Archive for the ‘Public Policy’ Category

Who gets hurt when information is withheld?

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009

Whenever people talk about why information matters, it’s easy to throw around abstract formulations about transparency and the free flow of information.  I do it all the time.  But this story from the Columbus Dispatch on how universities around the country are using a federal law on student privacy to withhold information has some great concrete examples of why disclosure is so important, and why not disclosing isn’t actually protecting anyone’s privacy

Basic background: FERPA or the Family Educational and Rights Privacy Act generally prohibits schools from disclosing students’ “education records” without written permission from the student (if 18 and older) or the student’s parent.  But interpretations of FERPA vary widely from school to school.

The Columbus Dispatch discovered that many schools cite FERPA as a reason to withhold documents that arguably don’t fit into the definition of an “education record.”  In response to the Dispatch’s requests, FERPA was cited as a reason not to disclose reports of NCAA violations, lists of people designated to receive athletes’ complimentary admission to football games, and football players’ summer employment documents.  Without such records, it is “virtually impossible to decipher what is going on inside a $5 billion college-sports world that is funded by fans, donors, alumni, television networks and, at most schools, taxpayers.”

The article didn’t just ask you to be shocked and horrified on principle that the university was keeping secrets.  It told you exactly who is being hurt and in what ways:

1.  Other students and the public. In addition to potential misuse of taxpayer funds, “some universities are covering up criminal behavior in the name of student privacy.”

2.  The athletes themselves.

When news that a quarterback at OSU had accepted $500 from a booster went public, the Columbus lawyer and Ohio State fan was “swamped with e-mails from current or former collegiate athletes across the country.”

“They all were saying thank you, that it was out of hand at their school, too,” Webster said.

Before giving money to Smith, booster Robert Q. Baker had tripped up at least two other Ohio State football players. But those problems didn’t become public until after the Smith incident.

If not for Webster’s intervention, it’s impossible to know how many other players might have been approached by Baker, now banned by Ohio State from his luxury suite at Ohio Stadium. Baker was not banned until after public disclosure of the facts.

And ultimately, the universities are hurting

3. The schools themselves and their athletic programs.

All of those schools deleted names and many details of such violations from public records.

Those violations resulted in financial losses, damaged reputations and, in some cases, forfeiture of athletic victories.

The Final Four banners were removed from Ohio State’s Value City Arena because of NCAA rule-breaking. That violation involved former men’s basketball coach Jim O’Brien’s gift of money to a potential recruit and illegal benefits and academic help given to another player. Those violations cost the school more than $1.3 million in legal fees and NCAA penalties.

Florida State currently is spending about $200,000 to appeal one sanction of its numerous NCAA penalties in the cheating scandal. It is trying to preserve football victories so that Bobby Bowden might retire as the winningest football coach in college history.

The story illustrates a difficult but really important truth about information and disclosure.  In the end, we’re all better off when we have more information, even those of us who think we have something to lose.  This might not be true all the time, but it’s true most of the time.  People who think they’re protecting their own interests by withholding information are often taking a rather dim, short-term view of their situation.  And certainly, “privacy” isn’t what gets protected in the end.

In the mix

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009

Google is Top Tracker of Surfers in Study. (NY Times Bits Blog)

The Obama Administration’s Silence on Privacy. (NY Times Bits Blog)

This UK Sheriff Cites Officials for Serious Statistical Violations.  (WSJ The Numbers Guy)

In the mix

Wednesday, May 27th, 2009

Data.gov: Unlocking the Federal Filing Cabinets. (NYT Bits)

On the Anonymity of Home/Work Location Pairs. (Schneier on Security)

Do People Care About Data Correlation?. (Kim Cameron’s Identity Blog)

Should I still have expectations of privacy in my “home”?

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

When are we going to stop using “physical” boundaries to determine where we should and shouldn’t have expectations of privacy?

Not any time soon, says the Wisconsin Appellate Court, which recently ruled:

“We discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant,” wrote Judge Paul Lundsten for the unanimous three-judge panel.”

(For what it’s worth, the New York State Court of Appeals recently went the other way.)

Seems like everything hangs on how you interpret the phrase “as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant.

I guess they just figure that GPS tracking is simply a less labor-intensive equivalent of “tailing” vehicles in an undercover cop car, which does not require a warrant. (The logic there is that a vehicle on public byways is in plain sight of anyone who wants to look.)

But “tracking” vehicles with a GPS device just feels different. For one, there’s no “looking” involved. The police simply “know” where you are. And they know regardless of whether you’re indoors or out, in private spaces or public spaces.

