Implications for Life in a Time of Big Data

Executive Summary

Today much of the data (also referred to as information and knowledge) in Big Data comes from the living individual or the once living individual enmeshed in a living world environment. Today much of the scientific community and the human population at large see the earth and even the stars and space in general as an interconnected web of the living and the once living. In fact in life science and biology an emergent third state of individual living, not just human, is beginning to be articulated as dormant individual in addition to an alive or dead individual. The full implications of the dormant state of individual living is beyond the scope of the present Big Data work but will at every turn have an effect on the development and governance of Big Data.

It is fair to say that few developments in contemporary culture, technology and science reveal more about the intractable inter-connectivity of living individuals than Big Data. Big Data often shows how and how much individual life needs other life and that the inter-connectivity has an essential social aspect. This social inter-connectivity is the kernel of the ethical challenges and opportunities Big Data presents and that must be resolved.

Big Data for all its rapidity and volume today requires thoughtfulness, self-examination discipline in action and the development of new kinds of choices. A living individual’s very mutability is a primary source of its value but must not be the sourced for exploitation and inequity. It is for this reason that the benefits of the ownership, value and governance of a living subject’s data must be drawn out and studied in a time frame adequate to go beyond limited self-interest. Today this has created a situation where individual living data is treated as a natural resource where the first one that “captures” has a profound and apparent irreversible advantage. There is a kind of a stampede and gold rush underway to “mine” it, to possess and own it. All of this is happening before the data has given anything back to the living or shown the capacity to add value to living and in a way that is commensurate.

Many—but not all—of the conundrums of Big Data such as ownership, value and privacy are created a third party stampede and tussling over the possession of the individual subject’s data. Possession is not an appropriate measure of ownership once it has be taken from the original owner—the data subject be the third party a commercial enterprise, a government, a scientific endeavor, a clan.

Today in many sectors of our human community such as healthcare, financial services, education and government it is customary to assert—and not without reason—that more data about an individual subject will lead to better decisions about how to manage the business and innovation of that sector in profitable ways. In part this has led to competition to acquire more and more data about living subjects. In healthcare, for example, this often means that the most useful data is embodied in individual human behavior. Because most living is more or less individuated and the subject of the data, the problem of data privacy and governance is built into Big Data analytics and its usefulness. Certain key questions and concerns then are central to the aspirations and application of Big Data. The purpose of this White Paper is to flesh out these questions, concerns, solutions and aspiration as they impact on living individuals and communities of living individuals particularly in the un-and-underserved and a few primary archetypal uses cases.

At present among the key questions to be highlighted are—

What are the implications for life from an extractive and capturing approach to Big Data?

Is the Big Data Subject alive?

Can these questions and answering be built into the Big Data Analytics and Reference Architecture?

THE CHALLENGE

How to govern and value the data that is captured and/or collected in databases and other ICT systems so as to realize the wealth inherent in large stores of data. This white paper will demonstrate solutions on two emblematic use cases clusters, first the un-and-underserved and 3 primary archetypal use cases. (To be attached).

THE SOLUTION

The NIST Big Data Public Working Group practice guide <title> demonstrates how data scientists and citizens can instantiate NIST Big Data Reference Architecture (NBD-RA) to address the un-and-underserved, and 3 primary archetypal use case in the financial services, healthcare and nonprofit sectors.

This White Paper further demonstrates how the central questions and concerns including security, privacy, data governance, ownership and value can be addressed and supported throughout the governance of Big Data analytics lifecycle. This includes specifically how to interact with NBD-RA components – Big Data Definitions and Taxonomies, Big Data Governance including Provenance, Curation, Preservation and Processing, the Data Provider, Big Data Analytic Provider, Big Data Framework Provider, and Big Data Consumer and Big Data Subject’s Experience.

The guide:

Identifies key areas for innovation needed to sufficiently analyze the given dataset.
Identifies the use case characteristics needed to sufficiently govern and analyze the given dataset with (analytics algorithm.)

Maps un-and-underserved and primary archetype characteristics to Big Data Analytic Provider

<others…>

BENEFITS

<The white paper is based on an ethical approach and assumption that the benefits, including monetary from Big Data analysis need to be:

A: inclusive of all the living interests of the data subjects and stakeholders from which the benefits are drawn.

B: equitable to all the data subjects and stakeholders from which the benefits are draws.

C: should demonstrate through a metrics to be discussed in due course how the capacity for life and individual living is enhanced by and through the collection, development, analysis and governance of the data.

1 Introduction

1.1 Goals , Methods, Models, Dilemmas and Opportunities for Life

<Goals statement Big Data Goals for Life — Survival?

