User:GloriaGu2018/sandbox

Lead section and outline of my topic
Personally identifiable information (PII) gathering

Lead section

Personally identifiable information (PII) gathering is a practice that collects public and private personal data that can be used to identify an individual for both legal and illegal applications. PII owners often view it as a threat and violation of privacy, while a lot of entities such as information technology companies, governments, and organizations use PII for data analysis.

With the development of new information technology, PII is easier to access and share than before. The use of smartphone and social media contributed to the widespread usage of PII gathering. PII gathering exists everywhere and anytime. The wildly dissemination of personal data makes PII gathering hotly debated social issue.

Definition

History

Types of PII gathering

Related laws in United States Medical

Related laws in European Union

Related laws in other parts of the world

Related Wikipedia pages: 1.	Personally identifiable information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information 2.	Data collection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_collection 3.	Information security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_security 4.	Data mining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining

Plan of This Page
There are more and more personal information used by other organizations without the client’s consent these days. PII gathering has become a social concern. Creating this article aims to show what is PII gathering and which law is helpful when people have related PII gathering issues.

The article is going to be divided into 5 sections: introduction, definition, history, types of PII gathering and related law for different types of PII gathering violation.

Annotation (3 articles, posted on Mar 9,2018)
Manion, Ryan F.. 2015. “Incentivizing the Protection of Personally Identifying Consumer Data after the Home Depot Breach.” Indiana Law Journal 91(1):143-164.

This article is about the breach of payment card systems at the Home Depot in 2014 and the consequences of the breach. It is a law review article discussing potential implications of different laws on a current event. This article is separated into 3 parts. The first part discusses the facts and current legal responsibilities of Home Depot’s information theft in 2014. The second part is about the potential liability of Home Depot under a possible federal data breach notification law. Finally, the author shows the company’s possible liability under stricter federal privacy standards used for protecting health and insurance information. It concludes a more effectively legislation should be adopted by FTC.

This review is useful for understanding the legal responsibilities, which a company will face after a major data breach. It is also helpful in finding out what a company is not legally liable for and the weakness and the ineffectiveness of current privacy laws. The information from the article is fairly reliable as it uses many academic sources and case studies. The article also uses some sources that are not considered objective, such as the Home Depot’s own webpage and press release. However, these biased sources are mostly for providing background information regarding the data breach. I would recommend the article for scholars researching privacy laws in United States and organizations owning a wealth of personally information. This essay has a lot professional vocabularies, which is hard for those not familiar with American’s legal system. Finally, this article is mainly theoretical without any data table. This review provides me with important information regarding the legal aspect of a data breach. It shows there are legal protections for consumers and a company can be held responsible after a data breach. However, it also shows the current privacy laws are not effective and cannot fully protect consumers. This article makes me want to find out whether the current trend of the privacy law is for more consumers’ protection or for more liability on corporation.

Milne, George R., George Pettinico, Fatima M. Hajjat, and Ereni Markos. 2017. “Information Sensitivity Typology: Mapping the Degree and Type of Risk Consumers Perceive in Personal Data Sharing.” Journal of Consumer Affairs 51(1):133-161.

This article is about consumer’s overall sensitivity regarding privacy information and their willingness to share the information. The purpose of this work is to advance the discussion of privacy data into more easily understandable terms and usages. The article is a research article with data collected from a national survey. This article starts with an overview of history about privacy concerns and definitions of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and non-PII. It catalogues the personal data into six clusters: Basic Demographic, Personal Preference, Contact Information, Community Interaction, Financial Information, and Secure Identifiers. This article contains many chart, graphs, and tables to provide for easier understand of the data gathered. It follows a discussion of willingness to share the data. This article concludes with a discussion of usage for those findings.

The source is very useful in understanding how Americans view personal data sharing. The authors provide a lot of useful data from a national survey conducted. The information is reliable and objective, as the data is gathered directly form American consumers. The article is useful for student, researcher, marketer and policy makers interested in how personal data sharing are viewed in the United States. It contains summarized data and some theoretical components that are not easy to read for regular readers.

The article is helpful in understanding the importance of personal data to American consumers. While almost every American agrees that consumers have lost control of how personal data is used and collected, they do not value all kinds of personal data at the same level. The study helps to support the argument that privacy laws need to be flexible and that not all personal data needs the same protection. The article does not change my view on the topic, but provides valuable data that can support my argument.

