[open-science] Privacy and open research data

[Peter Suber]

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>