Data integrity, data manipulation, and privacy

In a new National Academies of Science report on the emerging bioeconomy, Safeguarding the Bioeconomy, the authors did something a bit unexpected: they called out cybersecurity and sensitive data protections and practices as significant co-factors for economic success. In the past, these same data security and privacy factors may well have been discussed as obstacles to progress. But now, the authors warn that a “concerted effort is needed to safeguard the potential of the bioeconomy and minimize associated risks.”

Among the specific risks the authors highlighted were inadequate cybersecurity practices and protections relative to intrusion, exfiltration, and data and systems manipulation. In their recommendations, the authors also discussed the necessity of proper handling of sensitive data sets. “The sector is reliant on open source software, large and potentially sensitive data sets, and Internet communications.”

This report marks an improved and hopeful starting point for the extensive data privacy and knowledge governance analysis that will need to take place across the various fields of scientific research. The report’s recommendations regarding the importance of both preventing data manipulation, and having proper systems in place to ensure data integrity deserves additional thought and work by privacy scholars and experts.

The idea of data integrity — particularly accuracy — has been entwined in privacy thought for a very long time. But this report brings some new variations and expansions of these ideas forward, and for this reason, it makes for interesting and important reading.

Data manipulation is not often conceived of as a “privacy” issue, with the notable exception of criminal data manipulation related to forms of identity theft. Data integrity has received more work, but still — for privacy experts reading this report, it becomes clear that data manipulation and integrity are embedded in a continuum, and it is well worth exploring that continuum with a privacy and knowledge governance lens.

–Pam Dixon

Related Documents

Safeguarding the Bioeconomy, NAS

WPF Urges National Institutes of Health to expand privacy guidance for researchers

Posted January 21, 2020 in AI, Modern privacy, Research

New Report: Risky Analysis: Assessing and Improving AI Governance Tools

We are pleased to announce the publication of a new WPF report, “Risky Analysis: Assessing and Improving AI Governance Tools.” This report sets out a definition of AI governance tools, documents why and how these tools are critically important for trustworthy AI, and where these tools are around the world. The report also documents problems in some AI governance tools themselves, and suggests pathways to improve AI governance tools and create an evaluative environment to measure their effectiveness. AI systems should not be deployed without simultaneously evaluating the potential adverse impacts of such systems and mitigating their risks, and most of the world agrees about the need to take precautions against the threats posed. The specific tools and techniques that exist to evaluate and measure AI systems for their inclusiveness, fairness, explainability, privacy, safety and other trustworthiness issues — called in the report collectively AI governance tools – can improve such issues. While some AI governance tools provide reassurance to the public and to regulators, the tools too often lack meaningful oversight and quality assessments. Incomplete or ineffective AI governance tools can create a false sense of confidence, cause unintended problems, and generally undermine the promise of AI systems. The report contains rich background details, use cases, potential solutions to the problems discussed in the report, and a global index of AI Governance Tools.
National IDs Around the World — Interactive map

About this Data Visualization: This interactive map displays the presence...
Report: From the Filing Cabinet to the Cloud: Updating the Privacy Act of 1974

This comprehensive report and proposed bill text is focused on the Privacy Act of 1974, an important and early Federal privacy law that applies to the government sector and some contractors. The Privacy Act was written for the 1970s information era -- an era that was characterized by the use of mainframe computers and filing cabinets. Today's digital information era looks much different than the '70s: smart phones are smarter than the old mainframes, and documents are now routinely digitized and stored and perhaps even analyzed in the cloud, among many other changes. The report focuses on why the Privacy Act needs an update that will bring it into this century, and how that could look and work. This work was written by Robert Gellman, and informed by a two-year multi-stakeholder process.