Search

Following the large-scale 2015–2016 migration crisis that shook Europe, deploying big data and social media harvesting methods became gradually popular in mass forced migration monitoring. These methods have focused on producing 'real-time' inferences and predictions on individual and social behavioral, preferential, and cognitive patterns of human mobility. Although the volume of such data has improved rapidly due to social media and remote sensing technologies, they have also produced biased, flawed, or otherwise invasive results that made migrants' lives more difficult in transit. This review article explores the recent debate on the use of social media data to train machine learning classifiers and modify thresholds to help algorithmic systems monitor and predict violence and forced migration. Ultimately, it identifies and dissects five prevalent explanations in the literature on limitations for the use of such data for A.I. forecasting, namely 'policy-engineering mismatch', 'accessibility/comprehensibility', 'legal/legislative legitimacy', 'poor data cleaning', and 'difficulty of troubleshooting'. From this review, the article suggests anonymization, distributed responsibility, and 'right to reasonable inferences' debates as potential solutions and next research steps to remedy these problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The digital future of the world economy in the post-Covid-19 era will be shaped by an accelerated deployment of digital technologies in the private and public sectors with more active involvement of regulators and legislators. In recent years, ethical concerns have become more prominent and may limit machine learning models’ deployment in consumer-facing businesses, including financial services. A widely shared Islamic perspective is still to emerge. The paper draws attention to ethical issues embedded in data and autonomous decision models. This debate in the West could be enriched by more contributions from an Islamic perspective.

In this article, we analyze legal and ethical issues raised in Big Data health research projects in the Covid‐19 era and consider how these issues might be addressed in ways that advance positive values (e.g., furtherance of respect for persons and accordance with relevant legal frameworks) while mitigating or eliminating any negative aspects (e.g., exacerbation of social inequality and injustice). We apply this analysis specifically to UK‐REACH (The United Kingdom Research Study into Ethnicity and Covid‐19 Outcomes in Healthcare Workers), a project with which we are involved. We argue that Big Data projects like UK‐REACH can be conducted in an ethically robust manner and that funders and sponsors ought to encourage similar projects to drive better evidence‐based public policy in public health. As part of this, we advocate that a Big Data ethics‐by‐design approach be undertaken when such projects are constructed. This principle extends the work of those who advocate ethics by design by addressing prominent issues in Big Data health research projects; it holds that ethical values and principles in Big Data health research projects are best adhered to when they are already integrated into the project aims and methods at the design stage. In advocating this principle, we present a unique perspective regarding pressing ethical problems around large‐scale, data‐driven Covid‐19 research, as well as legal issues associated with processing ostensibly anonymized health data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though rapid collection of big data is ubiquitous across domains, from industry settings to academic contexts, the ethics of big data collection and research are contested. A nexus of data ethics issues is the concept of creep, or repurposing of data for other applications or research beyond the conditions of original collection. Data creep has proven controversial and has prompted concerns about the scope of ethical oversight. Institutional review boards offer little guidance regarding big data, and problematic research can still meet ethical standards. While ethics seem concrete through institutional deployment, I frame ethics as produced. Informed by my ethnographic research at a large public university in the U.S., I explore ethics through two models: ethics as institutional procedures and ethics as acts and intentions. The university where I conducted fieldwork is the development grounds for a predictive model that uses student data to anticipate academic success. While students consent to data collection, the circumstances of consent and the degree to which they are informed are not so apparent, as many data are a product of creep. Drawing from interviews and participant observation with administrators, data scientists, developers, and students, I examine data ethics, from a larger institutional model to everyday enactments related to data creep. After demonstrating the limits of such models, I propose a remodeling of ethics that draws on recent works on data, justice, and refusal to pose generative questions for rethinking ethics in institutional contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Bait Al-Mashura Journal is the property of Bait Al-Mashura Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Following the large-scale 2015–2016 migration crisis that shook Europe, deploying big data and social media harvesting methods became gradually popular in mass forced migration monitoring. These methods have focused on producing ‘real-time’ inferences and predictions on individual and social behavioral, preferential, and cognitive patterns of human mobility. Although the volume of such data has improved rapidly due to social media and remote sensing technologies, they have also produced biased, flawed, or otherwise invasive results that made migrants’ lives more difficult in transit. This review article explores the recent debate on the use of social media data to train machine learning classifiers and modify thresholds to help algorithmic systems monitor and predict violence and forced migration. Ultimately, it identifies and dissects five prevalent explanations in the literature on limitations for the use of such data for A.I. forecasting, namely ‘policy-engineering mismatch’, ‘accessibility/comprehensibility’, ‘legal/legislative legitimacy’, ‘poor data cleaning’, and ‘difficulty of troubleshooting’. From this review, the article suggests anonymization, distributed responsibility, and ‘right to reasonable inferences’ debates as potential solutions and next research steps to remedy these problems.

