Advertisement

Health and Technology

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 335–349 | Cite as

Regulation of Big Data: Perspectives on strategy, policy, law and privacy

  • Pompeu Casanovas
  • Louis De Koker
  • Danuta Mendelson
  • David Watts
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Privacy and Security of Medical Information

Abstract

This article encapsulates selected themes from the Australian Data to Decisions Cooperative Research Centre’s Law and Policy program. It is the result of a discussion on the regulation of Big Data, especially focusing on privacy and data protection strategies. It presents four complementary perspectives stemming from governance, law, ethics, and computer science. Big, Linked, and Open Data constitute complex phenomena whose economic and political dimensions require a plurality of instruments to enhance and protect citizens’ rights. Some conclusions are offered in the end to foster a more general discussion.

Keywords

Big Data Linked Data Regulation Law Data protection Privacy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This article is an outcome of Melbourne-based researchers of the Law and Policy Program of the Australian government-funded Data to Decisions Cooperative Research Centre (http://www.d2dcrc.com.au/), with the cooperation of the UAB Institute of Law and Technology (DER2012-39492-C02-01, and DER2016-78108-P).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

Data to Decisions Cooperative Research Centre (D2D CRC Ltd., ABN 45168769677; Project DC160051 - Practical perspectives on a balanced, enabling regulatory framework for data-based decision-support technologies used by law enforcement and national security in Australia.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study (not applicable).

