participatory personal data
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
1/35
This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication inJournal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
copyright 2012 (American Society for Information Science and Technology)
Participatory Personal Data:
An Emerging Research Challenge for the Information Sciences
Katie Shilton
College of Information Studies
University of Maryland
Room 4105 Hornbake Building, South Wing, College Park, MD 20742
Tel: (301) 405-3777
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
2/35
1
Abstract
Individuals can increasingly collect data about their habits, routines, and environment using
ubiquitous technologies. Running specialized software, personal devices such as phones and tablets
can capture and transmit users location, images, motion, and text input. The data collected by these
devices are both personal (identifying of an individual), and participatory (accessible by that
individual for aggregation, analysis, and sharing). Such participatory personal data provide a new area
of inquiry for the information sciences. This paper presents a review of literature from diverse fields,
including information science, technology studies, surveillance studies, and participatory research
traditions to explore how participatory personal data relate to existing personal data collections
created by both research and surveillance. It applies three information perspectives information
policy, information access and equity, and data curation and preservation to illustrate social
impacts and concerns engendered by this new form of data collection. These perspectives suggest a
set of research challenges for information science posed by participatory personal data.
Introduction
Self-quantification, mobile health, bio-hacking, self-surveillance, participatory sensing: under a
variety of names, practices, and motivations, these growing movements are encouraging people to
collect data about themselves (Dembosky, 2011; Estrin & Sim, 2010; Hill, 2011). Ubiquitous digital
tools increasingly enable individuals to collect very granular data about their habits, routines, and
environments. Although forms of self-tracking have always existed, ubiquitous technologies such as
the mobile phone enable a new scope and scale for these activities. These always-on, always-present
devices carried by billions can capture and transmit users location, images, motion, and text input.
Mobile health developers are creating applications to track health behaviors, symptoms and side-
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
3/35
2
effects, and treatment adherence and effectiveness (Estrin & Sim, 2010). Citizen science enthusiasts
banded together to test the Butter Mind experiment, volunteering to eat half a stick of butter a day
and to record diverse metrics to test impact on mental performance (Gentry, 2010). Office workers,
or their bosses, can use new software to track computer usage and analyze productivity. Athletes use
a range of portable devices to monitor physiological factors that affect performance. And curious
individuals track correlations between variables as diverse as stress, mood, food, sex, and sleep (Hill,
2011). Some hail the era of easy self-tracking and the resulting detailed stores of data for their
potential to unlock patterns and new knowledge. Others raise privacy, accessibility, and other social
concerns. As John Perry Barlow was recently quoted: Everything you do in life leads to a digital
slime trail" (Boudreau, 2011).
This new form of personal data invokes challenges and value judgments at the heart of
information science, including best practices for data organization and management; the rights,
power and agency of data collectors and aggregators; the nature of user participation in data
collection and new knowledge creation; and what should, or will, be documented, shared, and
remembered. This paper draws upon literatures from information science, technology studies, and
surveillance studies to investigate granular personal data, collected by and for individuals, as an
information problem. It uses this literature to explore two questions: how do these new forms of
personal data depart from existing personal data? And how do information perspectives help us
analyze the social values, impacts and concerns engendered by these new data? These questions
suggest new research challenges for privacy and information policy, information access and equity,
and data management, curation and preservation.
The paper begins by definingparticipatory personal data, and suggesting how these data differ
from existing research and surveillance data. It then explores literature from three information
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
4/35
3
perspectives key to understanding participatory personal data: information policy, information
access, and data management and preservation. It uses these perspectives to suggest next steps to
investigate participatory personal data as an information science problem.
Defining participatory personal data
This paper focuses on a new class of data about people and their environments, generated by
an emerging network of embedded devices and specialized software. Software for mobile phones
and embedded devices enable individuals to track and upload a diverse range of data, including
images, text, location, and motion. Because using ubiquitous digital tools for data capture is a
relatively new activity, the terminology used to describe this research is varied, going under names
including mobile health or mHealth (Estrin & Sim, 2010), self-quantifying (Wolf, 2010), self-
surveillance (Hill, 2011; Kang, Shilton, Burke, Estrin, & Hansen, 2012), participatory sensing (Burke
et al., 2006; Estrin, 2010), and urban sensing (Cuff, Hansen, & Kang, 2008). For example, Your
Flowing Data(http://yourflowingdata.com) asks participants to use their mobile phones to send
short messages recording data points (e.g., weight, exercise accomplished, mood, or food eaten)
throughout the day. After these data are aggregated by the service, the software provides users with
visualizations to explore patterns in their daily habits and learn from their data. A different example
is the Personal Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) (http://peir.cens.ucla.edu), an application that uses
participants mobile phones to record their location every thirty seconds. Location is uploaded to the
PEIRservers, which use this time-location series to infer how much a participant drives each day,
giving participants a daily calculation of their carbon footprint and exposure to air pollution.
What unifies these projects is the data they collect:participatory personal data. Participatory
personal data are any representation recorded by an individual, about an individual, using a
mediating technology (which could be as simple as a spreadsheet or web entry form, but which is
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
5/35
4
commonly a mobile device). Participatory signals that these new data are accessible to the data
subjects. This contrasts with both traditional research and surveillance data, which are typically
obscured or hidden from data subjects (Shilton, 2010). Personaldata are authored by an individual,
describe an individual, or can be mapped to an individual (Kang, 1998). Participatory personal data
often meet all three of these criteria. The individual uses a device to collect data, which are often
descriptive of a persons life, routine, or environment. And the data can quite literally be mapped to
a person. Geotagged photos or a GPS log of a persons movements throughout a day can be used to
identify an individual, even if no names or identifiers are directly attached to the data (Anthony,
Kotz, & Henderson, 2007; Iachello, Smith, Consolvo, Chen, & Abowd, 2005). Participatory personal
data then, refers to aggregations of representations or measurements collected by people, about
people. These data are part of a coordinated activity; they are not only captured, butprocessed,
analyzed, displayed and shared through a technological infrastructure. This article uses participatory
personal data project as an umbrella term for the activity of data capture, andparticipatory personal datato
refer to the resulting information resources.
Data collection technologies
Participatory personal data are dependent on a technical infrastructure consisting of devices,
software, data storage, and user interfaces. The devices are digital, networked, and embedded in
human environments. In practice these are often mobile telephones, due to the ubiquity and
accessibility of these devices (Estrin, 2010). But devices could also include tablets, networked body
sensors, or instrumented smart homes or buildings (Hayes et al., 2007; Kim, Schmid, Charbiwala,
& Srivastava, 2009). Software coordinates data collection by triggering samples (often using variables
such as time of day, location, or battery life), storing data locally, and deciding when to upload them
to central servers for processing (Froehlich, Chen, Consolvo, Harrison, & Landay, 2007). Storage is
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
6/35
5
largely cloud-based, although researchers concerned with privacy have also suggested personal home
storage for added data security (Lam, 2009). User interfaces include both web- and phone-based
charts, maps and graphs, which provide aggregation and analysis services, helping users see and
interpret patterns in their data. The combination of devices, software, storage, and interfaces form
technologicalplatforms (Gillespie, 2010): infrastructures marshaled for new goals and purposes.