Discussion of uses of biomedical data often proceeds on the assumption that the data are generated and shared solely or largely within the health sector. However, this assumption must be challenged because increasingly large amounts of health and well-being data are being gathered and deployed in cross-sectoral contexts such as social media and through the internet of (medical) things and wearable devices. Cross-sectoral sharing of data thus refers to the generation, use and linkage of biomedical data beyond the health sector. This paper considers the challenges that arise from this phenomenon. If we are to benefit fully, it is important to consider which ethical values are at stake and to reflect on ways to resolve emerging ethical issues across ecosystems where values, laws and cultures might be quite distinct. In considering such issues, this paper applies the deliberative balancing approach of the Ethics Framework for Big Data in Health and Research (Xafis et al. 2019) to the domain of cross-sectoral big data. Please refer to that article for more information on how this framework is to be used, including a full explanation of the key values involved and the balancing approach used in the case study at the end. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this theoretical paper, we explore Big Data ethics in the broader context of general data ethics, stakeholder groups, demand for governance and regulation, social norms, and human values. We follow and expand on the digital divide, governance, and regulatory theories, and we apply them to many levels and contexts, such as state and society, organization, enterprise governance of IT (EGIT), and data projects, among others. We introduce the new role and responsibility of data experts as an important stakeholder group in the balance of power of Big Data ethics because they simultaneously hold a position in groups of data-rich organizations and data-poor users. We argue that the balancing role of data experts consists of motivation and competence, a sense of responsibility for data ethics, and the possibility and means to influence Big Data issues. Finally, we conclude our research by model mapping the role of data experts in Big Data ethics and proposing them as a balancing power.

This article reviews the qualitative changes that big data technology introduced to society, particularly changes that affect how individuals control the access, use and retention of their personal data. In particular interest is whether the practice of privacy self-management in this new context could still ensure the informed consent of individuals to the privacy terms of big data companies. It is concluded that that accepting big data companies' privacy policies falls short of the disclosure and understanding requirements for informed consent. The article argues that the practice of privacy self-management could remain viable if the review, understanding and acceptance of privacy agreements is streamlined, standardized and automated. Technology should be employed to counter the privacy problems created by big data technology. The creation of the privacy exchange authorities (PEA) is proposed as a solution to the failures of privacy self-management. The PEA are intermediaries that empower individuals to define their own privacy terms and express informed consent in their dealings with data companies. They will create the technological infrastructure for individuals to select their own privacy terms from a list of standard choices, potentially only once. The PEA will further mediate the delivery and authentication of the individual users' privacy terms to data companies. A logical proof of concept is offered, illustrating the potential steps involved in the creation of the PEA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this theoretical paper, we explore Big Data ethics in the broader context of general data ethics, stakeholder groups, demand for governance and regulation, social norms, and human values. We follow and expand on the digital divide, governance, and regulatory theories, and we apply them to many levels and contexts, such as state and society, organization, enterprise governance of IT (EGIT), and data projects, among others. We introduce the new role and responsibility of data experts as an important stakeholder group in the balance of power of Big Data ethics because they simultaneously hold a position in groups of data-rich organizations and data-poor users. We argue that the balancing role of data experts consists of motivation and competence, a sense of responsibility for data ethics, and the possibility and means to influence Big Data issues. Finally, we conclude our research by model mapping the role of data experts in Big Data ethics and proposing them as a balancing power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]