ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesPrivacy

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Sensitive Data can be Shared (Michael Martin | 2014)0

Posted by Admin in on August 9, 2018
 

A discussion of the legal and ethical context of publishing and sharing sensitive data with two experts who contributed to the ANDS Guide to Publishing & Sharing Sensitive Data.

Provides practical advice about sharing human data as part of ethical research practice (YouTube, 40 min) Baden Appleyard, Barrister, also offers insight into legal requirements.

Martin, M (2014) Sensitive Data can be Shared.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopQez8P-lU&feature=youtu.be

Ethical conduct in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and communities0

Posted by Admin in on August 2, 2018
 

In general, ethics guidelines provide a set of principles to ensure research is safe, respectful, responsible, high quality, of benefit to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities and of benefit to research. Ethical conduct in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and communities: Guidelines for researchers and stakeholders 2018 (the Guidelines) defines six core values — spirit and integrity, cultural continuity, equity, reciprocity, respect, and responsibility. Applying these values and other ethical principles will ensure that research conducted with or for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities, or their data or biological samples, is ethically conducted. 

The Guidelines are intended for use by researchers and ethics review bodies, such as Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, individual research participants, participant groups, the wider community and other stakeholders may also find the Guidelines useful. 

Advice about how to use the Guidelines is provided on page 13. This includes information about Keeping research on track II 2018, which describes how the values and principles in the Guidelines can be put into practice. Additional principles and concepts relevant to research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and communities are set out on pages 15 to 19. Key terms, a glossary and a list of further resources are also provided. More information about the Guidelines is available on NHMRC’s website.

Read the rest of these  guidelines

(Australia) Face off: technology leaves regulators scrambling – Crickey (Elise Thomas | July 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on July 29, 2018
 

From airline lounges to cricket matches, our faces are already being read everywhere. But what’s protecting us from misuse of that data?

If you feel like facial recognition technology is suddenly everywhere you look — or rather, facial recognition is everywhere looking at you — you’re not alone. Not only do many of us carry the technology with us everywhere on our smartphones, it’s also increasingly present in the spaces we move through and the interactions we have in our daily lives, whether we know it or not.

(Crickey is a subscription web site, but there is a free trial you can use to access this item.) The reported circumstances raise significant consent and privacy questions, with the glum certainty the trials are unlikely to have gone anywhere near a research ethics committee.

Most people walking into the public library in Toowoomba last year, for example, were probably not aware that they were taking part in a controversial trial of facial recognition technology by the local council. Likewise the 45,000 visitors to the SCG for the final Ashes test this year were probably mostly unaware that their faces were being run through newly installed facial recognition cameras.
.

Certain people walking around the streets of the Northern Territory in 2015, on the other hand, suddenly found themselves very aware of facial recognition when police used the technology to identify 300 wanted individuals via CCTV footage.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

The Ethics of Research on Leaked Data: Ashley Madison – Discover (Neuroskeptic | July 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on July 22, 2018
 

A paper just published reports that Republicans are more likely to have used the adultery website Ashley Madison than Democrats, while Libertarians were even more likely to do so.

Institutional and national research ethics review arrangements often exempt data that is already on the public record. Are you local arrangements nuanced enough to treat hacked and leaked data differently? An observation about the Ashley Madison data, which has been made before, is that while it’s a huge set of international data set in an area where data is notoriously hard to collect (infidelity) it actually has numerous flaws that probably makes it useless. We’ve included links to nine related items.

That’s a claim that could ruffle some feathers, but the way in which the researchers conducted this study might be even more controversial. That’s because this paper is based on the 2015 Ashley Madison data leak, which exposed the personal data, including names and credit-card details, of millions of registered users.
.
For this study, the authors, Kodi B. Arfer and Jason J. Jones, took the leaked data and matched it up against voter registration records for five U.S. states. They considered a voter to be an active Ashley Madison user if they had ever paid money to the website. About 1 in 500 voters met these criteria.
.
Those voters registered as Libertarians were most likely to be active users, even controlling for age, gender and state. Registered Republicans came next and Democrats were least likely.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0