Really, we are all being tracked already by our cellphones, metrocards and Fastrak/EZPass devices. So maybe we just shouldn’t have an expectation of privacy anywhere (at least anywhere we can get a signal or until our batteries run out). Instead, we should “expect” that we’re being tracked all the time whether we’re in our homes or in the middle of Times Square.

If the courts are going to draw physical boundaries around expectations of privacy in the satellite/cellular/wireless age, they should draw them around areas with poor cell coverage and wireless service. In which case, the back of my basement is the money spot for me.

But really, I’d prefer it if the cops had to obtain a warrant before they could plant a GPS tracking device or access existing GPS data.

Tuesday in the Mix

Tuesday, May 12th, 2009

Just Landed: Processing, Twitter, MetaCarta & Hidden Data (blprnt)

Greece Puts Brakes on Street View (BBC)

Developer of AdBlock Plus Proposes a Fairer Approach to Ad Blocking (ReadWriteWeb)

What Does Access to Real World Data Online Make Possible? (ReadWriteWeb)

Data-Driven Healthcare

Monday, May 11th, 2009

The super-nerds in team Obama are turning their attention to the health care system. The leader in this drive, somewhat counterintuitively, is thought to be budget director Peter Orszag.

What makes Orszag’s vision so interesting is that it is utterly data-driven. In a time of negative growth and yawning deficits, Orszag believes it is possible to extend coverage to everyone and lower costs over all. The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza has a great profile of the man & his ambitions:

Orszag is convinced that rising federal health-care costs are the most important cause of long-term deficits. As a fellow at the Brookings Institution, he became obsessed with the findings of a research team at Dartmouth showing that some regions of the country spend far more money on health care than others but that patients in those high-spending areas don’t have better outcomes than those in regions that spend less money. If spending more on health care has no correlation with making people healthier, then there must be enormous savings that a smart government, by determining precisely which medical procedures are worth financing and which are not, could wring out of the system. “I spent several months in very intense study,” Orszag told me. “The reason that I wanted to go to C.B.O. was I thought that was one of the key bodies that could really delve into what we could do about it.”

Interestingly, when the Times’ David Leonhardt sat down with President Obama recently, Obama struck a similar note:

“if it turns out that doctors in Florida are spending 25 percent more on treating their patients as doctors in Minnesota, and the doctors in Minnesota are getting outcomes that are just as good — then us going down to Florida and pointing out that this is how folks in Minnesota are doing it and they seem to be getting pretty good outcomes, and are there particular reasons why you’re doing what you’re doing? — I think that conversation will ultimately yield some significant savings and some significant benefits.”

But the President goes a step further, bringing up the example of his grandmother, who had hip replacement surgery last summer, and died a few months later. Expensive procedures like these, which frequently occur at the end of life, are some of the biggest drivers of healthcare costs.

NYT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

Scary stuff, medical bills. The idea that better information can make health care cheaper is enticing but untested. We do know, however, that much of the cutting edge of medicine is super-expensive, precisely because it’s so advanced.

UPDATE: It seems like the healthcare industry is sufficiently frightened of having cost-cutting imposed on them to make some preemptive announcements that they’ll cut costs themselves.  Hmm…

Ack! Congress writing privacy policies?

Thursday, May 7th, 2009

It remains to be seen what actually get’s proposed. But, on first blush, it doesn’t feel right for Congress to be writing privacy policies for all the interwebs. But that appears to be what the Democratic Congressman from Virginia (Rick Boucher) is trying to do:Rick Boucher
‘If the site used its customer data for first-party purposes (i.e., the site itself advertising to its own customers), it would have to offer consumers an opt-out option. “The default position would be that the first-party marketing transaction could occur,” Boucher elaborated. “It would only be prevented if the affirmative step was taken to say, ‘no, you can’t do that.”

‘But if the customer information is going to be sent to “some completely unrelated party,” Boucher added, “not associated with the first-party transaction, that would fall under opt-in, and that information could then be shared with the other party only if the customer affirmatively took the step of saying ‘yes you can share it.’”

What would be the fallout of such legislation for you and me?

Every time I use Google without logging in (which is almost always), do I need to give permission for Google to collect data from me so they now what ads to serve up? What if I use the Google search bar in my browser? How would that work?

Since advertising is “core” to Google’s business, maybe collecting search query data would fall under “first-party purposes”, even though that data is shared with “third-party advertisers”.

It’s a sign of the times that even Congress is starting to worry about the fine print in privacy policies and we certainly laud attempts to cut through the obfuscation of privacy legalese.