Excluded from participatory personal data collection platforms are systems which do not
reveal their data to the data subject. For example, instrumented homes that report energy use to a
utility company, but not the homeowner, do not generate participatory data (though they may
generate personal data). Opportunistic sensing research, which uses mobile phones to sense macro-
scale human activity without the consent or knowledge of individual phone users (Campbell,
Eisenman, Lane, Miluzzo, & Peterson, 2006), also does not collect participatory personal data.
Data collection projects
The technological platform is only one part of participatory personal data projects. The
actors and institutions involved in designing and deploying these platforms are quite diverse.
Established corporations and start-ups, academics, community groups, nonprofits and international
non-governmental organizations are all stakeholders in participatory personal data projects. Research
centers at institutions such as UCLA, Dartmouth, MIT, Intel Research, and Microsoft Research are
all developing participatory personal data platforms for use in the social, environmental, and health
sciences. Corporations such as exercise-tracking company FitBit (http://www.fitbit.com/)and
online-activity tracking service RescueTime (https://www.rescuetime.com/)have developed self-
tracking into a business model. Governments, telecommunications providers, health insurers, and
advertisers also have an interest in these data (Hill, 2011). The variety of stakeholders collecting
http://www.fitbit.com/http://www.fitbit.com/http://www.fitbit.com/https://www.rescuetime.com/https://www.rescuetime.com/https://www.rescuetime.com/https://www.rescuetime.com/http://www.fitbit.com/ -
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
7/35
6
participatory personal data will impact the social and political economy of collection, access, and
preservation of these data.
Characteristics of participatory personal data
Data collection platforms and projects lend particular characteristics to participatory
personal data. Common data types are currently bounded by the technical limitations of the devices
used for capture, although these may shift over time as mobile devices become more advanced. Off-
the-shelf mobile phones and tablets, by far the most accessible devices for collecting participatory
personal data, are currently limited to a handful of on-board sensors. Phones can sense sound (using
microphones), images (using cameras), location (using GPS or cell tower information), co-location
(of other phones or devices using Bluetooth), and motion (using accelerometers). However, when
accessibility or market penetration are not concerns, these on-board capabilities can be almost
infinitely extended, as phones can interface with off-board sensors using Bluetooth or other
communications protocols.
What unites and also defines these collections of sound, images, locations, and motion is
that that they are participatory: they are accessible to the subjects of the data themselves. This is a
departure from traditional forms of personal data collection. Because granular data collection was
expensive and time-consuming, it has historically been conducted by governments or corporations
with both the resources to collect data and the social and economic motivations to do so (Marx,
2002). Though fair information practices have long mandated that personal data be made available
to individuals upon request (Waldo, Lin, & Millett, 2007), participatory personal data upend this
tradition by making individual access to personal data an integral part of collection. This change has
been enabled by the proliferation of mobile and computing devices which enable individual capture,
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
8/35
7
processing, and analysis. The participatory nature of such data collection marks a departure from
traditional data archives, social science research data, and corporate and government surveillance.
How participatory personal data depart from existing data
In a focus on collecting data about people, participatory personal data projects echo two familiar
kinds of data: scientific and social science research data, and surveillance data. But because
participatory personal data collection is increasingly performed by the data subjects themselves, it
also contrasts with previous understandings of both kinds of data. Traditionally, data about
individuals might have been collected by researchers, governments, or corporations. But by enabling
dispersed data capture and sharing, participatory personal data projects collapse the role of data
collectors and data subjects. This raises the issue ofparticipationin data collection, and how
participation alters the data landscape.
Surveillance data
Traditionally, granular personal data collection by corporations or governments has been
labeled surveillance. Surveillance studies research suggests that an important element in this data
collection is control (Lyon, 2001; Monahan, 2006b). Surveillance may protect people from danger,
but it may also be used to prevent undesirable behaviors (Lyon, 2001). As surveillance scholars from
Foucault (1979) to Vaz and Bruno (2003) have explained, data collection is often used to normalize
and discipline individuals. Foucaults influential work suggests that surveilled populations will
supervise and discipline themselves. Indeed, self-discipline is a goal embraced by participatory
personal data platforms focused on health interventions or worker productivity. Similar disciplinary
effects are seen when communities organize to collect data. The project Nation of Neighbors
(http://www.nationofneighbors.com)uses mobile devices to expand a community watch model of
http://www.nationofneighbors.com/http://www.nationofneighbors.com/http://www.nationofneighbors.com/http://www.nationofneighbors.com/ -
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
9/35
8
crime reporting, and civic data project CitySourced (http://www.citysourced.com)defines and
reports predefined categories of community problems such as homeless nuisance.
As this last example suggests, a pernicious effect of surveillance is its potential for uneven
application to marginalized and disenfranchised groups. Broad-scale recording of purchase habits,
location and movements enables data sorting and subsequent social profiling, by governments and
corporations (Curry, Phillips, & Regan, 2004). As Monahan describes it:
what is being secured are social relations, institutional structures, and culturaldispositions thatmore often than notaggravate existing social inequalities andestablish rationales for increased, invasive surveillance of marginalized groups(Monahan, 2006b, p. ix)
The social relations and institutional structures secured by participatory personal data are still
forming. The capture and control of participatory personal data are distributed, and people from
marginalized social positions may use the power to collect and analyze data to confront the
powerful. Mobile phones have been used for cop watching and counter-surveillance (Huey, Walby,
& Doyle, 2006; Institute for Applied Autonomy, 2006; Monahan, 2006a), peacekeeping and
economic development (Donner, Verclas, & Toyama, 2008), and self-exploration and play
(Albrechtslund, 2008). In these uses, participatory personal data collection technologies may fit into
a tradition of counter-surveillance or sousveillance: the subversion of observation technologies by
the less powerful to hold authorities accountable.
Research data
Data about people have long been important to health, environmental, and social sciences
research (Borgman, 2007). When systematically collected for discovery or new knowledge creation,
participatory personal data is research data. Such research data about people has traditionally been
regulated by federal guidelines such as the Belmont Report (Office of the Secretary of The National
http://www.citysourced.com/http://www.citysourced.com/http://www.citysourced.com/http://www.citysourced.com/ -
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
10/35
9
Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979)
and Title 45 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 46 (Office for Protection of Research Subjects,
2007). These codes emphasize respect for human subjects, beneficence, and justice. A critical
component of respect, beneficence and justice is informed consent, which helps to differentiate
research data from surveillance data.
