Whilst the difficulties are noticeable within on-line forums of all
types in maintaining the focus/purpose, (my interpretation of your
different intentions comment) it has seemed to me that the majority of
people do try to maintain focus. It appears rather that any
diluting/distracting comments more often come out of factors perceived
to have an influence upon the subject under discussion/being taught
which can cause other threads of discussion if sufficient rigor of
understanding is not maintained by everybody involved. The use of those
more diverse factors seems to assist in understanding but equally may
frequently be seen as diverting from the original objective rather than
building upon a broader understanding of the actual subject. This seems
especially so when a sufficiently close link is not made or immediately
visible to everybody involved and during more protracted discussions.
These factors have never been restricted to, or arisen from, the on-
line environment though as they did exist before.
Strict adherence to
any subject, such as the DPA, whilst undoubtedly resulting in a fuller
technical understanding of the law covering that area may result in a
less rounded view of the emotional content data subjects themselves
apply to their data. Google’s defensive attitude seems to me to
largely follow a strict adherence principle (their principles) creating
frequent clashes within peoples emotions and becoming unacceptable, but
as emotions are rarely legally recognized Google are in a stronger
legal position even though moral and political difficulties from their
global business presence become excruciatingly visible. Exactly the
same difficulties arise out of many DPA decisions.
Are those
difficulties caused solely by considerations of
organisational/commercial imperatives, or something different? If so
what?
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those
interested in Data Protection issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]
AC.UK] On Behalf Of Brunella Longo
Sent: 24 April 2013 14:01
To: data-
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [data-protection] Recording of
lessons
Ages ago, I allowed for a participant 'observer' to join
interactive webinars and online forums, with the agreement that no
recording would be taken, for a simalr purpose (assessment of
methodologies by an institution). This purpose was clearly
communicated to other attendees and it was not considered particularly
intrusive also because the observer took an active role (so that the
behaviour was absolutely transparent).
I regret that decision because
the idea was very rapidly copied by others who had similar formal
authority and obvious legitimate possibility to join the classes, but
very different intentions. I think I might have written about these
problems (as early examples of unregulated and disruptive unfair
competition within online environments not so far from other cyber
criminal behaviours after all) in a paper ('The Missing Business Case:
Rise and Fall of an Information Literacy Training Programme', self
archived at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2186911carefully censored from
the Library Trends special issue for which it had been agreed and not
even indexed by Google apparently).
Unfortunately, respect for any
agreement you make within online environments where people work and
communicate remotely cannot be really controlled / enforced at
present.
Technologies of collaboration or e-learning platforms do
not give you any guarantee so far that somebody does not exploit the
medium beyond your direct or indirect surveillance, spying or simple
aggressive lurking and futile video recording mania.
So the
conclusion is, from a legal point of view and DP implications, that
even when you are not 'neutral', because you are supervising or
delivering online lessons (and that is the core of the service you have
agreed to provide to customers), your actual possibilities to be really
in control of the way in which the content and the interactions are
used are very limited. Therefore neutrality seems to be not an option
but a starting point for the regulators as well as for other actors.
I interpreted (and found accettable only because of such reasoning) in
this direction the recent decision of the high court in Italy to free
Google directors accused to allow sharing of videos insulting a down
syndrom individual - although it was evident that they were perfectly
aware of what they themselves were publishing at the time. But accusing
them of intentional exploiting conduct aimed at rising click through
and audience shares would constitute an unbearable precedent.
Brunella Longo
Information Management Adviser
http://www.brunellalongo.co.uk
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
Any queries about sending or receiving messages please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
Full help Desk - please email [log in to unmask] describing your needs
To receive these emails in HTML format send the command:
SET data-protection HTML to [log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
