[euopendata] Moral clauses in data terms & conditions?
Ton Zijlstra
ton.zijlstra at gmail.com
Wed May 28 09:17:21 UTC 2014
Hi Michael,
Thanks!
"Is it possible to gain insight on people because we have enough granular
data sets?"
This is a key issue, regardless of illegal or immoral use of data. The
short answer to this is of course "yes". And none of our current dealing
with privacy and data protection in laws takes it into account.
Recombination of datasets that themselves are innocent into something that
breach privacy does not exist as a possibility in current privacy law. Most
deal only with whether a single dataset contains personal data.
We know that from your non-public FB profile that just lists 8 of your
random contacts, a reliable (but not fully reliable) prediction about your
sexual orientation can be made. Something any Ugandan male for instance
should regard with fear.
This is a question that will undoubtedly will be extremely important in the
coming years in the (open) data discussion.
Our notions of privacy and how we aim to regulate it will need to evolve a
lot to keep up with the new affordances of pervasive digital data
availability.
best,
Ton
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interdependent Thoughts
Ton Zijlstra
ton at tonzijlstra.eu
+31-6-34489360
http://zylstra.org/blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Michael Hörz <hoerz at michael-hoerz.de>wrote:
> Hi Ton,
>
> thanks a lot for your extensive input. That's very helpful.
>
> Briefly on your question: "And what would you want to teach in that
> regard?"
>
> It is partly ironic, admittedly. We're taking a somewhat playful approach
> on the parts of open data usually not covered. Is it possible to gain
> insight on people because we have enough granular data sets? How could
> "bad" be done with open data?
>
> Terms such as "bad" also involve moral assessments, therefore I'm
> interested how far such statements can be found in legal texts, where they
> are actually useless, as you pointed out.
>
> Best,
> Michael
>
>
> On May 28, 2014 at 09:11 AM, Ton Zijlstra wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> some data points:
>>
>>
>> The national Norwegian early draft national license used to have a
>> statement like that
>> (http://www.epsiplatform.eu/content/norway-discusses-psi-licensing-model
>> ),
>> but they moved away from it quickly
>> (http://www.epsiplatform.eu/content/norwegian-data-
>> license-feedback-request)
>> and the final version does not have such a statement
>> (http://data.norge.no/nlod/en/1.0).
>>
>> Dutch government bodies who think they need their own license sometimes
>> add it, but the national policy is CC0 and/or Public Domain.
>>
>> The Flemish government (Belgium) has a suite of licenses (in which CC0
>> is the preferred option), for gov bodies to choose from. Their 'by
>> attribution' and other licenses (paid for data, paid for commercial
>> reuse, who are both discouraged by Flemish gov) however does state "The
>> licensee commits to avoiding any unlawful re-use of the product"
>> (http://www.opendataforum.info/files/Modellicenties_ENG.pdf)
>>
>> The French national open data license does not mention 'illegal' use but
>> does state:
>> "The «Re-user» is solely responsible for its re-use of the « Information
>> »." http://wiki.data.gouv.fr/images/0/05/Open_Licence.pdf
>> As it obviously should be.
>>
>> In general I suspect inclusion of the 'illegal use' clause is born out
>> of the data holders fear for liability, not out of wanting to regulate
>> reuse.
>>
>> In that light: The Dutch government's standardisation body issued a
>> report on open data liability risks for government bodies (in Dutch
>> only:
>> http://www.forumstandaardisatie.nl/fileadmin/os/documenten/
>> Rapportage_open_data_en_aansprakelijkheid_def.pdf)
>> which rules out risks for gov bodies due to malintented reuse of data
>> they publish placing that responsibility on the shoulders of the reuser.
>>
>> best,
>> Ton
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------------
>> Interdependent Thoughts
>> Ton Zijlstra
>>
>> ton at tonzijlstra.eu <mailto:ton at tonzijlstra.eu>
>>
>> +31-6-34489360
>>
>> http://zylstra.org/blog
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------------
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Ton Zijlstra <ton.zijlstra at gmail.com
>> <mailto:ton.zijlstra at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> hi Michael,
>>
>> I have seen those clauses in many government cases, but legally they
>> are unnecessary and even void (risking voiding the entire license)
>> I'd say:
>>
>> What is illegal is illegal regardless of what a data license says.