Traditions such as participatory research (PR) go farther than informed consent by arguing
that the data capture, sorting and use performed as part of knowledge discovery can be empowering
if it is conducted by the people most affected by the data: research subjects themselves (Cargo &
Mercer, 2008). PR practitioners argue that data subjects should be participants not just in data
capture, but in analysis of, and meaning-making from the data. Involvement with every stage of the
research process empowers users and helps justify tradeoffs between new knowledge production
and research risks for participants (Horowitz, Robinson, & Seifer, 2009). But while participatory
ethics foster a stronger notion of consent, they may also complicate design, data capture,
aggregation, and analysis practices. Participatory research traditions have been criticized for
gathering inaccurate data or incorporating bias. Participants who purposefully withhold sensitive
data from research projects may create problems for reliability and accuracy of results. As a variant
of participatory research, participatory personal data projects will need to grapple with all of these
challenges.
Information perspectives on participatory personal data
Three areas of traditional expertise in the information sciences privacy, information accessibility
and equity, and information management and preservation can provide insight into shaping
participatory personal data systems that enable participation, new knowledge, and discovery, rather
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
11/35
10
than control. These information perspectives provide theoretical frameworks that help to unpack
and assess the social impacts and consequences of these emerging data.
Privacy and information policyOne traditional answer to the challenge of surveillance is found in the information science,
computer science, legal, and ethics literatures focused onprivacy. Participatory personal data projects
gather, store and process large amounts of information, creating massive databases of individuals
locations, movements, images, sound clips, text annotations, and even health data. Location
information can reveal habits and routines which are socially sensitive (would you want such
information shared with a boss or friend?) and may be linked with, or have an impact on, legally
protected medical information. There are three major branches of literature that address privacy
problems relevant to participatory personal data. The first are behavioral studies of users
interactions with personal data and data collection systems. The second are conceptual, ethical and
legal investigations into privacy as a human interest. The third are design and technical methods for
ensuring privacy protections.
Much of our understanding of current privacy norms stems from work that analyzes
peoples privacy preferences and behaviors (Altman, 1977; Capurro, 2005; Palen & Dourish, 2003).
Westins (1970) foundational research benchmarked American public opinion on privacy. Over
several decades, Westin used large surveys to confirm a spectrum from privacy fundamentalists
(very concerned) to pragmatic (sometimes concerned) to unconcerned. More recently, Sheehan
(2002) confirmed a similar spectrum among internet users. The Pew Internet & American Life
Project has produced several reports of privacy preferences based upon large U.S. surveys of adults
(Madden, Fox, Smith, & Vitak, 2007) and teenagers (Lenhart & Madden, 2007). These reports
continue to find privacy concerns, even among teens (whom popular wisdom assumes have
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
12/35
11
abandoned privacy as a value.) Pew finds, for example, that teens practice privacy-preserving
behaviors such as limiting online information and taking an active part in identity management. A
number of information science studies have attempted to describe such behaviors using more
detailed scales for online privacy preferences. For example, both Yao et al (2007) and Buchanan et al
(2007) suggest factors by which to measure online privacy concern. Yao et al (2007) focus on
psychological variables, while Buchanan et al (2007) incorporate different social aspects of privacy
such as accessibility, physical privacy, and benefits of surrendering privacy.
A persistent problem in such surveys of privacy preferences, however, is that individuals
frequently report preferences that they dont act upon in practice. There is evidence that many
privacy studies prime respondents to think about privacy violations, making them more likely to
report privacy concerns (John, Acquisti, & Loewenstein, 2009). These studies also make problematic
assumptions that people act on a rational privacy interest (Acquisti & Grossklags, 2008). Studies that
observe peoples real-world use of systems attempt to correct for these problems. Raento et al
(2008), for example, present results from field trials of social awareness software that used smart
phones to show contacts locations, length of stay, and activities. The authors found that:
users are not worried not so much about losing their privacy rather aboutpresenting themselves appropriately according to situationally arising demands(Raento, p. 529).
This demonstrated concern for contextual privacy and identity management has been reiterated in
both theoretical (Nissenbaum, 2009) and descriptive research (boyd & Hargittai, 2010). Nissenbaum
(2004) labels this concern for fluid and variable disclosure contextual privacy and argues that its
absence not only leads to exposure, but also decreasing individual autonomy and freedom, damage
to human relationships, and eventually, degradation of democracy. Nissenbaum (2009) suggests that
individuals sense of appropriate disclosure, as well as understanding of information flow developed
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
13/35
12
by experience within a space, contribute to individual discretion. Contextual privacy suggests that
individuals may be willing to disclose highly personal information on social networking sites because
they believe they understand the information flow of those sites (Lange, 2007).
Because of complexities and inconsistencies in individual privacy behaviors, policy and legal
researchers have sought to move away from user choices and individual risks, and towards new
regulations to encourage social protections for privacy (J. E. Cohen, 2008; Rule, 2004; Swarthout,
1967; Waldo et al., 2007). U.S. law does not interpret personal data to be owned by the subject of
those data. Instead, legal regimes give control of, and responsibility for, personal data to the
institution that collected the data (Waldo et al., 2007). Fair information practicesare the ethical
standard for collection and sharing that those institutions are asked to follow. Originally codified in
the 1970s, these practices are still considered the gold standard for privacy protection (Waldo et
al., 2007, p. 48), and they have been voluntarily adopted by other nations as well as private entities.
Fair information practices such as notice and awareness, choice and consent, access and
participation, integrity and security, and enforcement and redress can certainly apply to participatory
personal data. But if privacy concerns expand to include processes of enforcing personal boundaries
(Shapiro, 1998), negotiating social situations (Camp & Connelly, 2008; Palen & Dourish, 2003), and
portraying fluid identities (Phillips, 2002, 2005), fair information practices formulated for protecting
corporate and government data may be insufficient for personal collections.
Other researchers suggest that concerns about data capture extend beyond the protection of
individual privacy. Curry, Phillips and Regan (2004) write that data capture makes places and
populations increasingly visible or legible. Increasing knowledge about the actions of people and their
movements can lead to function creep. For example, collections of demographic data can enable
social discrimination through practices such as price gouging or delivery of unequal services. Could
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
14/35
13
participatory personal data gathered to track an individuals health concern or document a
communitys assets be repurposed to deny health insurance or set higher prices for goods and
services?
