↓ Skip to main content

Criminal Prohibition of Wrongful Re‑identification: Legal Solution or Minefield for Big Data?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
27 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Criminal Prohibition of Wrongful Re‑identification: Legal Solution or Minefield for Big Data?
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11673-017-9806-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark Phillips, Edward S. Dove, Bartha M. Knoppers

Abstract

The collapse of confidence in anonymization (sometimes also known as de-identification) as a robust approach for preserving the privacy of personal data has incited an outpouring of new approaches that aim to fill the resulting trifecta of technical, organizational, and regulatory privacy gaps left in its wake. In the latter category, and in large part due to the growth of Big Data-driven biomedical research, falls a growing chorus of calls for criminal and penal offences to sanction wrongful re-identification of "anonymized" data. This chorus cuts across the fault lines of polarized privacy law scholarship that at times seems to advocate privacy protection at the expense of Big Data research or vice versa. Focusing on Big Data in the context of biomedicine, this article surveys the approaches that criminal or penal law might take toward wrongful re-identification of health data. It contextualizes the strategies within their respective legal regimes as well as in relation to emerging privacy debates focusing on personal data use and data linkage and assesses the relative merit of criminalization. We conclude that this approach suffers from several flaws and that alternative social and legal strategies to deter wrongful re-identification may be preferable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 20%
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Other 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 13 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 13%
Computer Science 7 11%
Engineering 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 17 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,554,631
of 25,292,646 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#63
of 661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,949
of 322,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,646 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,163 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.