User:GibsOfficial/sandbox

== Information privacy - Article Critique ==
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * To my understanding, not everything is referenced. First off, the first sentence is not cited which come directly from a book. The topic about “Financial” is not at all cited within the entire paragraph. Also, the “Political” topic is not cited either. Further, when the article touches upon the Safe Harbor Program the two paragraphs stating, “The Safe Harbor program addresses the issue...” and “…heard by a panel of EU privacy regulators” simply have two citations within a total of seven informative and factual information. Nevertheless, according to the references that I went back to they seemed to be reliable.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * The very last sentence of the "Medical" topic, to my understanding, has nothing to do with what it was talking about beforehand. Further, the article goes into an entire tangent about the Safe Harbor program which seems as if it is not relevant to the previous material presented.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article seems fairly neutral but does present a few instances where the claims seem to be bias. For example within the beginning it states that it is important to be cautious, which may be true, but perhaps not the most appropriate statement within a neutral article. Further the statement, "Location data is among the most sensitive data currently being collected" seems to not be so neutral because for one it is not cited and secondly, this statement is relative or subjective. Lastly, the article may be biased towards an American/European view which can be helpful within a national level but perhaps not for an objective article.
 * Where does this information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Looking back at the references, there are indications of cites used such as .org/.gov and some instances of use of academic journals. However, there is a lack of academic based articles overall that have been peer reviewed. Also, some particular links redirect me to weird patent links or pop ups as well. Therefore, there are some references that are useful and neutral but at the same time there may be information that is not able to be tracked.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
 * The topic that is heavily represented is the Safe Harbor program topic. Meanwhile there is an underrepresentation of the topics about Legality, and perhaps Political because it only focuses on the issue of voting. Importantly, the U.S/European viewpoint is heavily over represented. Further in terms of the writing the article presents a viewpoint that makes it seem as if we need to regulate policies to protect information instead of them simply laying out the facts.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is here any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
 * The links that do and do not work varies. Some links work while others do not. However, in terms of the first sentence that was not cited, the article made it clear that they plagiarized.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * The information given, according to the reference date, is mostly within the last 10 years while some 2010/13/15/16. However, some information does seem out of date, especially in terms of the internet and how important the role of social media may play in privacy issues.
 * The information given, according to the reference date, is mostly within the last 10 years while some 2010/13/15/16. However, some information does seem out of date, especially in terms of the internet and how important the role of social media may play in privacy issues.

Computer and network surveillance - Article Critique



 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * Since the start of the article the references were consistent and reliable. As opposed to the "Information privacy" article, this article was more factual and evidently provided a vast number of references throughout.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * I believe that the article had a good flow to it. It focused on seven different main topics but they seemed to be connected in some form to one another. I was not distracted or surprised by a particular section.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article did not have any bias claims. The claims that were made were backed up by a citation and reference that demonstrated where information came from.
 * Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * There did not seem to be bias within the article because it seemed more of an objective piece that defined different aspects of surveillance. However, some of the information comes from news sites and non-academic journals such as the New York Times, USA Today, The Guardian, precisely The Register and so on. But on the other hand there are academic journals (perhaps half) that are relevant and support the information of the article. Nevertheless, to me, the bias is not noted.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
 * I believe that each viewpoint is represented fairly equally especially given the way the article is set up and the points that are emphasized.
 * Check a few citation. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
 * Out of about 15 links that I clicked on only about 2 links did not work. Further, there have been many edits on the article which I believe make it so that after so many revisions there is less of a chance for plagiarism or close paraphrasing.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Information is continuously being updated; however, there is room for including more topics within this same article.

Potential Outline/ Sub-topic Ideas
FERPA

HIPAA

CMIA

Medical records and policies

Educational records and policies Student perspectives
 * Loco parentis
 * Learning analytics

Library Legal Implications
 * Social networks
 * Historically (1978)
 * Attitudes
 * Policy Assessment
 * Data and breaches

CONTROVERSIES ---

UC Berkeley Specific University of Oregon Harvard University Related Wikipedia Pages:
 * Mass surveillance during McCarthy era
 * Police within university structure
 * FERPA - privacy vs. articulable and imminent danger
 * sexual assault
 * discrimination of Asian American - breaching student data