>> Copyright or creative commons licenses normally also don't
>> explicitly say that you cannot copy something to use it for illegal
>> purposes. Illegality is covered by definition by other laws, as that
>> is what makes something illegal ('outside the law') in the first
>> place. Also if I do something illegal with some data are you or the
>> state going to sue me for license infringement? I think not.
>>
>> Second, immoral is not a legal term and highly ambiguous and
>> subjective. Unless it is written down in law (which makes it
>> illegal, not immoral).
>>
>> Third, open government data has its own legal basis, usually in
>> freedom of information acts (FOIA) and EU PSI Directive (in any case
>> it builds on what is already public data, and then adresses reuse of
>> that public data). In none of those, is 'illegal reuse of data' a
>> ground to deny making data public. The reason (next to illegal
>> already being illegal anyway) is that under FOIA gov data providers
>> are not allowed to demand me to state my interest. Asking me 'what
>> are you going to use it for', which you implicitly try to do with a
>> 'no illegal' clause, is simply not allowed. Something is public by
>> the nature of a gov decision, and then reuse can be allowed, again
>> by nature of a gov decision. (And by mid 2015, it is only a decision
>> on making something public or not. Reuse is no longer a decision
>> factor) The potential reader or user of that data is not an allowed
>> general factor in deciding on publication.
>>
>> What triggers your interest in these type of useless licenses and
>> specifically in connection with open data? And what would you want
>> to teach in that regard?
>> Because in general using data for less than legit or not so moral
>> purposes is not tied to 'open' in any relevant way I'd say.
>>
>> Of course data can be used for all kinds of nefarious reasons. That
>> is generally true for any technology such as kitchen knives.
>> And it does happen, but if I would hazard a guess I would guess it
>> happens mostly with data that wasn't acquired legally (such as
>> collecting personal information against privacy law stipulations),
>> sometimes in combination with public information. Or acting on made
>> up/false information (banks, insurers). And by other entities other
>> than the public such as NSA, Chinese army, etc.
>>
>> I would be interested in clearly abusive reuse examples (I have seen
>> ironic prototypes of 'burglar apps' matching the '500 richest people
>> in the country' list with real estate prizes and geo-locations) that
>> you come across.
>> Interestingly enough in the past decades of growing reuse of
>> government data I haven't come across any scandals concerning open
>> data. You?
>>
>> best,
>> Ton
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------------
>> Interdependent Thoughts
>> Ton Zijlstra
>>
>> ton at tonzijlstra.eu <mailto:ton at tonzijlstra.eu>
>>
>> +31-6-34489360
>>
>> http://zylstra.org/blog
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------------
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Michael Hörz
>> <hoerz at michael-hoerz.de <mailto:hoerz at michael-hoerz.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm presently teaching computer science students in Berlin on
>> the subject of open data.
>>
>> We will be looking at the "far side" of open data (i.e. using
>> open data for not so good things).
>>
>> In this context I'm interested in examples of moral clauses in
>> terms & conditions for using data.
>>
>> Such as "not use any of the Information for an illegal or
>> immoral purpose"
>> (http://dashboard.glasgow.gov.__uk/ckansupport/open.glasgow.
>> __gov.uk_Licence_version%201.0.__htm
>> <http://dashboard.glasgow.gov.uk/ckansupport/open.glasgow.
>> gov.uk_Licence_version%201.0.htm>)
>>
>>
>> So if you know of such terms, especially with interesting
>> wording, please share them.
>>
>> Thanks a lot,
>> Michael
>> _________________________________________________
>> euopendata mailing list
>> euopendata at lists.okfn.org <mailto:euopendata at lists.okfn.org>
>> https://lists.okfn.org/__mailman/listinfo/euopendata
>> <https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/euopendata>
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/__mailman/options/euopendata
>> <https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/euopendata>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> euopendata mailing list
>> euopendata at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/euopendata
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/euopendata
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> euopendata mailing list
> euopendata at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/euopendata
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/euopendata
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/euopendata/attachments/20140528/7ed99199/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the euopendata
mailing list