. 3407-3421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Mialon ◽  
Jonathan Mialon
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Food Industry ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Political Activity ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Corporate Political Activity ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Different Sources

AbstractObjectiveTo identify the corporate political activity (CPA) of major food industry actors in France.DesignWe followed an approach based on information available in the public domain. Different sources of information, freely accessible to the public, were monitored.Setting/SubjectsData were collected and analysed between March and August 2015. Five actors were selected: ANIA (Association Nationale des Industries Agroalimentaires/National Association of Agribusiness Industries); Coca-Cola; McDonald’s; Nestlé; and Carrefour.ResultsOur analysis shows that the main practices used by Coca-Cola and McDonald’s were the framing of diet and public health issues in ways favourable to the company, and their involvement in the community. ANIA primarily used the ‘information and messaging’ strategy (e.g. by promoting deregulation and shaping the evidence base on diet- and public health-related issues), as well as the ‘policy substitution’ strategy. Nestlé framed diet and public health issues, and shaped the evidence base on diet- and public health-related issues. Carrefour particularly sought involvement in the community.ConclusionsWe found that, in 2015, the food industry in France was using CPA practices that were also used by other industries in the past, such as the tobacco and alcohol industries. Because most, if not all, of these practices proved detrimental to public health when used by the tobacco industry, we propose that the precautionary principle should guide decisions when engaging or interacting with the food industry.

scholarly journals Public Interest, Health Research and Data Protection Law: Establishing a Legitimate Trade-Off between Individual Control and Research Access to Health Data

Laws ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark J. Taylor ◽  
Tess Whitton
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Health Data ◽  
Personal Health ◽  
Positive Contribution ◽  
Data Governance ◽  
The Public ◽  
Individual Control ◽  
Data Protection Law

The United Kingdom’s Data Protection Act 2018 introduces a new public interest test applicable to the research processing of personal health data. The need for interpretation and application of this new safeguard creates a further opportunity to craft a health data governance landscape deserving of public trust and confidence. At the minimum, to constitute a positive contribution, the new test must be capable of distinguishing between instances of health research that are in the public interest, from those that are not, in a meaningful, predictable and reproducible manner. In this article, we derive from the literature on theories of public interest a concept of public interest capable of supporting such a test. Its application can defend the position under data protection law that allows a legal route through to processing personal health data for research purposes that does not require individual consent. However, its adoption would also entail that the public interest test in the 2018 Act could only be met if all practicable steps are taken to maximise preservation of individual control over the use of personal health data for research purposes. This would require that consent is sought where practicable and objection respected in almost all circumstances. Importantly, we suggest that an advantage of relying upon this concept of the public interest, to ground the test introduced by the 2018 Act, is that it may work to promote the social legitimacy of data protection legislation and the research processing that it authorises without individual consent (and occasionally in the face of explicit objection).

Rooting Evaluation Guidelines in Relational Ethics: Lessons From Africa

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 404-419
Author(s):  
Caitlin Blaser Mapitsa ◽  
Tara Polzer Ngwato
Keyword(s):  
Culturally Responsive ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Relational Ethics ◽  
Developed Country ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
The Public ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Context Specific ◽  
Ethical Clearance ◽  
Made In

As global discussions of evaluation standards become more contextually nuanced, culturally responsive conceptions of ethics have not been sufficiently discussed. In academic social research, ethical clearance processes have been designed to protect vulnerable people from harm related to participation in a research project. This article expands the ambit of ethical protection thinking and proposes a relational ethics approach for evaluation practitioners. This centers an analysis of power relations among and within all the different stakeholder groups in order to establish, in a context-specific manner, which stakeholders are vulnerable and in need of protection. The approach also contextualizes the nature of “the public good,” as part of an ethical consideration of interest trade-offs during evaluations. The discussion is informed by our experiences in African contexts and speaks to the “Made in Africa” research agenda but is also relevant to other global contexts where alternatives to “developed country” ontological assumptions about the roles of researchers and participations and the nature of vulnerability are being reconsidered.

A Note on Ethics Educational Interventions in an Undergraduate Auditing Course: Is There an “Enron Effect”?

2004 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine E. Earley ◽  
Patrick T. Kelly
Keyword(s):  
Moral Reasoning ◽  
Moral Dilemmas ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Defining Issues Test ◽  
Accounting Students ◽  
The Public ◽  
Reasoning Abilities ◽  
Accounting Scandals ◽  
Accounting Courses ◽  
Context Specific

In light of recent accounting scandals and the ensuing “crisis in confidence” facing the public accounting profession, there is a new challenge to accounting educators: how to effectively incorporate ethics into accounting courses, and increase the moral reasoning abilities of their students. Providing accounting students with the ability to reason effectively with respect to moral dilemmas may help to minimize future judgment errors in accounting and auditing settings. This article describes several different educational interventions that were adopted in an undergraduate auditing course. Students' moral reasoning was assessed both at the beginning and the end of the course to determine whether their moral reasoning scores improved based on the interventions. This was done over two semesters: one occurring in 2001 (“pre-Enron”), and one occurring in 2002 (“post-Enron”). Accounting context-specific scores were collected in both semesters (using Thorne's [2000] Accounting Ethical Dilemma Instrument [AEDI]), and general moral reasoning scores (Rest's [1979] Defining Issues Test [DIT]) were also collected in the post-Enron semester. Results indicate increases in AEDI scores, which were robust over both semesters. There was no corresponding increase in DIT scores, which is consistent with previous research; however, students' DIT scores were not significantly different than AEDI scores, which is contrary to the findings of Thorne (2001). In addition, the educational interventions appear to be equally effective in both the pre-Enron and post-Enron semesters, indicating the absence of an “Enron effect.”

Beyond Recidivism

2020 ◽  
pp. 13-38
Author(s):  
Elsa Y. Chen ◽  
Sophie E. Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Political Will ◽  
The Public ◽  
Technological Limitations ◽  
Privacy And Confidentiality ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Integrate Data

This chapter highlights a number of flaws with current practices in the measurement of recidivism and offers suggestions for improvements in the measurement, collection, and sharing of data related to the experiences of individuals returning to society from incarceration. Problems with current measures of recidivism include lack of precision, lack of standardization, and possible bias. Multiple, precise, and uniformly defined measures should be used. Measures that focus on reengagement with the criminal justice system are insufficient to gauge a reentering individual’s progress, which is likely to be incremental, will probably involve setbacks, and inevitably spans numerous policy areas. Instead of primarily emphasizing reentering individuals’ risks of recidivating, more attention should be paid to their needs, and to information about access to reentry resources to address those needs. Data sharing between different levels of government and policy domains, between custody and community, and across the public and nonprofit sectors can improve the delivery of resources and services, reducing waste and improving lives. Concerns about privacy and confidentiality, technological limitations, insufficient funding and capacity, and lack of motivation currently impede efforts to share and integrate data. With political will, support, and resources, obstacles to data sharing can be overcome.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document