All of this cross-disciplinary attention points to the fact that building participatory personal
data systems that protect privacy remains a challenge. Human-computer interaction research
considers ways that systems might notify or interact with users to help them understand privacy risks
(Anthony et al., 2007; Bellotti, 1998; Nguyen & Mynatt, 2002). Computer science and engineering
research innovates methods to obscure, hide, or anonymize data in order to give users privacy
options (Ackerman & Cranor, 1999; Agrawal & Srikant, 2000; Fienberg, 2006; Frikken & Atallah,
2004; Ganti, Pham, Tsai, & Abdelzaher, 2008; Iachello & Hong, 2007). Anonymization of data, in
particular, is a hotly debated issue in the privacy literature. Many scholars argue that possibilities for
re-identification of data make anonymization insufficient for privacy protection (Narayanan &
Shmatikov, 2008; Ohm, 2009). Other researchers are pursuing new anonymization techniques to
respond to these concerns (Benitez & Malin, 2010; Malin & Sweeney, 2004).
Privacy approaches for participatory personal data systems draw on a number of these
developments (Christin, Reinhardt, Kanhere, & Hollick, 2011). These include limiting sensing by
granularity, time of day, location, or social surroundings; providing capture and sharing options to
match diverse user preferences; methods to collect and contribute data without revealing identifying
information; data retention and deletion plans; and access control mechanisms. All of these methods
focus on privacy by design: building features into systems to help users manage their personal data
and sharing decisions (Spiekermann & Cranor, 2009). Privacy by design is a promising avenue of
research for participatory personal data, and advocacy organizations such as the Center for
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
15/35
14
Democracy & Technology are currently pushing mobile application developers to take responsibility
for privacy in their design practices (Center for Democracy & Technology, 2011).
Privacy, of course, is only a relative value, and can frustrate other social goods. As Kang
(1998) points out, commerce can suffer from strong privacy rights, as there is less information for
both producers and consumers in the marketplace. Perhaps worse, truthfulness, openness, and
accountability can suffer at the hands of strict privacy protections (Allen, 2003). Research using
participatory personal data directly confronts this tradeoff between privacy, truthfulness, and
accuracy. For example, researchers are developing algorithms for participatory personal data
collection that allow users to replace sensitive location data with believable but fake data, effectively
lying within the system (Ganti et al., 2008; Mun et al., 2009). What is good for privacy may not
always be good for accuracy or accountability. Investigating privacy and policy for participatory
personal data will include weighing these tradeoffs. It will also include integrating elements from
contextual privacy and useable system design to present a range of appropriate privacy-preserving
choices without unduly burdening participants. And finally, it will mean crafting new policy
institutional as well as national to protect participants from function creep or discrimination based
on their data.
Information access and equityPrivacy is not the only research tradition in information science that can inform a discussion about
participatory personal data. These data also raise challenges for information access and equity. Who
controls data capture, analysis, and presentation? Who instigates projects and sets research goals?
Who owns the data or benefits from project data? Accumulating and manipulating information is a
form of power in a global information economy (Castells, 1999; Lievrouw & Farb, 2003).
Participatory personal data projects invoke this power by enabling previously impossible data
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
16/35
15
gathering and interpretation. How do participatory personal data project designers, clients, and users
decide in whose hands this power will reside?
The relationship between information, power and equity has long been a topic of interest in
the information studies literature (Lievrouw & Farb, 2003). A large literature on the digital divide has
focused on access to information, and ways that social demographics limit or enhance information
access (Bertot, 2003). Participatory personal data evoke these basic questions of accessibility.
Anecdotal evidence from popular news reports suggests that hobbyist self-quantifiers are largely
American and European, white, and upper-middle class (Dembosky, 2011). Participants in health or
urban planning data projects, however, may span a much greater socio-economic range. Indeed,
mobile devices are some of the most accessible information technologies on earth (Kinkade &
Verclas, 2008), spanning national, ethnic, and socio-economic groups.
But there are challenges beyond accessibility as well. Lievrouw and Farb (2003) suggest that
researchers concerned with information equity take a different approach, emphasizing the subjective
and context-dependent nature of information needs and access, even among members of one social
group. How do participatory personal data answer context-specific information needs? When
individuals aregenerating the information in question, equity comes to hinge on who benefits from
this information capture. Will it be individuals and informal communities, or more organized
corporations and governments? Sociologists have proposed that loosely organized publics help to
balance power held by formal organizations and governments (Fish, Murillo, Nguyen, Panofsky, &
Kelty, 2011). But the rise of participatory culture has challenged this traditional understanding,
organizing publics and intermeshing them with organizations. For example, participatory personal
data projects exhibit elements of both organizations and publics. Research organizations such as
UCLAs Center for Embedded Networked Sensing (CENS, http://urban.cens.ucla.edu/) partner
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
17/35
16
with community groups to actively recruit informal groups of participants into participatory personal
data projects. Examples include health projects which recruited young mothers not only for data
collection, but for focus groups about research design; as well as a community documentation
project which engaged neighbors in Los Angeles Boyle Heights community. Will organizations like
CENS hold the power that design, data, categories and social sorting can bring, or can it be
distributed back to the publics who collect the data? Because data collection methods using mobile
devices can range from participatory to opportunistic, it is unclear how much control individuals will
have over what data are collected, how they are stored, and what inferences are drawn.
It is important to note that increasing measures for participation does not solve problems of
power and equity. As Kreiss et al (2011) point out, there are limits on the emancipatory potential of
peer production. And participatory projects have been criticized for a range of failures, from
struggling to create true participation (Elwood, 2006) to being outright disingenuous in their
approach and goals (Cooke & Kothari, 2001). The intersection of information systems, values, and
culture is also important to consider. Cultural expectations and norms are deeply embedded into the
design of information systems, shaping everything from representation of relationships within
databases (Srinivasan, 2004, 2007) to the explanations drawn from data (Byrne & Alexander, 2006;
Corburn, 2003). The design process is never value-neutral, and questions of what, and whose, values
are embodied by software and system architecture have been controversial for decades (Friedman,
1997). Affordances built into a technology may privilege some uses (and users) while marginalizing
others. Design areas where bias can become particularly embedded include user interfaces (Friedman
& Nissenbaum, 1997), access and input/output devices (Perry, Macken, Scott, & McKinley, 1997),
and sorting and categorization mechanisms (Bowker & Star, 2000; Suchman, 1997). The
intersections between culture, meaning, and information systems have spurred researchers to
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
18/35
17
experiment with culturally-specific databases, media archives, and information systems for
indigenous, diasporic, and marginalized communities (Boast, Bravo, & Srinivasan, 2007; Monash
University School of Information Management and Systems, 2006; Srinivasan, 2007; Srinivasan &
Shilton, 2006). Such alternative design projects seek to investigate, expose, redirect, or even
eliminate biases that arise in mainstream design projects (Nieusma, 2004).
