4 ms·

> IMHO the real question of privacy is whether they would be identifiable to others, not to themselves I disagree. Just because my headless naked body can't ea

> IMHO the real question of privacy is whether they would be identifiable to others, not to themselves I disagree. Just because my headless naked body can't easily be traced to me doesn't mean my privacy isn't violated if pictures are shared without my explicit concent.

Bukhmanizer 3y ago
> can't *easily* be traced to me Yeah, it would be identifiable to others, so that’s a violation of your privacy. A more accurate analogy is if someone shared a picture of the back of your own hand or something that would be basically impossible for anyone but you to recognize. I’m not saying it is or is not a violation of your privacy, but your example is flawed.
- waffleiron 3y ago
  If I was in a situation where I have not given consent to take that picture, and I see that shared, it would make me wonder if any other pictures I didn’t agree to were also taken. See Ryan Calo’s work: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1641487 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1641487
lobochrome 3y ago
How so? Because of the "easily" qualification? Is this ironic? If it can't be traced to you it is by definition perfect privacy.
- JamisonM 3y ago
  If there is a publicly available picture of you that you did not consent to be published and literally nobody can currently identify it as you that is still a privacy violation. It is a violation because of the lack of consent, but it is also a violation because now you have to live with the fact that maybe some other information can link you to that picture in the future. There is no such thing as perfect privacy if any link can be created in the future, and the fear of the creation of that link going forward is itself a problem for the subject.
  - BurningFrog 3y ago
    The lack of consent makes it a consent violation, not a privacy violation.
    - toofy 3y ago
      depending on jurisdiction and contexts i think it would likely make it both.
  - haldujai 3y ago
    > literally nobody can currently identify it as you that is still a privacy violation. In this hypothetical it is not a privacy violation under HIPAA (US) or PHIPA (Ontario, Canada) as consent would not be required. Whether such a level of deidentification is possible is a different question and I agree it’s best to avoid the situation altogether. > if any link can be created in the future An example of this is CT/MRI scans of the head that were shared in open databases. The technology now exists to make a 3D rendering of the patients face which was not anticipated 15 years ago when these datasets were made.
    - JamisonM 3y ago
      "In this hypothetical it is not a privacy violation under ... PHIPA (Ontario, Canada) as consent would not be required." That is not categorically true, PHIPA requires research ethics board to review research disclosures to determine if consent is required. So what is "too much" information that might violate privacy under Ontario law is a moving target, as our ability to violate privacy with less and less information progresses the standard should be more and more restrictive. Research use of course does not mean that the data needs to be public, as in my example, and raw data is often not made public. In your example it was, if that same database were created today I am confident the ethics board enlisted to review the disclosure would disallow it.
      - haldujai 3y ago
        Under PHIPA you can essentially use PHI for: direct patient care, research, or quality improvement. All QI does not need patient consent. Most research also does not need patient consent. Research requires REB approval. Institutional policy usually requires a REB to determine that the proposed initiative is not research but this varies. It is trivial to get QI approved. The act of deidentification is considered a "use" and therefore would require an REB approval or be structured as QI. However, once deidentified the data is no longer protected under PHIPA and can be used for anything. There is some nuance to this, such as you can't have a planned use of the deidentified data and not have disclosed it in the initial QI or research plan, but you can subsequently use the data as long as it was not planned at the time of initial application. Without getting lost in the weeds, there is little protection on deidentified data once it exists.
- maxbond 3y ago
  Privacy is about being in control of what information about you is made available and to whom. Identification is relevant by implication, not by definition. You might insist that people knock before entering your room to respect your privacy. No identification is relevant here; your housemates know who and where you are already. Someone might ask you what you did this weekend, and you might not want to reveal that you spent the weekend on a hobby you're embarrassed or sensitive about. Maybe you spent the weekend writing your novel, but you aren't ready for people to know about it yet. If you tell a white lie that you spent the weekend camping, you're doing so to preserve your privacy. Again, no identification is relevant here. If something can be linked back to you, then you lose control of the information and your privacy is compromised. But that's an implication of the definition, not the definition itself.
- batch12 3y ago
  It's really not perfect privacy. Adding onto the example below: Would you argue that you had perfect privacy if public toilets were in the street and you decided to wear a mask? Maybe you have repudiation, but not privacy.