Ø  Privacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy

Ø  Medical record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_record

Ø  Medical privacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_privacy

Ø  Learning analytics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_analytics

Ø  Data mining: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining

Ø  In loco parentis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

Ø  FERPA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Educational_Rights_and_Privacy_Act

Ø  American Library Association: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Library_Association

Ø  Information privacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_privacy

Ø  Student information system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_information_system

Ø  Privacy concerns with social networking services: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_concerns_with_social_networking_services

Annotated Bibliography
'''Davenport, Robin G. 2017. “The Integration of Health and Counseling Services on College Campuses: Is There a Risk in Maintaining Student Patients’ Privacy?” Journal of College Student Psychotherapy 31(4):268-280'''

Robin Davenport touches upon the subject of privacy and medical records. Davenport writes that there has been a move toward integrated care which intersects both the physical and mental health needs of patients. The college campus is central to the research such that disclosing important information to counselors is a touchy subject especially if there is lack of confidentially which can lead to college students falling behind in school. Davenport writes about the challenge such that there are advantages in having mental and physical information disclosed because that way a counseling issue may be connected to physical health or vice versa. Continuity care is a subject that is talked about as well which talks about physical needs moreso than counseling that allow doctors to keep patients information. Yet, there is a record-sharing controversy among both mental and physical health due to confidentiality and privacy especially when counselors are supposed to disclose information. Davenport talks about how medical providers are obligated to withhold confidential information due to their ethical duty and state privacy regulations. So, when confidentiality is compromised less people utilize therapy because they do not want to disclose information, especially if there is a stigma to college counseling. Thus, informed consent is super important and a need-to-know mandate for integrated centers is needed so that a mental/physical dual relationship can be formed so that mental health and medical providers can work together to provide better care of students in college.

The purpose of this paper is to show how mental and physical needs are attempting to come together so that college students are better served. Because it touches upon privacy it seems to be a good source to use under higher education and privacy. I can use it to make a sub-topic about higher education and privacy with medical records and how that may hinder student’s ability to seek help. The target audience may be other providers that try to integrate these two services in order to see what is happening and that they can do so but in manners that make sure that confidentiality is not comprised such that letting a patient know exactly what a consent form entails is crucial and to what extent they would like their information shared. This has added a medical aspect to my knowledge and has helped broaden the topic of higher education so that I can create sub-topics.

'''Ifenthaler, Dirk and Clara Schumacher. 2016. “Student perceptions of privacy principles for learning analytics.” Educational Technology Research & Development 64(5):923-938'''

Key terms: learning analytics, privacy, control over data, higher education

More data is becoming available within the institution of education that allow administration to learn more about students to implement forms of improving student’s success. Ifenthaler states that learning analytics should be in line with values of stakeholders that will be linked to ethical considerations. Privacy is defined. Learning analytics is described as “insights and responses to real-time learning processes” for educational purposes within digital, administrative and social platforms. Yet there are concerns for the application of learning analytics. Ifenthaler states that within the digital world many share personal information while others like to keep their information private. Yet, higher education has always used data of students to “inform their academic decision-making,” especially advanced digital technologies that collect real-time data while at the same time student’s perceptions on privacy are conservative. The importance of transparency is emphasized. What Ifenthaler is really going for is collecting empirical research that addresses the “usability, effectiveness, and validity of learning analytics systems” and touching upon privacy issues to find his answer. The results are that student’s evaluation of learning analytics varied but Ifenthaler concludes that students prefer it because it covers a broad variety of support. Through empirical research it shows the breakdown of how many students agree to share different kinds of data. He concludes that learning analytics helps get real time data for higher education learning processes. Yet the system may also hinder development of students. It is stated that procedures regulating access need to be conducted to get more comprehensive educational data. This is such because even when this information is available it still bay be biased, un-comprehensive and un-valid.

This article is useful is assessing the perspective that students have in regards to personal data being collected or what Ifenthaler calls learning analytics. This source would be useful for school administration or public policy people that see how information is being gathered in higher education and how it affects not only the way the school is or set up but also the students. This would allow me to touch upon the sub-topic of student perspectives of information within higher education. I can maybe search for more information about how schools use learning analytics to shape their curriculum and how students may have reacted due to their privacy being breached. Overall, this article would be useful to include for a sub-topic about the perspective that students have about how the educational institution collects data and what exactly it may collect, without student’s explicit consent. (Rubel article also touches upon learning analytics).