References

  1. 1.
    Executive Office of the US President. Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values (White House). Published May 1. Council on Foreign Relations (mar 2017). http://wwwcfrorg/technology-and-science/white-house-big-data---seizing-opportunities-preserving-values/p32916 Cited. October 5 2016.
  2. 2.
    UK Government. Emerging Technologies Big Data Community of Interest, ‘Emerging Technologies: Big Data: A Horizon Scanning Research Paper’ (HM Government Horizon Scanning Programme. Cabinet Office. First published: 18 November 2014. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emerging-technologies-big-data. Cited October 5 2016.
  3. 3.
    Australian Government Information Management Office. ‘Australian Public Service Big Data Strategy - Improved Understanding Through Enhanced Data-Analytics Capability’. 2013. Department of finance and deregulation. ISBN: 978–1–922096-27-2 Available at: http://wwwfinancegovau/sites/default/files/the-australian-public-service-big-data-strategy-archivedpdf Cited 5 October 2016.
  4. 4.
    Australian Government. ‘Australian Public Service Better Practice Guide for Big Data’. 2015. Version 2.0. January 2015. Joint work of the Data Analytics Centre of Excellence (chaired by the Australian Taxation Office) and the Big Data Working Group (chaired by the Department of Finance). ISBN: 978–1–922096-31-9 Available at: http://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/APS-Better-Practice-Guide-for-Big-Data.pdf. Cited 5 October 2016.
  5. 5.
    Diebold FA. Personal Perspective on the Origin(s) and Development of 'Big Data': The Phenomenon, the Term, and the Discipline, PIER Working Paper No 13–003, 2nd Version. 2012. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2202843. Cited 5 October 2015.
  6. 6.
    Cox M, Ellsworth D. Application-Controlled Demand Paging for Out-of-Core Visualization. Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Visualization, IEEE Computer Society Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laney D. 3D data management: controlling data volume, velocity and variety. META Group Research Note No. 2001;6:2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ylijoki O, Porras J. Perspectives to definition of Big Data: A mapping study and discussion. Journal of Innovation Management. 2016;4(1):69–91.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bennett Moses L. Bridging distances in approach: Sharing ideas about technology regulation. In R. Leenes, E. Kosta (editors) Bridging distances in technology and regulation, Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Pub.; 2013. 37–51.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bijker WE. Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Towards a Theory of Sociotechnical Change, MIT Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Orlikowski WJ, Gash DC. Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organisations. ACM Trans Inf Syst. 1994;12(2):174–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chan J, et al. The technological game: How information technology is transforming police practice. Criminal Justice. 2001;1(2):139–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Law and Policy Program, Data to Decisions CRC. Big Data Technology and National Security - Comparative International Perspectives on Strategy, Policy and Law: Methodology (Data to Decisions CRC). Adelaide. 2016.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Law and Policy Program, Data to Decisions CRC. Big Data Technology and National Security- Comparative International Perspectives on Strategy, Policy and Law: Comparative Study (Data to Decisions CRC, 2016). Adelaide 2016.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Law and Policy Program, Data to Decisions CRC. Big Data Technology and National Security - Comparative International Perspectives on Strategy, Policy and Law: Australia (Data to Decisions CRC). Adelaide. 2016.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cannataci JA. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy. 2016. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Privacy/SR/Pages/SRPrivacyIndex.asp. Cited 5 October 2016.
  17. 17.
    Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Report of the Side event: The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age: Challenges and Ways Forward. 8 March 2016. Available at: http://www.geneva-academy.ch/docs/events/2016/GenevaAcademy%20FINAL%20REPORTsideevent%20privacy_8March2016-1.pdf. Cited 5 October 2016.
  18. 18.
    Greenleaf G. UN Privacy Rapporteur Sets High Goals, 140 Privacy Laws & Business International, Report 10–12, 30 April 2016. UNSW Law Research Paper No. 2016–5. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2801981. Cited 5 October 2016.
  19. 19.
    NIST Big Data Public Working Group Definitions and Taxonomies Subgroup. NIST Special Publication 1500–1, NIST Big Data Interoperability Framework: Volume 1, Definitions. Final Version 1. 2015. Available at: doi: 10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-1. Cited 5 October 2016.
  20. 20.
    OpenKnowledge International. Open Data Handbook. What is Open Data?. 2016. Available at: http://opendatahandbook.org/guide/en/what-is-open-data/. Cited 5 October 2016.
  21. 21.
    Australian Digital Transformation Office. Open data Improving services through accessible machine-readable data. Updated 21 July 2015. Available at: https://www.dto.gov.au/standard/design-guides/open-data/. Cited 5 October 2016.
  22. 22.