Participatory personal data projects, however, often adopt a universal rather than relativist
vision, taking everyone as its intended users. What does it mean to design for everyone? As
Suchman (1997) points out, designing technology is the process of designing not just artifacts, but
also the practices that will be associated with those artifacts. What do designers, implicitly or
explicitly, intend the practices associated with participatory personal data projects to be? And how
will such practices fit into, clash against, or potentially even reshape diverse cultural contexts?
Management, curation and preservationPrivacy, access and equity challenges are all affected by an overarching information concern: how
participatory personal data projects are managed, curated, and preserved. Metadata creation and
ongoing management are necessary to ensure the access control, filtering, and security necessary to
maintain privacy for participatory personal data. Accessibility and interpretability of the data by
individuals as well as governments and corporations will be dependent upon its organization,
retrieval, and visualization. And whether and how data are preserved or forgotten will be
dependent upon curation mechanisms heavily reliant on metadata and data structures (Borgman,
2007).
Participatory personal data echo many of the same management concerns found in large
scientific datasets (D. Cohen, Fraistat, Kirschenbaum, & Scheinfeldt, 2009; Gray et al., 2005; Hey &
Trefethen, 2005). Participatory personal data may consist of large quantities of samples recorded
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
19/35
18
every second or minute for days or months. The data are frequently quantitative measurements
dependent upon machine processing and descriptive metadata for human comprehension. These
characteristics require new techniques for organization and management. Developing such methods
for organizing, analyzing, and extracting meaning from large, diverse and largely quantitative datasets
is an emerging challenge for information sciences (Borgman, Wallis, Mayernik, & Pepe, 2007).
Always-on, sensitive data capture brings up a number of theoretical and normative questions
about whether and how these data should persist over time. Where and how will these data be
curated and preserved? What are the benefits of preserving peoples movements, habits, and
routines? And what problems might the ubiquitous nature of this memory raise? Participatory
personal data present an institutional and logistical challenge for preservation. Like all digital
material, methods for long-term preservation are costly and labor-intensive (Galloway, 2004). The
distribution of these data across multiple stakeholders, including individuals, research organizations,
corporations and governments, also challenges traditional preservation models based upon clearly-
defined collecting institutions (Abraham, 1991; Lee & Tibbo, 2007). It is also unclear what
institutions will be responsible for preserving data held by individuals and loosely-organized publics.
Determining who is responsible for authoring, managing, and curating data distributed among
individuals will challenge our existing notions of institutional data repositories and professional data
management.
Perhaps more difficult is the question of whether we should preserve participatory personal
data at all. Historically, a major role of archival institutions was selecting records, keeping only a tiny
portion of records deemed historically valuable (Boles, 1991; Cook, 1991). But the explosion of data
generation paired with cheap storage and cloud computing raises the possibility of saving much
more evidence of daily life. This possibility has become a subject of both celebration (Bell &
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
20/35
19
Gemmell, 2007) and debate (Blanchette & Johnson, 2002). Collections of granular personal data
have been invoked to promise everything from improved health care (Hayes et al., 2008, 2007) to
memory banks that allow one to vividly relive an event with sounds and images, enhancing
personal reflection (Bell & Gemmell, 2007, p. 58). And new kinds of personal documentation could
help to counteract the power structures that control current archival and memory practices, in which
the narratives of powerful groups and people are reified while others are marginalized (Ketelaar,
2002; McKemmish, Gilliland-Swetland, & Ketelaar, 2005; Shilton & Srinivasan, 2007).
But as more data are collected and indefinitely retained, there may be pernicious social
consequences. Blanchette and Johnson (2002) point out that U.S. law has instituted a number of
social structures to aid in social forgetting or enabling a clean slate. These include bankruptcy law,
credit reports and the clearing of records of juvenile offenders. As information systems increasingly
banish forgetting, we may face the unintended loss of the fresh start. Drawing on this argument,
Bannon (2006) suggests that building systems that forget might encourage new forms of creativity.
He argues that an emphasis on augmenting one human capacity, memory, has obscured an equally
important capacity: that of forgetting. He proposes that designers think about ways that information
systems might serve as forgetting support technologies (2006, p. 5). Mayer-Schoenberger (2007)
presents a similar argument, advocating for a combination of policies and forgetful technologies that
would allow for the decay of digital data. Information professionals interested in questions of data
preservation will find difficult challenges for appraisal and curation in participatory personal data.
Determining the nature and organization of the cyberinfrastructure that will support participatory
personal data will affect many of these questions about privacy, equity, and memory.
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
21/35
20
Next Steps
Participatory personal data, as objects of inquiry, present a range of interesting questions for the
information sciences. Participatory personal data coexist with broad data surveillance by
corporations and governments, and may be used towards pernicious ends. But with their emphasis
on participation and targeted capture, participatory personal data may simultaneously give people
their own ways to use data collection tools and platforms. Much of the social impact of participatory
personal data will depend on how data are captured and organized; who has access; whether
individuals consent and participate; and how (or whether) data are curated and preserved.
These issues are ripe for investigation by IS researchers. Scholars focused on privacy might
design and field test privacy-friendly participatory data systems. They could conduct user studies to
evaluate how participatory personal data project participants understand and use their privacy
choices. IS researchers could investigate the sensitivity of various participatory personal data, or
study how combining multiple data collections might complicate privacy concerns. Or they might
use conceptual analysis to answer the challenge of how to incorporate contextual privacy principles
into pervasive systems that span social contexts.
Researchers focused on access and equity can analyze power and participation in existing
and emerging participatory personal data. They might collect demographic information on the
populations participating in, and affected by, participatory personal data projects. IS researchers
could interview stakeholders and understand the mix of organizational and informal publics
involved in data collection projects. They could question and critique the usefulness of participatory
personal data, or they might establish guidelines for making data collection efforts truly
participatory.
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
22/35
21
Investigators in the areas of data management, curation and preservation should undertake
the difficult cyberinfrastructure questions raised by participatory personal data. Ethnographies can
reveal the conditions under which participatory personal data project organizers choose open source
or proprietary designs. Social network analysis might help to understand the ways that management
techniques or curation mechanisms spread. And philosophical inquiry into memory and forgetting
can help to answer the normative questions of which data should be actively curated, and which data
are better left to digital obscurity.
Finally, these areas of inquiry may proceed simultaneously, but as is clear from the
intersections of law, policy, social theory, and data management, these questions span diverse areas
within our field and between fields. Continued interdisciplinary conversation can enable findings
from conceptual research to impact system design; empirical findings to affect data management;
and experience from data management and curation to influence social theory. Conversations in
journals such as JASIST are one part of this equation; so too are interdisciplinary conferences and
continued funding collaborations. By querying and shaping how participatory personal data are
organized and managed; how privacy, consent, and participation are handled in pervasive systems;
how participatory personal data affect the balance of power in an information economy; and how
such data impact social and institutional memory and forgetting, information scholars can help to
shape this emerging information landscape through building systems, constructing information
policy, and shaping values in participatory personal data system design.