'''Dennen, Vanessa and Kerry Burner J. 2017. “Identity, context collapse, and Facebook use in higher education putting presence and privacy at odds.” Distance Education 38(2):173-192'''

Ø The study touches upon university student’s attitudes toward Facebook, primarily how they feel about social networks that shape their personal self and how this transcends in academics of how students interact with classmates and instructors. Dennen et al. do a survey to test out their hypothesis and research. They focus on habits, preferences, and beliefs that are related to identity, privacy, and context collapse. Yet importantly the social media platform that is being used is Facebook in order to find this information that related to students in higher education both in formal and informal contexts. Non-Facebook users were also taken into consideration and why they were avoiding Facebook. What was found is that Facebook is primarily used to interact with friends and family rather than instructors (formal setting). Thus, on Facebook students censor or block their information from instructors to avoid context collapse.

In the beginning brief information about what Facebook is and talk about social presence and identity in online environments. Then goes into explaining how Facebook is a social space and how context collapse is actively avoided. Two surveys. Overall, Dennen et al. highlight a “conundrum” of students and faculty who teach online. Thus, technology is used to create social presence through informal settings and is also used for formal settings by connecting student and instructors for academic purposes are used in different ways. They talk about social presence and interaction. Students prefer to be present in the classroom but have their social life private from formal settings that may compromise them later such as context collapse that may create confusion of who the person really is. Overall, the study attempts to capture student perspectives about using Facebook in higher education with regards to identity and context collapse.

This source is useful in learning about student perspectives within education and the social media world. It is interesting to learn about how Facebook and how a person presents themselves may have a big impact for students. This contributes information for a sub-topic about higher education + social media (Facebook) + perspective. It may help the previous annotation as well that also talks about student’s perspectives. Overall, it seems useful and like a good resource to further my research.

'''White, Britton. 2007. “Students Rights: From In Loco Parentis to Sine Parentibus and Back Again? Understanding the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act in Higher Education.” Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal (2):321-350'''

This article talks about how there has been a shift from in loco parentis which is “in place of the parent” to sine parentibus which is “without parents” back to loco parentis. This shift is part one of the article. White talks about how this shift has been influenced by court decisions such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act which deals with the student education records and what can and cannot be disclosed. Thus shifting back to loco parentis means that within higher education the institutions themselves have almost all power to disclose information about students, primarily to parents. This means that college authorities stand in place of parents (323). White talks about three eras within this shifting: 1) 1919-1960, 2) 1960-1980’s, 3) 1980-present. Part two of the article focuses on the historical background of loco parentis primarily within higher education and also talks about FERPA and the relationship of students, parents, and the colleges themselves. Within this section the article states that the Act is supposed to enhance student achievement through greater parent involvement and protecting the privacy interests (332). Part three talks about what FERPA does, such that it was enacted in 1974, and the concerns related to educational records (335) and what can be done to remedy privacy (338) breaches. Further, the article talks about exceptions and how documents related to law enforcement (342) may be disclosed to parents (344) due to health or safety emergencies (343). Part four talks about the ability to inform parents about alcohol and drug related incidents at any time if they are under 21 even though loco parentis means that the school has acted as the parent within higher education (348). Part five offers an insight to the future such that there may be “systematic disclosure policies” that can go out of control which may harm student rights (348). Overall, there is a search for a healthy balance of what can be disclosed and what remains confidential in relation to students in higher education.

This is a useful source because it touches upon an important act (FERPA) that affects education which adds to the existing information of FERPA within the article but in the higher education section. The source is objective and seems to be reliable. The targeted audience seems to be for more academically inclined people who perhaps are interested in educational policies and privacy issues. This article provided a legal perspective to privacy and higher education and may allow me to use it as a form to show that privacy is something that is trying to be enforced within FERPA but at the same time offers exceptions that may negatively impact students. Overall, it shows how legal restrictions even led privacy to be compromised.