Today the world store of human life has grown greatly. It is not clear that any other form of life has increased as rapidly, except perhaps the microbes and other life that cohabitates on/in human life. This increase has brought with it many concurrent and emergent problems and opportunities for life, not only human but all life. These problems and opportunities have simultaneously brought to bear the limits of our creative capabilities in understanding human survival and the survival of life. Someones of us have yelled fire, and millions of people and their technology are looking for answers and understanding. Generally speaking this development is a good thing; on some level every life wants to survive and even flourish and thrive. The question and the context then becomes; Is our collective effort of gathering knowledge—data and information for the survival of life?

For now it is important not to be distracted nor to make too much of the differences in terminology here of data, information and knowledge, as if in our case, data is something fundamentally different from information and knowledge. It is not. It may be reasonable to point out that data and information are kinds of knowledge and/or contexts of knowledge without inferring that these contextual differences are greater than the common ground of knowledge. We could claim our subject to be Big Knowledge or Big Information. For now Big Data may suffice.

Implicit

For Whom

For What

For When

Principles

Projected

For Whom

For What

For When

Principles >

1.2 Approach

< Living Methods and Models

The Role of Thinking

The Role of Reflection

The Role of Metaphor and Mapping

The Role of Security

The Role of Privacy …Approach description >

1.2.1 Technologies Used

1.3 Benefits

Privacy in a time of Big Data

Privacy in a Time of Big Data

Ann Racuya-Robbins

The emergence and existence of Big Data technologies and techniques have scoped the challenge of insuring privacy in contemporary life. It is fair to say that there is an inverse relationship, roughly speaking, between big data and privacy. That is as data scales up privacy challenges become more grave. The factors pressuring big data to scale, to get bigger, faster… are powerful including a hoped for competitive edge and speed and cost reduction of analytics to acquire these competitive edges under the name patterns. While the term patterns has gained currency in the field the term’s meaning is not so well understood. It is important to state clearly that the patterns that are sought are themselves data that contain or create an advantage. Understanding is itself an advantage. By advantage is meant largely a competitive commercial monetary advantage by a third party other than the data subject.

Privacy is a subject of individual life and living.

Privacy is an expression of biologic specificity. Privacy properly ensured and governed preserves innovation, creativity and living development. In this way privacy is a key ingredient of survival and successful maturation. The pervasion of data that has thrown open the loss of privacy carried in computer and ICT infrastructures is a relatively new phenomenon. The concern for privacy is a recognition of the broadening value of all individual life. A recognition of the dignity and richness of every life. A recognition that individual life is not rightly an object or property of another.

Privacy cannot be reduced to personal information i.e. name, address and/or other factuals. PII is an obsolete moniker for our subject.

Let us stipulate that we will in this first instance be referring to living individual adults. Living has many stages and forms that must to be addressed later.

Privacy is—living individual’s control over and freedom and refuge from data collection, capture, extraction, surveillance, analytics, predictions, excessive persuasive practices and communication of the living individual’s life, including external or internal bodily functions, creations, conditions, behavior, social, political, familial and intimate interaction including mental, neural and microbial functioning—unless sanctioned by civil and criminal law and when sanctioned only under protocols where the ways and means of collection, capture, extraction, surveillance, analytics and communication including new methods to emerge are governed by appropriate social cooperation principles and safeguards embedded in ICT infrastructures and architectures overseen by democratic courts and civil and community organizations and individuals peers charged with insuring proper conduct.

Living individuals own the data generated by or from their lives. Should revenues be generated from the collection, capture, extraction, surveillance, analytics and communication of the living individual’s data the majority of revenue generated from the living individual’s life belong to the living individual. Data ownership, provenance, curation, governance as well as the consequences of violations of privacy practices must be encapsulated in or within the data, be auditable and travel in encrypted form with the data. Where possible block chain techniques shall be employed as well as counterfactual strategies (processes) in engineering privacy.

Provenance is an accounting of the history of data in an ICT setting.

Next Steps

Define further Data Governance, Data Provenance, Data Curation, Data Valuation. Integrate the principles and practices outlined above into an archetypal Privacy Use Case(s) and articulate the Privacy Use Case as it proceeds through the reference architecture.