Bukhmanizer 3y ago

> can't *easily* be traced to me Yeah, it would be identifiable to others, so that’s a violation of your privacy. A more accurate analogy is if someone shared a picture of the back of your own hand or something that would be basically impossible for anyone but you to recognize. I’m not saying it is or is not a violation of your privacy, but your example is flawed.

waffleiron 3y ago
If I was in a situation where I have not given consent to take that picture, and I see that shared, it would make me wonder if any other pictures I didn’t agree to were also taken. See Ryan Calo’s work: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1641487 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1641487

lobochrome 3y ago

How so? Because of the "easily" qualification? Is this ironic? If it can't be traced to you it is by definition perfect privacy.

JamisonM 3y ago
If there is a publicly available picture of you that you did not consent to be published and literally nobody can currently identify it as you that is still a privacy violation. It is a violation because of the lack of consent, but it is also a violation because now you have to live with the fact that maybe some other information can link you to that picture in the future. There is no such thing as perfect privacy if any link can be created in the future, and the fear of the creation of that link going forward is itself a problem for the subject.
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  The lack of consent makes it a consent violation, not a privacy violation.
  - toofy 3y ago
    depending on jurisdiction and contexts i think it would likely make it both.
- haldujai 3y ago
  > literally nobody can currently identify it as you that is still a privacy violation. In this hypothetical it is not a privacy violation under HIPAA (US) or PHIPA (Ontario, Canada) as consent would not be required. Whether such a level of deidentification is possible is a different question and I agree it’s best to avoid the situation altogether. > if any link can be created in the future An example of this is CT/MRI scans of the head that were shared in open databases. The technology now exists to make a 3D rendering of the patients face which was not anticipated 15 years ago when these datasets were made.
  - JamisonM 3y ago
    "In this hypothetical it is not a privacy violation under ... PHIPA (Ontario, Canada) as consent would not be required." That is not categorically true, PHIPA requires research ethics board to review research disclosures to determine if consent is required. So what is "too much" information that might violate privacy under Ontario law is a moving target, as our ability to violate privacy with less and less information progresses the standard should be more and more restrictive. Research use of course does not mean that the data needs to be public, as in my example, and raw data is often not made public. In your example it was, if that same database were created today I am confident the ethics board enlisted to review the disclosure would disallow it.
    - haldujai 3y ago
      Under PHIPA you can essentially use PHI for: direct patient care, research, or quality improvement. All QI does not need patient consent. Most research also does not need patient consent. Research requires REB approval. Institutional policy usually requires a REB to determine that the proposed initiative is not research but this varies. It is trivial to get QI approved. The act of deidentification is considered a "use" and therefore would require an REB approval or be structured as QI. However, once deidentified the data is no longer protected under PHIPA and can be used for anything. There is some nuance to this, such as you can't have a planned use of the deidentified data and not have disclosed it in the initial QI or research plan, but you can subsequently use the data as long as it was not planned at the time of initial application. Without getting lost in the weeds, there is little protection on deidentified data once it exists.
maxbond 3y ago
Privacy is about being in control of what information about you is made available and to whom. Identification is relevant by implication, not by definition. You might insist that people knock before entering your room to respect your privacy. No identification is relevant here; your housemates know who and where you are already. Someone might ask you what you did this weekend, and you might not want to reveal that you spent the weekend on a hobby you're embarrassed or sensitive about. Maybe you spent the weekend writing your novel, but you aren't ready for people to know about it yet. If you tell a white lie that you spent the weekend camping, you're doing so to preserve your privacy. Again, no identification is relevant here. If something can be linked back to you, then you lose control of the information and your privacy is compromised. But that's an implication of the definition, not the definition itself.
batch12 3y ago
It's really not perfect privacy. Adding onto the example below: Would you argue that you had perfect privacy if public toilets were in the street and you decided to wear a mask? Maybe you have repudiation, but not privacy.