Acknowledgements
This work is based on material compiled for my doctoral dissertation, Building Values into the
Design of Pervasive Mobile Technologies. Many thanks to my committee: Jeffrey Burke, Deborah
Estrin, Christopher Kelty, Ramesh Srinivasan, and chair Christine Borgman. Their ideas, feedback
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
23/35
22
and guidance have shaped this work immensely. Thanks also to Jillian Wallis, Laura Wynholds, and
Jes Koepfler for comments and suggestions on drafts, and to the anonymous reviewers for their
helpful feedback. This work was funded by the National Science Foundation under grant number
0832873.
References
Abraham, T. (1991). Collection policy or documentation strategy: Theory and practice.American
Archivist, 54(Winter), 44-52.
Ackerman, M. S., & Cranor, L. F. (1999). Privacy critics: UI components to safeguard users privacy.
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI99(pp. 258-259). ACM Publications.
Acquisti, A., & Grossklags, J. (2008). What can behavioral economics teach us about privacy? Digital
Privacy: Theory, Technologies, and Practices(pp. 363-377). New York and London: Auerbach
Publications.
Agrawal, R., & Srikant, R. (2000). Privacy-preserving data mining. 2000 ACM SIGMOD International
Conference on Management of Data(pp. 439-450).
Albrechtslund, A. (2008). Online social networking as participatory surveillance. First Monday, 13(3).
Allen, A. L. (2003). Why privacy isnt everything: feminist reflections on personal accountability. Lanham,
Boulder, New York and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Altman, I. (1977). Privacy regulation: culturally universal or culturally specific?Journal of Social Issues,
33(3), 66-84.
Anthony, D., Kotz, D., & Henderson, T. (2007). Privacy in location-aware computing environments.
Pervasive Computing, 6(4), 64-72.
Bannon, L. (2006). Forgetting as a feature, not a bug: the duality of memory and implications for
ubiquitous computing. CoDesign, 2(1), 3-15.
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
24/35
23
Bell, G., & Gemmell, J. (2007). A digital life. Scientific American, (March), 58-65.
Bellotti, V. (1998). Design for privacy in multimedia computing and communications environments.
Technology and privacy: The new landscape(pp. 63-98). Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT
Press.
Benitez, K., & Malin, B. (2010). Evaluating re-identification risks with respect to the HIPAA privacy
rule.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 17(2), 169 -177.
Bertot, J. C. (2003). The multiple dimensions of the digital divide: more than the technology `haves
and `have nots. Government Information Quarterly, 20(2), 185-191.
Blanchette, J.-F., & Johnson, D. G. (2002). Data retention and the panoptic society: the social
benefits of forgetfulness. The Information Society, 18(33-45).
Boast, R., Bravo, M., & Srinivasan, R. (2007). Return to Babel: emergent diversity, digital resources,
and local knowledge. The Information Society, 23(5), 395-403.
Boles, F. (1991).Archival Appraisal. New York and London: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.
Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: information, infrastructure, and the internet. Cambridge,
MA and London: The MIT Press.
Borgman, C. L., Wallis, J. C., Mayernik, M. S., & Pepe, A. (2007). Drowning in data: digital library
architecture to support scientific use of embedded sensor networks.ACM/IEEE Joint
Conference on Digital Libraries 2007. Presented at the ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital
Libraries 2007, Vancouver, BC.
Boudreau, J. (2011, July 7). Pondering effects of the data deluge. The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles,
CA. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-big-data-
20110707,0,7170770.story
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
25/35
24
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge,
MA and London: The MIT Press.
boyd, danah, & Hargittai, E. (2010). Facebook privacy settings: who cares. First Monday, 15(8).
Retrieved from
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3086/2589
Buchanan, T., Paine, C., Joinson, A. N., & Reips, U.-D. (2007). Development of Measures of Online
Privacy Concern and Protection for Use on the Internet.Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 58(2), 157-165.
Burke, J., Estrin, D., Hansen, M., Parker, A., Ramanathan, N., Reddy, S., & Srivastava, M. B. (2006).
Participatory sensing. World Sensor Web Workshop. Presented at the World Sensor Web
Workshop, Boulder, CO: ACM.
Byrne, E., & Alexander, P. M. (2006). Questions of ethics: Participatory information systems
research in community settings. Proceedings of the 2006 annual research conference of the South
African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on IT research in developing countries
(pp. 117-126). Presented at the 2006 annual research conference of the South African
institute of computer scientists and information technologists on IT research in developing
countries, Somerset West, South Africa: South African Institute for Computer Scientists and
Information Technologists.
Camp, L. J., & Connelly, K. (2008). Beyond consent: privacy in ubiquitous computing (Ubicomp).
Digital Privacy: Theory, Technologies, and Practices(pp. 327-343). New York and London:
Auerbach Publications.
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
26/35
25
Campbell, A. T., Eisenman, S. B., Lane, N. D., Miluzzo, E., & Peterson, R. A. (2006). People-centric
urban sensing. Proceedings of the 2nd annual international workshop on Wireless internet. Boston, MA:
ACM.
Capurro, R. (2005). Privacy. An Intercultural Perspective.Ethics and Information Technology, 7, 37-47.
Cargo, M., & Mercer, S. L. (2008). The Value and Challenges of Participatory Research:
Strengthening Its Practice.Annual Review of Public Health, 29, 325-350.
Castells, M. (1999). Flows, Networks, and Identities: A Critical Theory of the Informational Society.
Critical education in the new information age. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Center for Democracy & Technology. (2011). Best Practices for Mobile Applications Developers.
Washington, D.C.: Center for Democracy & Technology. Retrieved from
http://www.cdt.org/blogs/2112best-practices-mobile-applications-developers
Christin, D., Reinhardt, A., Kanhere, S. S., & Hollick, M. (2011). A survey on privacy in mobile
participatory sensing applications.Journal of Systems and Software, 84(11), 1928-1946.
Cohen, D., Fraistat, N., Kirschenbaum, M., & Scheinfeldt, T. (2009). Tools for data-driven scholarship:
past, present, future. Ellicott City, MD: Maryland Institute for Technology and the Humanities.
Retrieved from http://mith.umd.edu/tools/?page_id=60
Cohen, J. E. (2008). Privacy, Visibility, Transparency, and Exposure. University of Chicago Law Review,
75(1), 181-201.
Cook, T. (1991). The archival appraisal of records containing personal information: A RAMP study with
guidelines. Paris: General Information Programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization.
Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: the New Tyranny?London and New York: Zed Books.
