[open-science] Privacy and open research data

Wed Feb 20 02:18:07 UTC 2013

Here's an example from 2008. The NIH had to block public access to two
previously open medical datasets because researchers had figured out how to
use independent data to de-anonymize the two datasets and identify
individual patients.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/nih-takes-two-oa-dna-databases-offline.html

    Peter Suber

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Song, Stephen <stephen.song at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Jenny,
>>
>> Thanks for your thoughtful reply and for the very useful additional
>> resources.  I should preface my remarks by saying these are emerging
>> thoughts on my part as I participate with a development research funding
>> organisation in thinking through what Open Data means to them.
>>
>> I fully take your point about the "hard" sciences, if that isn't already
>> too loaded an adjective.  There is obviously plenty of research that
>> doesn't trigger privacy concerns.  However, if I have learned anything in
>> my recent investigation, it is that the boundaries are fuzzier than I
>> imagined.  The kind of differential diagnosis process that privacy
>> researchers use to infer new information from disparate data sources is
>> both remarkable and disturbing at the same time.
>>
>
> It would be very useful to have some examples of these.
>
> P.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20130219/d35c20b3/attachment-0001.html>