    Australian Department of Health. Linkable de-identified 10% sample of Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (PBS). 2016. Available at: https://data.gov.au/dataset/mbs-sample-10pct-1984-gz Data temporally unavailable, 5 October 2016.
  23. 23.
    Cavoukian A, Castro D. Big Data and Innovation, Setting the Record Straight: De-identification Does Work. 2014. Available at: http://www2.itif.org/2014-big-data-deidentification.pdf. Cited 5 October 2016.
  24. 24.
    Narayanan A, Felten EW. (Princeton). No silver bullet: De-identification still doesn't work. 2014. Available at: http://randomwalker.info/publications/no-silver-bullet-de-identification.pdf. Cited 5 October 2016.
  25. 25.
    Nakamoto S. [pseudonym]. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system, White paper. Published for the first time in October 31st. 2008. Available at: http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/quotes/bitcoin-design/ Also available at: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. Cited 10 March 2017.
  26. 26.
    Pentland Alex (MIT). Big Data’s Biggest Obstacles. 2012. Available at: https://hbr.org/2012/10/big-datas-biggest-obstacles. Cited 5 October 2016.
  27. 27.
    Martin P, Hunter F. Minister says Census 'no worse than Facebook' as Nick Xenophon risks jail. The Sydney Morning Herald. 2016. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/minister-says-census-no-worse-than-facebook-as-nick-xenophon-risks-jail-20160808-gqnobg.html. Cited 5 October 2016.
  28. 28.
    Dent J. Ex-head of ASIO, David Irvine, on Data Retention Laws. 2015. The ethics Centre. Available at: http://wwwethicsorgau/on-ethics/blog/march/exclusive-ex-head-of-asio,-david-irvine,-on-data-r Cited 5 October 2016.
  29. 29.
    Dingle S. Attorney-General George Brandis struggles to explain Government's metadata proposal. ABC News. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-07/brandis-explanation-adds-confusion-to-metadata-proposal/5654186. Cited 5 October 2016.
  30. 30.
    Australian Government. Review Panel. Review of The Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record. Available at: https://health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/17BF043A41D470A9CA257E13000C9322/$File/FINAL-Review-of-PCEHR-December-2013.pdf. Cited 5 October 2016.
  31. 31.
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con), “Investigatory Powers Bill” House of Lords Hansard, 13 July 2016, Volume 774 Column 228. Availlable at: https://hansardparliamentuk/lords/2016-07-13/debates/16071337000437/InvestigatoryPowersBill Cited 5 October 2016.
  32. 32.
    Casanovas P. Conceptualisation of Rights and Meta-rule of Law for the Web of Data, Democracia Digital e Governo Eletrônico (Santa Caterina, Brazil) vol.12. 2015: 18-41; repr. Journal of Governance and Regulation / Volume 4, Issue 4, 2015; p. 118–129. Available at: http://buscalegis.ufsc.br/revistas/index.php/observatoriodoegov/article/viewFile/34399/33229. Cited 5 October 2016.
  33. 33.
    Casanovas P, Rodríguez-Doncel V, González-Conejero J. The Role of Pragmatics in the Web of Data; in F. Poggi, A. Capone (Eds.) Pragmatics and Law. Practical and Theoretical Approaches, Berlin: Springer Verlag. 2016. pp. 293–330. DOI:  10.1007/978-3-319-44601-1_12. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2697832. Cited 5 October 2016.
  34. 34.
    Rajaraman V. Big Data Analytics. Resonance. 2016;21:695. doi: 10.1007/s12045-016-0376-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Poblet M. (ed.). Mobile Technologies for Conflict Management. Online dispute resolution, governance, participation. LGTS n. 2, 2011, Dordrecht: Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Corea, F. Big Data Analytics: A Management Perspective, Studies in Big Data 21, 2016, Switzerland, Springer NatureGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Williams S. Business intelligence strategy and Big Data analytics: a general management perspective. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann, Elsevier; 2016.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Castro, D., McQuinn, The Privacy Panic Cycle: A Guide to Public Fears about New Technologies, US Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. 2015. Available at: http://www2.itif.org/2015-privacy-panic.pdf. Cited 5 October 2016.
  39. 39.
    Casanovas P. The Future of Law: Relational Law and Next Generation of Web Services, in M. Fernández-Barrera, P. de Filippi et al. (Eds.) The Future of Law and Technology: Looking into the Future. Selected Essays. European Press Academic Publishing, Legal Information and Communication Technologies Series, vol. 7, Florence. 2010. pp. 137–156. Available at: http://www.ejls.eu/6/205UK.htm. Cited 5 October 2016.
  40. 40.
    Casanovas P. Open Source Intelligence, Open Social Intelligence and Privacy by Design. In ECSI-2014, CEUR 183, pp. 174–185, Available at: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1283/. Cited 5 October 2016.
  41. 41.
    Barrett MA, Humblet O, Hiatt RA, Adler NE. Big Data and disease prevention: From qualified self to quantified communities. Big Data. 2013;1(3):168–75. doi: 10.1089/big.2013.0027. http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/big.2013.0027. Cited 5 October 2016
  42. 42.
    Schmachtenberg M, Bizer C, Jentzsch A, Cyganiak R. The Linking Open Data Cloud Diagram. 2014. Available at: http://Lod-Cloud.Net. Cited: 5 October 2016. See as a published paper: Schmachtenberg, M. et al. Adoption of the Linked Data Best practices in different topical domains, 13th International Semantic Web Conference, LCNS 8796, pp. 245-260. Springer International Publishing.
  43. 43.