Characteristics of Trust in a Time of Big Data

Implications for Life in a Time of Big Data
Goals, Methods and Models, Dilemmas and Opportunities
Ann Racuya-Robbins
February 20160229 —Spring 2016
1. Big Data Goals for Life — Survival?
Today the world store of human life has grown greatly. It is not clear that any other form of life has increased as rapidly, except perhaps the microbes and other life that cohabitates on/in human life. This increase has brought with it many concurrent and emergent problems and opportunities for life, not only human but all life. These problems and opportunities have simultaneously brought to bear the limits of our creative capabilities in understanding human survival and the survival of life. Someones of us have yelled fire, and millions of people and their technology are looking for answers and understanding. Generally speaking this development is a good thing; on some level every life wants to survive and even flourish and thrive. The question and the context then becomes; Is our collective effort of gathering knowledge—data and information for the survival of life?
For now it is important not to be distracted nor to make too much of the differences in terminology here of data, information and knowledge, as if in our case, data is something fundamentally different from information and knowledge. It is not. It may be reasonable to point out that data and information are kinds of knowledge and/or contexts of knowledge without inferring that these contextual differences are greater than the common ground of knowledge. We could claim our subject to be Big Knowledge or Big Information. For now Big Data may suffice. Later there will be time and effort applied to pinning the technological details of our project.
What makes data, knowledge or information Big? A hundred years hence?
What makes data Big Data? This is a second motive for our work here. To be sure one cause is simply the increase in human life population. This increase has created an increase in the volume of knowledge from data collected. This is the first characteristic identified in the NBDPWG Volume One Definitions. Because the data/information/knowledge comes largely from and in association with life it is full of variety another characteristic of Big Data. Life is at every instance various and significant, unique and changeable. Variety is a form of knowledge that changes over time. Knowledge of life that changes over time can be a picture, a life pattern. Highly detailed life patterns that change over time identify and are in aspects individual lives. Because of the volume and variety of knowledge from data there is both an apparent and real need for speed and velocity to understand this volume and variety. This apparent and real need for speed and velocity is both an intuitive and practical pressure being placed on technology to manage Bigness. Of course bigness is a relative and changeable term. More on this later. For today it might be more precise to say that human life is trying to find a strategy and technology for bringing together in an intelligible way differences in the speed and velocity of knowledge creation.

Implicit
For Whom
For What
For When
Principles
Projected
For Whom
For What
For When
Principles

2. Living Methods and Models
The Role of Thinking
The Role of Reflection
The Role of Metaphor
and Mapping
The Role Security
The Role of Privacy

3. Dilemmas and Opportunities for Life
Concurrency, Simultaneity, Parallelism and the Scientific Method
Uncertainty
Is it obsolete as an organizing principle?
Provenance
What history? From when?
Ownership
Orchestration and Orchestrator
Governance and Government
Emergence
PII

Human Capability and Human Trust

Human Capability and the Future of the Human Trust Experience

Did you see the example I contributed in response to Andrew’s question along the same lines. I have copied it below?

Last week I also suggested a process along with others for engaging a larger community for input.

Here are some other proposals:
A bit of taxonomy work on the wiki to collect more input around the core concepts of human capabilities, human attributes and personal information targeted to align with the Identity Ecosystem Framework IDEF dashboard. This could be done or not by a subgroup and should include outreach for input. This discussion should weight the fact that “personal information” has lost much of its meaning because it continues to be defined too narrowly and is perpetually playing catch up to changes in information systems, business practice and well, human capability. So to say we are dedicated to protecting personal information does not inspire much trust. This work could well be a trans-committee kind of work.

I have a proposal moving forward here and elsewhere on a Memorandum of Social Cooperation which operationalizes the

human capability approach beginning at Registration. One of the distinguishing features of the Memorandum of Social Cooperation is that it discusses the responsibilities of all parties in an IDEF transaction, not solely the providers’ responsibilities. I am mindful that HIPPA requirements begin at Registration and we might well look to aspects of HIPPA for Memorandum implementation. I believe there may be technical solutions aligned with these ideas and of course that is welcome.

Ryan you said “I would suggest that a requirement for encrypting audit and security logs would be well within the scope of what I have described—as long as the owner of those audit and security logs executes a function supporting the described transaction.” Excellent idea and the right direction forward in my view.

If we can voluntarily agree on ”what we are trying to protect” that is better than having to mandate compliance.

On Registration: you said “However, if you signed up to have a booklet
of coupons delivered to your house using an online form, that would currently be out of scope for
what we are considering.” Please elaborate why this is out of scope?

I will be providing alternative language to you “target statement” in another email.

My earlier example.
“Human capabilities are sometimes described as functions. More generally human capabilities refers to things a person can do, how a person can act.

For example, speaking (speech) is a human capability. When, by what means, how long, the pitch of the person’s voice, how loud a person speaks, where a person spoke from, whether a person used sign language… are human attributes that arise from the human capability to speak. Because human capabilities are dynamic and expanding so too human attributes are dynamic and expanding. In cyberspace and online environments human capabilities and the human attributes they create is a dynamic and expanding kind of information.
To protect this human capability, for example, American democracy created a right to free speech (with some provisos) which covers more or less all the human attributes that arise from speaking. For this reason we don’t have a right to speak limited to a device. So for example we don’t have a human right to speak limited to speaking on a telephone. This would limit and discourage the dynamic and expanding human function of speech. If a third party takes the human attributes created by a human capability and uses it to make money we would consider that an appropriation and a violation of copyright.

In cyberspace, online environments and information systems we draw on privacy provisions to protect the human capability and human attributes of speech.

In America there is general agreement (consensus if you will) that limiting the right to speak or appropriating speech erodes social cooperation in a society.

Regards,

Ann Racuya-Robbins”