5 ms·

I understand this is a sensitive area, and I understand that reasonable people have good reasons to be concerned. But it seems that you are directing your frust

by xpe 5y ago

I understand this is a sensitive area, and I understand that reasonable people have good reasons to be concerned. But it seems that you are directing your frustrations at Mozilla unfairly. I find this to be a good definition of privacy: > Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively. - Wikipedia From what I've read, Mozilla's Rally gives people the ability to choose what research studies to participate in. I think there is plenty of discussion to be had about what level of control and granularity works best for different people, but I have confidence that Mozilla has both the right incentives and technical capability to contribute meaningfully in this space.

splistud 5y ago
Part of the problem with large internet platforms is that parts of 'my data' is inextricably linked to 'your data', even to the extent that 'my data' only exists on some platforms as data points in 'your data'. In that sense any opt-in choice given to another is yet another privacy breach on their 'contacts' for example. I've seen the opinion expressed that part of the reason society allows this type of surveillance is that so many members of our society don't understand the details or scope. If true, whatever discussions we have about this should include the idea that we're proposing to increase the scope of the problem while researching it.
- xpe 5y ago
  Yes, calling out linkage as a key challenge for data privacy is very important. To dig in one level deeper... Have you looked into privacy-preserving record linkage (PPRL) or similar ideas? (I have not, but I'm interested.) > The process of linking records without revealing any sensitive or confidential information about the entities represented by these records is known as privacy-preserving record linkage (PPRL). > Source: "Privacy-Preserving Record Linkage". > DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63962-8_17-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63962-8_17-1 See also: "A taxonomy of privacy-preserving record linkage techniques" at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306437912001470 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03064...
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  > In that sense any opt-in choice given to another is yet another privacy breach on their 'contacts' for example. That is a non-sequitor, when we are discussing opting-in to social science research. Rally is not a social network platform. It is a social science platform. There is no reason for it to be directly, as a platform, concerned with your contacts. Per their FAQ: > We abide by a series of principles known as Lean Data Practices. Lean Data means that we collect just the data we need, and do everything we can to protect what we collect. Studies only collect data that is essential to creating a broader understanding of a research topic. Institutional Review Boards, privacy policies, and the various contractual agreements between parties operating and building the Rally research platform would be held to task by scientific principles of treating participants humanely and ethically. If an IRB deemed that it was unethical to conduct a study due to the design implications indicating that data could be obtained that did not originate from informed consent, then that study would not be able to be conducted and the research design would have to be modified to correct itself or that specific research methodology would be considered to be generally unethical by the wider scientific community, just the same as the scientific community deems it unethical to do genetic experiments on unwilling human subjects.
  - xpe 5y ago
    >> In that sense any opt-in choice given to another is yet another privacy breach on their 'contacts' for example. That is a non-sequitor, when we are discussing opting-in to social science research. > That is a non-sequitor, when we are discussing opting-in to social science research. As I understand it, the commenter's point does not rest on 'contact' linking being present. Their point is that any kind of data linking provides a reindentification risk. Regarding the risk of data linkages, how confident are you that Mozilla and others with access to the data will manage it ... 1. ... up to the currently-accepted level of knowledge (including hopefully some theoretical guarantees, if possible, and if not, mitigations with known kinds of risk) and ... 2. ... that the current level is acceptable given that history of data privacy doesn't paint a rosy picture? To be open, I'm not interested in your confidence level per se, but rather the reasoning in your risk assessment. I want to weight the various factors myself, in other words. For example, you appear to have more confidence in IRB's than I do. Knowing the history of the "arms race" between deidentification and reidentification, I don't put a whole lot of trust in Institutional Review Boards. Many smart, well-meaning efforts have fallen prey to linkage attacks. They are insidious. P.S. In my view, using "non-sequitor" here is a bit strong, perhaps even off-putting. It is only a "non-sequitor" because you are making different logical assumptions than the commenter. Another approach would be to say "your conclusion only holds if..." This would make your point without being so pointed. It also helps show that you want to understand the other person's assumptions.
elliekelly 5y ago
Sorry, I definitely did not put as much thought into my comment as I should have and I left out the critical piece of information that really ticked me off. I'm one of the nerds who actually reads the privacy documents and Rally's privacy policy[1] has a section titled "How We Use Your Information" that includes: > improving Mozilla’s existing products and services > creating and developing new products All of the marketing copy is about "donating" your data to important research and how "Big Tech has built its success by exploiting your data." Meanwhile Mozilla is doing the exact same thing they're criticizing "big tech" for doing. Tucked away in the fine print is the fact that your data _isn't_ just going to be used for research studies, it's going to be exploited by yet another for-profit tech company. They've just put a nice warm and fuzzy do-gooder wrapper on it. If Rally is transparent about how your data is used like they claim to be they would either (1) not use your data in that way and exclusively allow the data to be used for research, as advertised, or (2) make it abundantly obvious it will be used that way. [1]https://rally.mozilla.org/privacy-policy/index.html https://rally.mozilla.org/privacy-policy/index.html
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  > If Rally is transparent about how your data is used If Rally was not transparent about this, then you would not have seen that and would not have gotten emotionally triggered by it. But given that you’ve identified a visceral opposition to that, you should consider not opting-in to that particular study.
  - xpe 5y ago
    > But given that you’ve identified a visceral opposition to that, you should consider not opting-in to that particular study. The commenter referenced Rally's privacy policy. It is not specific to a particular study.
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
      I’m being charitable and leaving room for the possibility that they provide a tighter set of policies for some studies or revise their general policy to make commercial use be a study-by-study determination. Or, just don’t opt-in to any of the Rally studies. Your call, it’s your data.

