[open-science] Risks in secrecy

Wed Feb 20 18:43:49 UTC 2013

Heather and I may not see eye to eye on CC BY in open access, but I'm 
furiously applauding her posts on open data and privacy.

The point of raising this issue is not to use it as an argument 
*against* open data. It's to argue that our arguments *for* open data 
must contemplate all its realities, including those that require some 
uncomfortable thinking.

Anonymity is not the victim of "open" data - it's the victim of 
"abundant" data. We're very non-anonymous to lots of corporations and to 
our governments because of abundant data. Opening that data up just 
enlarges the sample size of those who might attempt to use abundant data 
to identify individuals.

The point about geographic sensitivity is also extremely well taken. I 
ran into this in an open roads project in central america a few years 
back - the very data used to track biodiversity created a roadmap for 
poachers of rare animals. It's tough.

But the privacy element is a poor reason to argue against open data, and 
arguing the risks of secrecy as a counterargument is an elegant 
formation that I think we should embrace...

jtw

On 2/20/13 4:00 AM, open-science-request at lists.okfn.org wrote:
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:40:20 -0800
From: Heather Morrison <hgmorris at sfu.ca>
Subject: [open-science] Risks in secrecy
To: open-science at lists.okfn.org
Message-ID: <FD44A862-5FB3-4B93-B2FE-97BBD396CC76 at sfu.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes

There are dangers in opening up data - but let's not forget the
dangers of secrecy.

Canada is actively muzzling its government scientists. Canada's
Science Writers Association is keeping track of what they are up to:
http://sciencewriters.ca/initiatives/muzzling_canadian_federal_scientists/

This muzzling appears to have nothing to do with protecting Canadian
privacy or the environment, but rather a lot more to do with
protecting polluting companies and Canadian politicians from the
scrutiny of democratic processes.

Another example: secrecy protects personal privacy - of the innocent
citizen, or the corrupt politician or CEO.

best,

Heather Morrison
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com