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
27/35
26
Corburn, J. (2003). Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision making: Improving urban
planning for communities at risk.Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22, 120-133.
Cuff, D., Hansen, M., & Kang, J. (2008). Urban sensing: out of the woods. Communications of the
ACM, 51(3), 24-33.
Curry, M. R., Phillips, D. J., & Regan, P. M. (2004). Emergency response systems and the creeping
legibility of people and places. The Information Society, 20, 357-369.
Dembosky, A. (2011, June 10). Invasion of the body hackers. FT Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3ccb11a0-923b-11e0-9e00-
00144feab49a.html#axzz1RxISmSku
Donner, J., Verclas, K., & Toyama, K. (2008). Reflections on MobileActive 2008 and the M4D Landscape.
MobileActive.org and Microsoft Research India. Retrieved from
http://mobileactive.org/files/DVT_M4D_choices_final.pdf
Elwood, S. (2006). Critical issues in participatory GIS: Deconstructions, reconstructions, and new
research directions. Transactions in GIS, 10(5), 693-708.
Estrin, D. (2010). Participatory sensing: applications and architecture [Internet predictions]. Internet
Computing, IEEE, 14(1), 12-42.
Estrin, D., & Sim, I. (2010). Open mHealth Architecture: An Engine for Health Care Innovation.
Science, 330(6005), 759 -760.
Fienberg, S. E. (2006). Privacy and confidentiality in an e-commerce world: Data mining, data
warehousing, matching and disclosure limitation. Statistical Science, 21(2), 143-154.
Fish, A., Murillo, L. F. R., Nguyen, L., Panofsky, A., & Kelty, C. M. (2011). Birds of the internet -
towards a field guide to the organization and governance of participation.Journal of Cultural
Economy, 4(2), 157-187.
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
28/35
27
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York:
Vintage Books.
Friedman, B. (Ed.). (1997). Human values and the design of computer technology. CSLI Lecture Notes.
Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1997). Bias in computer systems. In B. Friedman (Ed.), Human
values and the design of computer technology(pp. 21-40). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Frikken, K. B., & Atallah, M. J. (2004). Privacy preserving route planning. Proceedings of the 2004
ACM workshop on privacy in the electronic society(pp. 8-15). Presented at the 2004 ACM
workshop on Privacy in the electronic society, Washington DC, USA: ACM. Retrieved from
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1029182
Froehlich, J., Chen, M. Y., Consolvo, S., Harrison, B., & Landay, J. A. (2007). MyExperience: a
system for in situtracing and capturing of user feedback on mobile phones. Proceedings of the
5th international conference on Mobile systems, applications and services, MobiSys 07 (pp. 5770).
New York, NY, USA: ACM. Retrieved from http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1247660.1247670
Galloway, P. (2004). Preservation of digital objects.Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,
38, 549-590.
Ganti, R. K., Pham, N., Tsai, Y.-E., & Abdelzaher, T. F. (2008). PoolView: stream privacy for
grassroots participatory sensing. Proceedings of the 6th ACM conference on embedded network sensor
systems(pp. 281-294). Raleigh, NC, USA: ACM. Retrieved from
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1460412.1460440
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
29/35
28
Gentry, E. (2010, October 13). Will Butter Make You Smarter? Introducing Butter Mindand
Coconut Mind.Quantified Self. Weblog, . Retrieved July 9, 2011, from
http://quantifiedself.com/2010/10/will-butter-make-you-smarter-i/
Gillespie, T. L. (2010). The politics of platforms.New Media & Society, 12(3).
Gray, J., Liu, D. T., Nieto-Santisteban, M., Szalay, A., DeWitt, D. J., & Heber, G. (2005). Scientific
data management in the coming decade. SIGMOD Rec., 34(4), 34-41.
Hayes, G. R., Abowd, G., Davis, J., Blount, M., Ebling, M., & Mynatt, E. (2008). Opportunities for
Pervasive Computing in Chronic Cancer Care. Pervasive Computing 2008, Lecture Notes in
Computer Science (Vol. 5013, pp. 262-279). Heidelburg: Springer-Verlag.
Hayes, G. R., Poole, E. S., Iachello, G., Patel, S. N., Grimes, A., Abowd, G., & Truong, K. N.
(2007). Physical, social and experiential knowledge in pervasive computing environments.
Pervasive Computing, 6(4), 56-63.
Hey, T., & Trefethen, A. E. (2005). Cyberinfrastructure for e-Science. Science, 308(5723), 817-821.
Hill, K. (2011, February 25). Adventures in Self-Surveillance: Fitbit, Tracking My Movement and
Sleep. Forbes. Retrieved from http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2011/02/25/adventures-
in-self-surveillance-fitbit-tracking-my-movement-and-sleep/
Horowitz, C. R., Robinson, M., & Seifer, S. (2009). Community-Based Participatory Research From
the Margin to the Mainstream: Are Researchers Prepared? Circulation, 119, 2633-2642.
Huey, L., Walby, K., & Doyle, A. (2006). Cop watching in the downtown Eastside. Surveillance and
Security: Technological Politics and Power in Everyday Life(pp. 149-165). New York and London:
Routledge.
Iachello, G., & Hong, J. (2007). End-user privacy in human-computer interaction. Foundations and
Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 1(1), 1-137.
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
30/35
29
Iachello, G., Smith, I., Consolvo, S., Chen, M., & Abowd, G. (2005). Developing privacy guidelines
for social location disclosure applications and services. Proceedings of the 2005 symposium on
Usable privacy and security(pp. 65-76). Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: ACM. Retrieved from
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1073001.1073008
Institute for Applied Autonomy. (2006). Defensive surveillance: Lessons from the Republican
National Convention. Surveillance and security: Technological politics and power in everyday life(pp.
167-174). New York and London: Routledge.
John, L. K., Acquisti, A., & Loewenstein, G. (2009). The Best of Strangers: Context Dependent Willingness
to Divulge Personal Information(Working Paper). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1430482
Kang, J. (1998). Privacy in cyberspace transactions. Stanford Law Review, 50, 1193-1294.
Kang, J., Shilton, K., Burke, J., Estrin, D., & Hansen, M. (2012). Self-surveillance privacy. Iowa Law
Review, (97).
Ketelaar, E. (2002). Archival Temples, Archival Prisons: Modes of Power and Protection.Archival
Science, 2, 221-238.
Kim, Y., Schmid, T., Charbiwala, Z. M., & Srivastava, M. B. (2009). ViridiScope: design and
implementation of a fine grained power monitoring system for homes. Proceedings of the 11th
international conference on Ubiquitous computing(pp. 245-254). Orlando, Florida, USA: ACM.
Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1620545.1620582
Kinkade, S., & Verclas, K. (2008). Wireless Technology for Social Change: Trends in Mobile Use by NGOs.