'''Zimmer, Michael. 2014. “Librarians’ Attitudes Regarding Information and Internet Privacy.” The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy 84(2):123-151'''

This article focuses on information gathered from surveys that sought to measure the views on privacy rights that librarians have in protecting library users’ privacy. Typically, the library itself aims to protect user’s information regarding what they do (activity) when they use technology. Thus they intend to protect privacy and confidentiality (123). It aims to build upon existing data that will help advocates learn about privacy in the U.S. and what the role of libraries may have or already. Also, Zimmer talks about Library 2.0 tools and services that has been created to enhance user’s activities but at the same it tracks, collects and retains data – which may affect individuals especially since the recent dominance of social media (124). Thus, the surveys were conducted by the Office for Intellectual Freedom which obtained over 1,000 responses by librarians and library professionals. The common consensus according to Zimmer is that the Library Bill of Rights entails that everyone is entitled to “freedom of access, freedom to read texts and view images, and freedom of thought and expression,” which means and points out to the fact that privacy is crucial (125). Thus, the article finds through surveys that there is a huge concern about privacy due to information of its library users being obtained outside of legal restrictions. Further, about 95 percent agree or strongly agree that individuals should control their personal information and many agree that there are threats to privacy (130). Because of this, Zimmer points out that librarians and libraries take their own initiative in protecting user’s information by destroying access logs daily, posting warning signs, and teaching users about privacy issues (126). Further, the article emphasizes on the idea of perceptions of shift of privacy since 2008. Overall, the study finds that librarians and information professionals are concerned over privacy. As a call to action, Zimmer ends by talking about future advocacy and what can be done by the American Library Association and other educational groups to work on this issue of privacy.

Overall, the article does not specifically talk about higher education but seems to be a useful source in my overall research. It provides many references in the bibliography that point to its credibility as well. I would recommend this article to others, perhaps librarians so they can see other’s perceptions and maybe show that there are issues in privacy within libraries especially if this issue may not be known. The targeted audience may be government related people and again policy people that intent to change regulations about privacy. Furthermore, this article has allowed me to see a different perspective of privacy within the library sector which is something I had never really thought about. I may use this within higher education in the sense that libraries themselves may leave traces of information that other external groups may access which points to privacy issues within sub-sections of the overall higher education structure. In short, I may use this as a sub-topic under higher education and privacy.

'''Voeller, Stacy. 2007. “Privacy Policy Assessment for the Livingston Lord Library At Minnesota State University Moorhead.” Library Philosophy and Practice 1-29'''

This article focuses on the mission of the Livingston Lord Library (LLL) of Minnesota State University that is to support both cultural and academic experiences of all involved such as students, faculty, and citizens of the particular region in order to promote and encourage life-long learning. Thus, this particular library provides resources that allows individuals to enhance their knowledge and skills. Voeller also include the American Library Association (ALA) to ensure that it believes in confidentiality such that people can exercise their first amendment right. A historical context is provided that writes about how privacy is regarded as a fundamental right according to the Library Bill of Rights and the Librarian’s Code of Ethics (2). Different definitions of privacy are also included by various sources. Also, Voeller talks about the adoption of the Privacy Act of 1974 which illuminates a federal level action while also touching upon non-governmental acts (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the Credit Reporting Act) that all limit the information that can be collected due to their belief in privacy of sensitive information (3). Voeller continues on and talks about the history of privacy at the Livingston Lord Library and how there is no specific documented history of the idea of privacy yet it does touch upon how the PATRIOT Act potentially violates six of ten original Bill of Rights. Then there is a section about Literature Review that just provides background of how librarians make an effort to ensure confidentiality/privacy by protecting its users. There is a section about current privacy policies as well as a section about the survey of Illinois Libraries in 2003 and an ALA Commissioned Survey in 2005 which show that many libraries are not following the model created by ALA.

Ø The article, as the previous one, talk about privacy in the library setting. It provides a wide range of sources that I believe I could use along with this article. Once again the source is useful for policy and governmental related people to show how privacy is being compromised and possibly what can be done since librarians themselves are taking action. The article itself it no hard to read but it does include information such as Acts that require a bit of knowledge or further research. Overall, this article helps by providing more information to the privacy and library information sub-topic that further illuminated privacy issues in higher education.

'''Beaudin, Katie. 2017. “The Legal Implications of Storing Student Data: Preparing for and Responding to Data Breaches.” New Directions for Institutional Research 172:37-48'''

Key terms: FERPA, HIPAA, IR, data management, breaches, third-party vendors, California, New York, hacking, physical theft, and employees.