Still, this binary opt-in/opt-out approach feels like a hatchet job where a scalpel is needed.

Or better yet, Congress should first focus on legislation that will create standards around currently wishy-washy concepts of “anonymization” and “personal information” that allow companies to violate the spirit of their own policies, if not the letter.

The Sincerest Form of Flattery

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

The 2009 Plagiarius Awards – honoring the most brazen violators of copyright law in consumer products – have been announced in Germany.

On the red carpet, a delightful procession of winning knockoffs next to their original twins. There’s a rolly black suitcase, originally made by a German company, and copied to near-perfection by a Chinese one…here are two toothed belt axes (huh?) whose only apparent difference is that one has a patch of red where the other is blue. Then there’s that jaunty green watering can, “Elise,” whose studied imitator was born in Hong Kong.

Since we don’t do this particular kind of public shaming in America, Businessweek interviews Plagiarius judge Doris Moeller:

How exactly did you judge these awards?

The jury [which also included several lawyers, professors, and journalists] looked at about 30 infringements. Products are included if the [counterfeiting] behavior is incredible, former employees are involved, or there are hints that the [plagiarist] got the information in an incorrect way. Each of the products in question has to be sold on the German market.

What are the repercussions of receiving an award?

There is a press conference that goes with the awards at which the companies are publicly blamed for bad behavior. That affords an opportunity to make issues like counterfeiting and piracy public. I think the media coverage really harms the producers hit by an award.

Perhaps no surprise: most of the copies originate in China or elsewhere in East Asia. But there’s a Canadian impersonator here, and a Greek one too.

Want to know more? Since 2007, Plagiarius has been exhibiting the best of the fakes at a museum in the small city of Solingen. Entry is 2 Euros for adults, but the photos of the museum are free of charge. So feast your eyes:

Plagiarius Museum

To, Er, Your Health. Yeah! Your Health!

Tuesday, April 7th, 2009

Truly, Hippocrates would be appalled. Physicians a) peddling phony diagnoses based on a bunk concept, and b) selling the personal information of unwitting “patients” to unscrupulous marketers.

Two of the country’s best-known doctors, Mehmet Oz and Michael Roizen, have been doing this with their RealAge test. The New York Times has the story:

Pharmaceutical companies pay RealAge to compile test results of RealAge members and send them marketing messages by e-mail. The drug companies can even use RealAge answers to find people who show symptoms of a disease — and begin sending them messages about it even before the people have received a diagnosis from their doctors.

So: like millions of other people who are insecure about getting older you waste valuable minutes of your life completing the 150-question form…You learn your “RealAge” (as opposed to your actual age? I’m 31!) and receive advice on staying healthy. Vitamins. Jogging. Whatever…And, oh yeah, if your personal medical information gets the attention of companies hawking heart medicine or acne treatments, you get targeted ads, tellling you your health could be at risk, but there’s a drug for it…

RealAge offers the Times this explanation of its business model.

“Our primary product is an e-mail newsletter series focused on the undiagnosed at-risk patient, so we know the risk factors if someone is prehypertensive, or for osteoarthritis,” said Andy Mikulak, the vice president for marketing at RealAge. “At the end of the day, if you want to reach males over 60 that are high blood pressure sufferers in northwest Buffalo with under $50,000 household income that also have a high risk of diabetes, you could,” he said.

One irony here is that many people probably take the RealAge test because of its holistic, wheatgrass-and-yoga image.

In the past couple weeks I’ve taken Facebook’s Which Crazy Bitch Are You? and Which President Are You? tests. Makes me wonder who might be interested in the fact that I would click on the option to “drive around all night with your boyfriend in the middle of nowhere, then wander around the desert all high on shrooms.” (I got Sylvia Plath.)

Peer Review

Monday, March 23rd, 2009

Crowdsourcing meets…patent law. Businessweek dissects the Peer-to-Patent Community Patent Review Pilot, a project of New York Law School.

[W]hy do many leading corporations support an initiative that appears designed to surface more information to challenge patent applications? In short, Peer-to-Patent offers the potential to deliver stronger, more litigation-proof patents in shorter time and lower cost. By increasing transparency at the outset and surfacing potential issues regarding prior art earlier, this process can preempt very costly litigation down the road. In an important way, Peer-to-Patent becomes a powerful insurance program to mitigate risk of patent challenges.

The hard work of slogging through “prior art” (earlier work that may be similar or relevant) is done by law students and volunteers. The project was recently re-upped and has the support of General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, and, critically, the U.S. Patent Office.

Who says government can’t innovate?