Zurbriggen, Eileen L., Ella Ben Hagai, and Gabrielle Leon. 2016. “Negotiating Privacy and Intimacy on Social Media: Review and Recommendations.” Translational Issues in Psychological Science 2(3):248-260.

This article is a review article about the social media using and personal information sharing. The main purpose of this article is to discuss the issue of privacy caused by the using of social media in maintaining friendship, romantic relationships, parental relationships, workplace relationships, and therapist/client relationships. It starts with an overview of social media and privacy theories. It is followed by a focus on the interaction between privacy and social media use. This article also addresses which part of the tensions between those two elements required intervention. It concludes with suggestions for resolving tensions.

The source is helpful in understanding the dilemma of social media using and personal privacy sharing. The information for the article is reliable and objective. The authors use mostly academic researches, books, articles, and studies. I would recommend the article for anyone interested in learning more about how to ensure the protection personal privacy while using the social media. It is essential in our society where everything is shared on social media. The target audience of this article is parents, psychologists policy makers and anyone cared about personal privacy information sharing. The reading difficulty is moderate because it adopts a lot of terms in the part of overview of social media and privacy theory. The article is mostly theoretical without summarized data.

This article helps me understand more about the dilemma between social media and privacy sharing. It shows that while most Americans believe in protecting privacy and personal data, they also want to use social media in establishing and maintaining personal and professional relationships. This paper does not change how I view this topic. It helps to shape the argument that some privacy needs to be sacrificed for full and effective use of social media and other technologies. It also strengths the argument, which mentioned in last annotation, that privacy policies need to be revised according to different concerns.

Bibliography (20 articles, posted on Mar 9,2018)
Acquisti, Alessandro, Curtis Taylor, and Liad Wagman. 2016. “The Economics of Privacy.” Journal of Economics Literature 54(2):442-492.

Andrus, Mark T.. 2017. “Not without My Consent: Preserving Individual Liberty in Light of the Comprehensive Collection and Consolidation of Personally Identifiable Information.” Journal of Internet Law 20(9):1-27.

Ashenmacher, George. 2016. “Indignity: Redefining the Harm Caused by Data Breaches.” Wake Forest Law Review 51(1):1-56.

Bambauer, Derek E.. 2013. “Privacy Versus Security.” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 103(3):667-683.

De Baets, Antoon.. 2016. “A Historian’s View on the Right to Be Forgotten.” International Review of Law 30(1-2):57-66.

Escoffery, Erini. 2014. “Ferpa and the Press: A Right to Access Information?.” Journal of College & University Law 40(3):543-565.

Ivichev, V.A., and T.V. Ignatova. 2015. “Technologies for Identifying and Scrubbing Personal Data from Open Sources.” Problems of Economic Transition 57(12):27-38.

Majeed, A., F. Ullah, and Sungchang Lee. 2017. “Vulnerability and Diversity-Aware Anonymization of Personally Identifiable Information for Improving User Privacy and Utility of Publishing Data.” Sensors 17(5):1059-1082.

Manion, Ryan F.. 2015. “Incentivizing the Protection of Personally Identifying Consumer Data after the Home Depot Breach.” Indiana Law Journal 91(1):143-164.

Martin, Kirsten E.. 2015. “Ethical Issues in the Big Data Industry.” MIS Quarterly Executive 14(2):67-85.

Milne, George R., George Pettinico, Fatima M. Hajjat, and Ereni Markos. 2017. “Information Sensitivity Typology: Mapping the Degree and Type of Risk Consumers Perceive in Personal Data Sharing.” Journal of Consumer Affairs 51(1):133-161.

Posey, Clay, Uzma Raja, Robert E. Crossler, and A. J. Burns. 2017. “Taking Stock of Organisations’ Protection of Privacy: Categorizing and Assessing Threats to Personally Identifiable Information in the USA.” European Journal of Information Systems 26(6):585-604.

Prince, Christine. 2015. “Do Consumers Want to Control Their personal data? Empirical Evidence.” International Journal of Human-computer studies 110:21-32.

Purtova, Nadezhda. 2015. “The Illusion of Personal Data as No One's Property.” Law, Innovation & Technology 7(1):83-111.