The overall importance of the writing is that is shows how there are threats the institutional research (IR) professionals face when they store and manage data within the regulatory structure that controls data management. Beaudin talks about how vast amounts of data is being collected and points out to the fact that as of 2005 there has been over 30 data breaches. She not only mentions FERPA but also the HIPAA. The first section talks about institutions need to understand these issues and to perhaps choose to secure and manage data onsite (38). Then Beaudin talks about how data breaches occur in the first place and introduced reasons such as hacking, physical theft, and vendors. She then focuses on the regulation of higher education data by focuses on particular states such as California and New York. Third, she proceeds to talk about how some institutions decide to manage, store and process data onsite. This is done by talking the steps that can be taken in order to see who can be trusted to regulate this information in order to keep data private and not accessible to all employees. Thus there is an emphasis on keeping data to a minimum. She also talks about investing in educating employees about how to use and what they cannot/can do with data. Lastly, within this section, she states that institutions should use the resources that are available in order to most effectively implement policies and procedures. The fourth section involves advice on exercising caution when choosing third-party vendors to help with data. She states that the contract should define who exactly who will be working with data, the contract should establish the notion that the data is sensitive and thus should be handled with care, that the contract establishes security procedures and that it should describe the exact responsibility of the vendor just in case data is to be breached. Nevertheless, regular checkups should be in place. In the end Beaudin advises that research professions should understand that data breaches happen but that it is better to take steps to prevent them in the first place by taking preventative measures and policies that ensure the security of data.

Ø This section seems to be a useful source in outlining the different forms data is breached as well as preventative measures that can be taken in order to protect data. This is an academic source (from book?) and the purpose is to illuminate legal student data implications. The piece is theoretical as it does not include many facts but rather knowledge that explains and offers insights. Within my article I can use this as a sub-section that talks about the offered advice to take when trying to secure data and keep it private. I can use this information to talk about privacy in higher education and how there are steps being taken to prevent breaches and then talk more about breaching (link with other Wikipedia perhaps).

'''Grayson, Lawrence P. 1978. “Education, Technology, and Individual Privacy.” Educational Communication and Technology 26(3):195-206'''

Ø  Key words: privacy, modern technology, education, legislation, motives, values and behaviors, educational experimentation, safeguard

Ø  Grayson begins by stating that the right to privacy is one that should value the individual as having worth. He goes into how modern technology has advanced and how this may have effects on the technology which can be negative. As technology advances privacy is more susceptible to be breached and threatened (as he talks in the context of students). Yet he talks about how there have not been many violations warranted to urge legislation to do something and hence shift their attention to measures and procedures that protects privacy in education but more importantly individual privacy. He also goes into how technology itself can be a source to uncover thoughts, motives, behaviors, values that specific individuals can have access to. Thus he points to the idea that technology through internet can uncover much information that allows us to understand certain phenomena. Yet he says that only qualified professionals have access to this and yet I can use other articles to explain that it is not just professionals that have access but also hackers, vendors, and others can go into the systems and extract data as well. Overall, he points to the fact that within education there are individuals which are susceptible to have their information breaches. Thus the role of education is to safeguard individuals, primarily the institution of education to safeguard itself students to ensure their privacy as well as their families.

Ø  This article is definitely academic and the first thing to point out is that it was written in the late 1970’s which is a red flag perhaps when talking about modern technology because technology has evolved so much since then. Nevertheless, this article can be used to perhaps show a historical perspective or even to show how event though it has been about 40 years the perceptions that writers hold about how student privacy is essential and how technology may negatively affect this is similar. Thus, through this reliable information I can use it as perhaps a sub-section to illustrate that historically the perceptions were same but a bit different as they used older forms of technology and compare that with this era’s perceptions and just show how they are similar despite time. This has helped me see that privacy issues in regards to technology is not a new thing which intrigues me to find out when it really began to unravel (but there are many different opinions and ideas about this).

