[open-science] Centre for Global Development adopts open data policy for publications

[David F. Flanders]

Dear Paola, Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions:

d.flanders at jisc.ac.uk

/dff
On 5 Aug 2011 08:35, "Paola Di Maio" <paola.dimaio at gmail.com> wrote:
>> As Ohm notes, this illustrates a central reality of data >collection:
"data can either be useful or perfectly >anonymous but never both."
>
>
> Thank you Peter for the nice quote
>
> sure, 'privacy' cannot actually be taken lightly
>
> However being a pragmatic scientist, having to make a choice, I would
> necessarily aim for (esp re data paid for with public money) it being
> useful, and imperfectly anonymous (or as some would put it, anonymous
> enough...)
>
> Even the need for privacy must be weighted against
> the context, I mean privacy of personal data (ie, my bank pin, genetic
> code, phone calls record or clinical and health data etc) are a
> stronger requirement than the need to protect my legitimate views on
> 'open access' aired in the context of a scientific enquiry the results
> of which will be published in aggregated and anonymized form.
>
> Especially not in the case of subjects who otherwise take every
> opportunity to make their views known....
>
> PDM
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> >  Key Perspectives are independent  consultants, so not subject to FoI
>>> > >except where they hold data on behalf of others, including JISC who
>>> > >commissioned this work. I have some sympathy for their practice;
>>> > >qualitative data are often this kind of one to one interview data and
>>> > >potentially very sensitive.
>>>
>>> I suggested that the data could be anonymized instead of being
>>> destroyed  - so that I would not have to know the name of the person,
>>> but still have an idea of their demographics, for example - job title,
>>> institution,department, city, town etc. I would really like to analyse
>>> such data according to different segmentation in relation to
>>> geographical differences for example, would there be differences
>>> between north and south, or between different institutions, and
>>> disciplines, as this could serve the public good and provide
>>> additional science for the same buck.
>>
>>
>> It is generally recognized that it is impossible to anonymize data
>> completely
>>
>> See
>>
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/your-secrets-live-online-in-databases-of-ruin.ars
>>
>> with the quote:
>>
>> As Ohm notes, this illustrates a central reality of data collection:
"data
>> can either be useful or perfectly anonymous but never both."
>>
>> --
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20110811/c3047651/attachment-0001.html>