by xpe 5y ago

splistud 5y ago

Part of the problem with large internet platforms is that parts of 'my data' is inextricably linked to 'your data', even to the extent that 'my data' only exists on some platforms as data points in 'your data'. In that sense any opt-in choice given to another is yet another privacy breach on their 'contacts' for example. I've seen the opinion expressed that part of the reason society allows this type of surveillance is that so many members of our society don't understand the details or scope. If true, whatever discussions we have about this should include the idea that we're proposing to increase the scope of the problem while researching it.

xpe 5y ago
Yes, calling out linkage as a key challenge for data privacy is very important. To dig in one level deeper... Have you looked into privacy-preserving record linkage (PPRL) or similar ideas? (I have not, but I'm interested.) > The process of linking records without revealing any sensitive or confidential information about the entities represented by these records is known as privacy-preserving record linkage (PPRL). > Source: "Privacy-Preserving Record Linkage". > DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63962-8_17-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63962-8_17-1 See also: "A taxonomy of privacy-preserving record linkage techniques" at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306437912001470 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03064...
9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
> In that sense any opt-in choice given to another is yet another privacy breach on their 'contacts' for example. That is a non-sequitor, when we are discussing opting-in to social science research. Rally is not a social network platform. It is a social science platform. There is no reason for it to be directly, as a platform, concerned with your contacts. Per their FAQ: > We abide by a series of principles known as Lean Data Practices. Lean Data means that we collect just the data we need, and do everything we can to protect what we collect. Studies only collect data that is essential to creating a broader understanding of a research topic. Institutional Review Boards, privacy policies, and the various contractual agreements between parties operating and building the Rally research platform would be held to task by scientific principles of treating participants humanely and ethically. If an IRB deemed that it was unethical to conduct a study due to the design implications indicating that data could be obtained that did not originate from informed consent, then that study would not be able to be conducted and the research design would have to be modified to correct itself or that specific research methodology would be considered to be generally unethical by the wider scientific community, just the same as the scientific community deems it unethical to do genetic experiments on unwilling human subjects.
- xpe 5y ago
  >> In that sense any opt-in choice given to another is yet another privacy breach on their 'contacts' for example. That is a non-sequitor, when we are discussing opting-in to social science research. > That is a non-sequitor, when we are discussing opting-in to social science research. As I understand it, the commenter's point does not rest on 'contact' linking being present. Their point is that any kind of data linking provides a reindentification risk. Regarding the risk of data linkages, how confident are you that Mozilla and others with access to the data will manage it ... 1. ... up to the currently-accepted level of knowledge (including hopefully some theoretical guarantees, if possible, and if not, mitigations with known kinds of risk) and ... 2. ... that the current level is acceptable given that history of data privacy doesn't paint a rosy picture? To be open, I'm not interested in your confidence level per se, but rather the reasoning in your risk assessment. I want to weight the various factors myself, in other words. For example, you appear to have more confidence in IRB's than I do. Knowing the history of the "arms race" between deidentification and reidentification, I don't put a whole lot of trust in Institutional Review Boards. Many smart, well-meaning efforts have fallen prey to linkage attacks. They are insidious. P.S. In my view, using "non-sequitor" here is a bit strong, perhaps even off-putting. It is only a "non-sequitor" because you are making different logical assumptions than the commenter. Another approach would be to say "your conclusion only holds if..." This would make your point without being so pointed. It also helps show that you want to understand the other person's assumptions.

elliekelly 5y ago

Sorry, I definitely did not put as much thought into my comment as I should have and I left out the critical piece of information that really ticked me off. I'm one of the nerds who actually reads the privacy documents and Rally's privacy policy[1] has a section titled "How We Use Your Information" that includes: > improving Mozilla’s existing products and services > creating and developing new products All of the marketing copy is about "donating" your data to important research and how "Big Tech has built its success by exploiting your data." Meanwhile Mozilla is doing the exact same thing they're criticizing "big tech" for doing. Tucked away in the fine print is the fact that your data _isn't_ just going to be used for research studies, it's going to be exploited by yet another for-profit tech company. They've just put a nice warm and fuzzy do-gooder wrapper on it. If Rally is transparent about how your data is used like they claim to be they would either (1) not use your data in that way and exclusively allow the data to be used for research, as advertised, or (2) make it abundantly obvious it will be used that way. [1]https://rally.mozilla.org/privacy-policy/index.html https://rally.mozilla.org/privacy-policy/index.html

9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
> If Rally is transparent about how your data is used If Rally was not transparent about this, then you would not have seen that and would not have gotten emotionally triggered by it. But given that you’ve identified a visceral opposition to that, you should consider not opting-in to that particular study.
- xpe 5y ago
  > But given that you’ve identified a visceral opposition to that, you should consider not opting-in to that particular study. The commenter referenced Rally's privacy policy. It is not specific to a particular study.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    I’m being charitable and leaving room for the possibility that they provide a tighter set of policies for some studies or revise their general policy to make commercial use be a study-by-study determination. Or, just don’t opt-in to any of the Rally studies. Your call, it’s your data.