'''Slade, Sharon and Paul Prinsloo. 2013. “Learning Analytics: Ethical Issues and Dilemmas.” American Behavioral Scientist 57(10):1510-1529'''

Ø Key words: ethics, framework, higher education, learning analytics

Ø According to Slade and Prinsloo, learning analytics has enabled higher education to learn more from their students’ learning needs in order to influence their learning and progression. Learning analytics is defined as the focus on “students and their learning behaviors, gathering data from course management and student information systems in order to improve student success.” It is collecting, analyzing, using, and disseminating student-generated data in order to create “appropriate cognitive, administrative, and effective support for learners.” Learning analytics has the ability to serve learning, especially when focusing on analysis and data in forms that not include students as “passive producers of data.” Inherently, the idea is that learning analytics benefits students, the instructors and the educational provider yet there are some ethical challenges. It is not as simple as saying that learning analytics will benefit students and thus increase success and retention rates. Instead, ethical issues such as “location and interpretation of data; informed consent, privacy, and de-identification of data; and classification and management of data.” These issues are also found in the health sector, human resource management and homeland security. The authors emphasize the role of “power, the impact of surveillance, the need for transparency, and an acknowledgement that student identity is transient, temporal, and context-bound construct.” Learning analytics is understood through power related among students, higher education institutions and other stakeholders. They talk about FERPA and how it focuses on how information is used outside an institution rather than within the institution such that they make the case that there should be a “reciprocal sharing” of knowledge between students and those who deliver information. Further, there is an increase in surveillance, syncopation (many watch the few), where then the teaching and learning environment is disrupted.

Ø In terms of location and interpretation of data, a point is made that student information is distributed to various different sites that have different “standards, owners, and levels of access.” Through this interpretation of data may be biased, especially if there is incomplete data, and thus determine and limit how institutions behave and react to students through oversimplification as well. Second, although students learn more about data mining they are not equally aware to the extent that this occurs within education. Yet, there is a broad acceptance of student surveillance that include “logging educational activities” while online privacy as a norm is questioned. Third, there is an issue within the classification of data – of which information is placed in appropriate locations that allow access to only certain people through regulations which leads to the issue of managing data. Fourth, there is an issue that views do not take into account student identity’s as transient construct such that it is important to keep in mind the temporality of data that can be appropriate to a specific group in a specific time and place but not to others. Thus the authors provide possible solutions to create a comprehensive understanding of data by using learning analytics as a moral practice to understand rather than simply measuring.

Ø This article is highly important and useful. It includes an extensive list of citations at the end but most importantly touches upon the subject of learning analytics, what it is, the ethical issues and what can be done. The targeted audience may be school officials or administration to show possible solutions for the betterment of learning analytics. This helped put learning analytics in perspective on top of what I have already read. It provided a more holistic view. Will definitely use in learning analytics section.

Caruso, Lawrence ___“Privacy of Students and Confidentiality of Student Records”___

Ø Key words: privacy, confidentiality, tort law, trade secrets, patient, physician

Ø This article talks about the difference between privacy and confidentiality through a legal perspective. Caruso states that privacy is a more legal concept that confidentiality. Right of privacy is defined as the “right of a person to withhold himself and his property from public scrutiny if he so chooses.” It entails the right of an individual to be let alone and protected and that it is a right that every individual has. In terms of university, they do not have the right to pry into its’ student’s personal affairs or reveal student information unless there is an explicit valid reason to do so. Yet the law permits universities to obtain information from students, under the proper circumstances and under "logical and reasonably substantial relevance” to the university. The university can obtain significant data as long as permission is given, followed by a signature, meanwhile the university is to be careful and not assume that the student signed to waive all their information or give up their right to privacy “in toto.” Examples of Vassar College and Notre Dame case. On the other hand, information such as student discipline are public record (arrests, convictions) but at the same time the revealing of information needs to be legitimate. On the other hand, Caruso defines confidentiality as “a basis for prohibiting unauthorized disclosures of his files and records to third parties.” This includes the legal aspect of not disclosing information that is received in confidence from a student such as the confidential communications that tort law provides protections to that involve trade secrets and those between patient and physician. Caruso asks four questions that show if confidentiality is being breached or not such as does the “does the communication originate in confidence...element of confidentiality essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance of the relationship between the parties...relationship one that must be fostered...injury to the relationship caused by disclosure greater than any benefits which may be gained from that discloser” (384)? If yes, the university may be legally bound not to disclose information. Yet, the university may be immune from liability if it discloses information that proves to override the interest. Also, the university can make it clear that information will be non-confidential before a student reveals information and with this there needs to be a clear indication of such. Caruso gives his opinion that certain student records should not be viewed as confidential such as the fact that a student attended the university, dates of attendance, received degree or not, degrees received and dates. What he thinks should be private is details of academic record and disciplinary actions. He ends by saying that he provides a sketchy view of some legal aspects of privacy.