Sartor, Giovanni. 2016. “The right to be forgotten: balancing interests in the flux of time.” International Journal of Law and Information Technology 24(1):72-98.

Siam, Kayla. 2017. “Coming to a Retailer near You: Consumer Privacy Protection in Retail Bankruptcies.” Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal 33(2):487-521.

Thimmesch, Adam B.. 2016. “Transacting in Data: Tax, Privacy, and the New Economy.” Denver Law Review 94(1):145-194.

Tilker, Kristopher R., Stuart MacDonald, and James R. Owen.. 2014. “FTC Requires Businesses to Secure Customer Data.” Feature Edition 2014(2):81-105.

Zurbriggen, Eileen L., Ella Ben Hagai, and Gabrielle Leon. 2016. “ Negotiating Privacy and Intimacy on Social Media: Review and Recommendations.” Translational Issues in Psychological Science 2(3):248-260.

Zhou, Wei. 2015. “Information Relevance Model of Customized Privacy for IoT.” Journal of Business Ethics 131(1):19-30.

Bibliography (5 articles, posted on Mar 2,2018)
Andrus, Mark T.. 2017. “Not without My Consent: Preserving Individual Liberty in Light of the Comprehensive Collection and Consolidation of Personally Identifiable Information.” Journal of Internet Law 20(9):1-27.

Manion, Ryan F.. 2015. “Incentivizing the Protection of Personally Identifying Consumer Data after the Home Depot Breach.” Indiana Law Journal 91(1):143-164.

Milne, George R., George Pettinico, Fatima M. Hajjat, and Ereni Markos. 2017. “Information Sensitivity Typology: Mapping the Degree and Type of Risk Consumers Perceive in Personal Data Sharing.” Journal of Consumer Affairs 51(1):133-161.

Posey, Clay, Uzma Raja, Robert E. Crossler, and A. J. Burns. 2017. “Taking Stock of Organisations’ Protection of Privacy: Categorizing and Assessing Threats to Personally Identifiable Information in the USA.” European Journal of Information Systems 26(6):585-604.

Zurbriggen, Eileen L., Ella Ben Hagai, and Gabrielle Leon. 2016. “ Negotiating Privacy and Intimacy on Social Media: Review and Recommendations.” Translational Issues in Psychological Science 2(3):248-260.

Critique two articles
Information Privacy

1. Not all facts referenced are from appropriate sources, such as reference number 20th on the list. The reference links to a Japanese website without any explanation.

2. The information forwarded in the article is relevant to the topic. However, the structure of the article is unbalanced, such as too much focus on the Safe Harbor program.

3. The article doesn’t show a neutral stand on the issue of protecting privacy. The article mostly supports the view on protecting privacy, but didn’t show the possible weakness of protecting privacy. For example, how protecting privacy might be a risk for anti-terrorism.

4. Not all the sources are neutral, such as the first reference on the list, which is from an organization advocating for international development.

5. The part of Safe Harbor program is over represented, which takes up almost one third of the article.

6. Reference number 20 isn’t related to information privacy. The webpage shows an article about nurse in Japanese. A long direct sentence citation without any paraphrasing viewed as plagiarism in Wikipedia is also noted under the subtitle of cable television.

7. Some of the material is outdated; for example, the author didn’t update the information on reference number 20.

Right of privacy

1. The first reference is not a reliable source, which takes from the view of a libertarian group.

2. The unbalanced structure in the section of “privacy law of different countries” only covers the U.S. and India. It distracted my attention from the article.

3. This article is biased toward the right to privacy. For example, he uses the word “inalienable” in the second paragraph to describe the right of piracy, which is against the neutral point advocated by Wikipedia.

4. Some of the information are not from a neutral source, such as the first reference on the list, which is from a website introducing themselves as “takes a free-market liberal (or libertarian) stance toward privacy issues.”

5. The creator(s) of this article only cover the viewpoint toward the right of privacy, but left the opposite viewpoint mostly in blanks.

6. There are a lot of direct quotations without any paraphrasing in the article, which violates Wikipedia’s citation rule. For example, the citation from Brandeis in the third paragraph under the Background section.

7. The article contains mostly current events related to right to privacy. Editors of Wikipedia can add the historical perspective component to the article.

PII Reference