Washington, DC and Berkshire, UK: The UN Foundation - Vodafone Group Foundation
Partnership.
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
31/35
30
Kreiss, D., Finn, M., & Turner, F. (2011). The limits of peer production: Some reminders from Max
Weber for the network society.New Media & Society, 13(2), 243 -259.
Lam, M. (2009, April 14). Building a Social Networking Future Without Big Brother. Presented at the
POMI 2020 Workshop, Palo Alto, CA. Retrieved from
http://suif.stanford.edu/%7Elam/lam-pomi-ws09.pdf
Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube.Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), n.d.
Lee, C. A., & Tibbo, H. R. (2007). Digital Curation and Trusted Repositories: Steps Toward Success.
Journal of Digital Information, 8(2). Retrieved from
http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/viewArticle/229/183
Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Teens, Privacy and SNS. Washington, DC: Pew Internet &
American Life Project.
Lievrouw, L. A., & Farb, S. E. (2003). Information and Social Equity.Annual Review of Information
Science and Technology(pp. 499-540). 37: Information Today.
Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance Society(1st ed.). Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Madden, M., Fox, S., Smith, A., & Vitak, J. (2007). Digital footprints: online identity management and search
in the age of transparency. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Malin, B., & Sweeney, L. (2004). How (not) to protect genoic data privacy in a distributed network:
using trail re-identification to evaluate and design anonymity protection systems.Journal of
Biomedial Informatics, 37(3), 179-192.
Marx, G. T. (2002). Whats new about the new surveillance? Classifying for change and continuity.
Surveillance & Society, 1(1), 9-29.
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
32/35
31
Mayer-Schoenberger, V. (2007). Useful void: the art of forgetting in the age of ubiquitous computing(Working
Paper No. RWP07-022). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
McKemmish, S., Gilliland-Swetland, A., & Ketelaar, E. (2005). Communities of memory:
pluralising archival research and education agendas.Archives & Manuscripts, 33(1), 146-174.
Monahan, T. (2006a). Counter-surveillance as Political Intervention? Social Semiotics, 16(4), 515-534.
Monahan, T. (Ed.). (2006b). Surveillance and security: Technological politics and power in everyday life. New
York and London: Routledge.
Monash University School of Information Management and Systems. (2006, June 16). Trust and
Technology Project: Building archival systems for Indigenous oral memory. Retrieved from
http://www.sims.monash.edu.au/research/eirg/trust
Mun, M., Reddy, S., Shilton, K., Yau, N., Boda, P., Burke, J., Estrin, D., et al. (2009). PEIR, the
personal environmental impact report, as a platform for participatory sensing systems
research. Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services.
Presented at the International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services,
Krakow, Poland.
Narayanan, A., & Shmatikov, V. (2008). Robust De-anonymization of Large Sparse Datasets. IEEE
Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2008. SP 2008(pp. 111-125). Presented at the IEEE
Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2008. SP 2008, IEEE.
Nguyen, D. H., & Mynatt, E. (2002). Privacy mirrors: understanding and shaping socio-technical ubiquitous
computing systems. Georgia Institute of Technology.
Nieusma, D. (2004). Alternative Design Scholarship: Working Toward Appropriate Design. Design
Issues, 20(3), 13-24.
Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119158.
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
33/35
32
Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford, CA:
Stanford Law Books.
Office for Protection of Research Subjects. (2007, March 30). UCLA Investigators Manual for the
Protection of Human Subjects. Retrieved from
http://www.oprs.ucla.edu/human/manual/TOC
Office of the Secretary of The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of
Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines
for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Ohm, P. (2009). Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding to the Surprising Failure of Anonymization(Working
Paper No. Research Paper No. 09-12). Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Law School.
Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1450006
Palen, L., & Dourish, P. (2003). Unpacking privacy for a networked world. CHI 2003(Vol. 5, pp.
129-136). Ft. Lauderdale, FL: ACM.
Perry, J., Macken, E., Scott, N., & McKinley, J. L. (1997). Disability, inability and cyberspace. In B.
Friedman (Ed.), Human values and the design of computer technology(pp. 65-89). Cambridge and
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, D. J. (2002). Negotiation the digital closet: online pseudonyms and the politics of sexual
identity. Information, Communication & Society, 5(3).
Phillips, D. J. (2005). From privacy to visibility: context, identity, and power in ubiquitous
computing environments. Social Text, 23(2), 95-108.
Raento, M., & Oulasvirta, A. (2008). Designing for privacy and self-presentation in social awareness.
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 12, 527542.
Rule, J. B. (2004). Toward strong privacy. University of Toronto Law Journal, 54(2), 183-225.
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
34/35
33
Shapiro, S. (1998). Places and spaces: the historical interaction of technology, home, and privacy. The
Information Society, 14(4), 275.
Sheehan, K. B. (2002). Toward a typology of internet users and online privacy concerns. The
Information Society, 18(1), 21-32.
Shilton, K. (2010). Participatory sensing: building empowering surveillance. Surveillance & Society,
8(2), 131-150.
Shilton, K., & Srinivasan, R. (2007). Participatory Appraisal and Arrangement for Multicultural
Archival Collections.Archivaria, 63, 87-101.
Spiekermann, S., & Cranor, L. F. (2009). Engineering Privacy. IEEE Transactions on Software
Engineering, 35(1), 67-82.
Srinivasan, R. (2004). Knowledge architectures for cultural narratives.Journal of Knowledge Management,
8(4), 65-74.
Srinivasan, R. (2007). Ethnomethodological architectures: information systems driven by cultural
and community visions.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(5),
723-733.
Srinivasan, R., & Shilton, K. (2006). The South Asian web: an emerging community information
system in the South Asian diaspora.Ninth Conference on Participatory Design: Expanding
boundaries in design(Vol. 1, pp. 125 - 133). Trento, Italy: ACM.
Suchman, L. (1997). Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered. In
B. Friedman (Ed.), Human values and the design of computer technology(pp. 91-105). Cambridge
and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swarthout, A. M. (1967). Eavesdropping as violating right of privacy.American Law Reports 3rd(p.
1296). 11: West Group.
-
8/12/2019 Participatory Personal Data
35/35
34
Vaz, P., & Bruno, F. (2003). Types of Self-Surveillance: from abnormality to individuals at risk.
Surveillance & Society, 1(3), 272-291.
Waldo, J., Lin, H. S., & Millett, L. I. (2007).Engaging privacy and information technology in a digital age.
Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Westin, A. F. (1970). Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum.
Wolf, G. (2010, April 26). The Data-Driven Life. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/magazine/02self-measurement-
t.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
Yao, M. Z., Rice, R. E., & Wallis, K. (2007). Predicting user concerns about online privacy.Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(5), 710-722.