This article is useful and reliable even though Caruso states that he provides a sketchy explanation. The difference between privacy and confidentiality is important to make clear. This, as Caruso states, would be useful for attorneys that represent colleges and universities. Further, this article is useful in learning about when certain cases apply to disclose student information and when it is legally wrong especially through the examples given. This can be useful to include as a general topic about the difference of privacy and confidentiality and what each entail or it can also be subsumed within the learning analytics sub-topic.

'''Khatcheressian, Laura. ____“FERPA and the Immigration and Naturalization Service: A Guide For University Counsel on Federal Rules For Collecting, Maintaining and Releasing Information About Foreign Students” Berkeley Law Library???___'''

Ø Key terms: INA, FERPA, INS, Form I-20, I-20M, SEVIS, IIRIRA, F-1, M-1, J-1, Visas

Ø The author writes about the various types of student visas, what they are, what they entail, and this relates to the issue of privacy. She first begins by introducing the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) regulations and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA). She highlights how 9/11 impacted the release of information of students with visas and questions the responsibility of universities to report foreign student’s information and the obligations they have to do so. The INS reviews visa petitions within the U.S., deciding if individuals are granted a visa status. For individuals who want to study there are three types of visas: F-1 visa (academic study), J-1 visa (exchange visitor) and M-1 visa (vocational training) which are “nonimmigrant” visas which is for an individual that intends to enter the U.S. temporarily for a certain reason. First off, the government states that they do not have the accurate records of the 547,000 individuals holding student status attending school. Universities are supposed to report to the INS about F-1 and M-1 students who were issues a Form I-20A or I-20M about their name, date and place of birth, current address, status as student, degree program and field of study, etc. On the other hand, those with J-1 visas require the sponsoring organization to report about the individual’s activities and compliance among other things. She talks about some SEVIS which includes recording and reporting specific requirements about F, J, and M students to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) amended by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and thus enhanced through Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. INS does not require schools to necessarily report information about their foreign students but keep track of it regardless. Yet, the regulations are not addressed in regards to how FERPA applies. The school may release information if the student is no longer enrolled, if it needs to comply with judicial order or lawfully issues subpoena, or if there are “specific and articulable facts” that show that a student’s education record may contain information relevant to investigation or prosecution (ex parte). Information can also be disclosed if it includes the protection of health or safety of students, especially if it is to “protect the health and safety of Americans.” Further, in terms of I-20 (F & M) or DS-2019 (J) forms students automatically grant consent to any information needed to determine immigrant’s status (F&M) or release information that related to individual’s compliance with the Exchange Visitor Program (J). But this information is only given to certain organizations INS for F and M and the Department of State for J.

This article is useful in the sense that it provides insight to immigration and privacy within higher education, something not particularly talked about within this higher education and privacy. The source gives extensive reliable information and seems to be written for academic purposes perhaps those in higher education or public policy related people. Yet, the reading is not difficult, it is just important to know what specific acts mean at times. Further, this article has opened up the door to a new topic about immigrant students and the implications of it. I had not really thought about this subject before but it definitely helps me to form a new perspective and adds to my knowledge about the different facets of privacy issues within higher education.

'''Woodward, Beverly and Dale Hammerschmidt. 2003. “Requiring Consent Vs. Waiving Consent for Medical Records Research: A Minnesota Law Vs. the U.S. (HIPAA) Privacy Rule” Health Care Analysis 11(3):207-218'''

Ø Key words: confidentiality, consent, data collection, medical records research, Minnesota consent law, Rochester Epidemiology Project, U.S. privacy rule