    Rodriguez-Doncel V, Gómez-Pérez A, Mihindukulasooriya N, Rights declaration in Linked Data. In: O. Hartig et al. (ed.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Consuming Linked Data (COLD2013), CEUR 1034. 2014. Available at: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1034/RodriguezDoncelEtAl_COLD2013.pdf. Cited 5 October 2016.
  44. 44.
    Paschke, A. Pragmatic Web 4.0. Towards an Active and Interactive Semantic Media Web, W3C Aspect of Semantic Technologies. 2013. Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/swadpasc/pragmatic-web-paschke. Cited 5 October 2015.
  45. 45.
    Casellas N, Blázquez M, Kiryakov A, Casanovas P, Poblet M, Benjamins VR. OPJK into PROTON: Legal domain ontology integration into an upper-level ontology. In OTM Confederated International Conferences, On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg. 2005, pp. 846–855.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Casanovas P, Casellas N, Tempich C., Vrandecic D., Benjamins VR. OPJK and DILIGENT: ontology modeling in a distributed environment. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2007; 15 (2): 171–186.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dwork C. The differential privacy frontier. In: Theory of Cryptography Conference, Springer, LNCS 5444. Berlin: Springer; 2009. pp. 496–502.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dwork C. Differential privacy: a survey of results. In: In international Conference on theory and applications of models of computation, LNCS, Springer, Berlin, 4978; 2008.,pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dwork C, Roth A. The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science. 2014;9(3–4):211–407.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Simonite T. Apple Rolls Out Privacy-Sensitive Artificial Intelligence, MIT Technology Review. 2016. Available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601688/apple-rolls-out-privacy-sensitive-artificial-intelligence/. Cited 5 October 2016.
  51. 51.
    Simonite T. Apple’s New Privacy Technology May Pressure Competitors to Better Protect Our Data, MIT Technology Review. 2016. Available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602046/apples-new-privacy-technology-may-pressure-competitors-to-better-protect-our-data/?utm_campaign=content-distribution&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter. Cited 5 October 2016.
  52. 52.
    Hijmans, H. 2016. The European Union as Guardian of internet privacy: the story of art 16 TFEU, LGTS vol. 31, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gutwirth S, Leenes R, De Hert P (Eds.). Data Protection on the Move. Current Developments in ICT and Privacy/Data Protection, Springer Verlag, Dordrecht, 2016.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    González-Fuster G. The emergence of personal data protection as a fundamental right of the EU. Springer, Dordrecht, LGT. 16: 2014Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    De Hert P, Papakonstantinou V. The new General Data Protection Regulation: still a sound system for the protection of individuals? Computer Law & Security Review. 2016;32:179–94.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Horwitz MJ. The transformation of American law, 1870–1960: The crisis of legal orthodoxy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Westin AF. Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum Books; 1963.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Westin AF. (dir.). Computers, personnel administration, and citizen rights. 1979. 500 (50), US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Warren SD, Brandeis LD. The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review. 1890;4(5):193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Whitman JQ. The two Western cultures of privacy: Dignity versus liberty. Yale Law Journal. 2004;113:1151–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Casanovas P, Palmirani M, Peroni S, van Engers T, Vitali, F. Special Issue on the Semantic Web for the Legal Domain, Guest Editors Editorial: The Next Step. Semantic Web Journal. 2016, 7 (2): 1–13. Available at: available at SSRN: http://ssrn.Com/abstract=2765912. Cited 5 October 2016.
  62. 62.
    Rodríguez-Doncel V, Santos C, Casanovas P, Gómez-Pérez A. Legal aspects of linked data – The European framework, Computer Law & Security Review: The International Journal of Technology Law and Practice, 2016;32(6): 799–813, doi:  10.1016/j.clsr.2016.07.005.
  63. 63.
    Pagallo U. The Law of Robots. Crime, contracts, and torts. Dordrecht: Springer; 2013.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mittelstadt BD, Floridi L, (ed.). The Ethics of Biomedical Big Data. Dordrecht: Springer; 2016.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Werbin KC. The List Serves: Population Control and Power. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures; 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IUPESM and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law and Policy Program: Data to Decisions Cooperative Research Centre and La Trobe Law SchoolLa Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Institute of Law and Technology, Faculty of LawAutonomous University of BarcelonaCerdanyola del VallèsSpain
  3. 3.Law and Policy to Decisions Cooperative Research Centre, Formerly Chair in Law (Research)School of Law Deakin UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.Office of the Commissioner for Privacy and Data ProtectionVICAustralia
  5. 5.Big Data and Open Data Lead of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy and Global Pulse’s Data Privacy Advisory Group (United Nations)New York CityUSA

Personalised recommendations