Ø Woodward and Hammerschmidt talk about how the use of medical records are difficult to access so when they are actually accessed, this opens up the doors for research. But at the same time it opens the doors to privacy and confidentiality risks especially as medical records are being placed in electronic format. Typically, the documentation of patient and caregiver is confidential and that personal medical records will not be disclosed unless there is consent or belief that it is crucial to access patient information without their consent. A 1996 Minnesota state law is compared to HIPAA within this article and illustration how there is a misconception about the Minnesota law in terms of what it requires such that it requires general authorization rather than specific consent. They make the argument that HIPAA is less stringent than the Minnesota law but that overall there needs to be new efforts to fight against confidentiality risk in research and thus focus on the importance of patient consent. HIPPAA included provisions that “intend to facilitate the creation of a national system for the electronic transmission and exchange of medical record information” such as access to information that is individually identifiable such as health plans and health care. Meanwhile the Minnesota law attempted to obtain a “written general authorization for such release from the patient” which led to resistance among researchers who thought that it would “impede their activities.” Even hospitals in Minnesota made brochures that highlight the patient’s rights such as confidentiality and that they can give consent in writing if they allow for their medical record to be released outside the facility. Thus, the law required health care providers to obtain a written consent and authorization from patients in order for medical records to be released and used for research. Meanwhile researchers campaigned against the law as they distorted what the actual requirements were. Yet, the application of this law has not successful secured the ability to enforce the right that patients have to refuse their information to be released. Thus the Minnesota law attempted to balance the interests of authorizing medical records and keeping patient’s privacy of their medical records. Although the law is defective it provides a step for greater privacy protections and support for new federal Privacy Rule even though it is currently in favor of consenting to records for medical research. Meanwhile the patients themselves want information as to what information is being used thus challenging the right to privacy.

Ø This article is useful in showing how a state attempts to enact a law to protect its patient’s medical records from being used within research but at the same time researcher actively oppose. Further, it shows how HIPAA is less stringent than the Minnesota law which highlights the issue of privacy within the medical field. The article seems to be written for academic purposes or perhaps even for researchers and future policy writers who can gain the perspective of what is really going on in Minnesota and how this model can perhaps be useful in creating a new Privacy Rule that protects individuals more. This can definitely be used as a sub topic under perceptions of privacy but also as a possible controversy issue such that the law attempts to impose one thing but the researchers actively oppose and misinterpret it.

'''Stablein, Timothy, Joseph Lorenzo Hall, Chauna Pervis and Denise L. Anthony. 2015. “Negotiating stigma in health care: disclosure and the role of electronic health records.” Health Sociology Review 24(3):227-241'''

Ø Key words: disclosure, sexual minority men, health information technology, privacy, stigma, clinical encounters

Ø Stablein et al. talk about how the implementation of electronic health records within the medical field allows information to be shared more easily and fuels or creates a challenge for stigma management and disclosing information during medical appointments. An in-depth interview study was made that took into account sexual minority men (gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men) in the U.S. to seek how they viewed electronic health records. What the study found is that there were concerns of privacy in terms of how the electronic aspect creates a barrier to be open and talk about seemingly confidential information and yet electronic health records may challenge this confidentiality right. On the other hand, electronic health records may benefit in the sense that it can improve communication among providers when sharing information and further, provide better care especially after the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical and Health Act that invested billions in the adoption of electronic health records in ways that improve the quality care. This points to the idea of a double-edged sword that Stablein et al. mention. It shows how technology allows us to share information easily but at the same time it may cause privacy and confidentiality issues when shared with other providers or third-party groups. Thus Stablein et al. conclude that technology may enhance medical care but at the same time fuel the stigma that seeking medical help is bad and thus would hinder patients to make appointments, to attend counseling with certain providers, or much less disclose personal information, such as sexual identity and HIV status, that they believe will be shared to others without their consent which then might lead to negative consequences due to their record being available.

Ø This article is useful in pointing out why perhaps certain individuals refuse to seek medical help. The information is reliable as it cites many credible sources within the article as well as in the bibliography. The source is objective, it provides insights to an in-depth interview, but it may depend on where exactly the study took place and if this is only applicable to sexual minority men rather than a general population. The audience targeted may be those who use electronic medical records and perhaps other researchers who study the stigma behind counseling and how this may fuel it even more. Overall, the article seems useful and I believe I can use it under the perceptions sub-topic or under the medical records sub-topic as well to show specific perceptions of implementation of technology but also the way records are being accessed by other providers without consent even though it may seem that care is being improved.