User talk:GloriaGu2018/sandbox

Peer Review
Overall I feel like you have all the content, and only need to focus on grammar, and spelling errors. Look at this hyperlink to see all the comments I made. Please don't resolve any of the comments as once you do I will not be able to insert them in again.

Transcript of comments on Google Doc:

Electronic Communications Privacy Act

Selected text: are used. remove

Selected text: party while parties through

Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act

Selected text: opt-out receiving opt-out of recieving

Selected text: the misleading the sending of misleading

Selected text: sending remove

Selected text: the remove

Fair Credit Reporting Act

Selected text: legislation statute

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

Selected text: potential a potential

Selected text: pubic public

Selected text: can that was accessible by unauthorized public cans that were accessible

Selected text: in through

The Financial Services Modernization Act

Selected text: gathered from being gathered

Selected text: regulations prevent regulation prevents

The Federal Trade Commission Act

Selected text: Under the FTCA, Vizio Inc. agreed to pay $2.2 million for the settlement in 2017. remove sentence redundant

The General Data Protection Regulation(GDPR) Selected text: to get consent for data processing, make anonymous of collected data, provide quick notifications for data breach, safe handling of data transfer across borders, and appointment of data protection officer parallell structure required

Related laws

Selected text: uninformative uniform

Selected text: opposed often opposed

Concerns

Selected text: be n can lead to a

Selected text: as violation as a

Hackers

Selected text: is was

Companies

Selected text: Online Similarly, online

Selected text: For example, Facebook users frequently post their personal information online and share their preferred links. As the site requires users to register with their real identities as required, it offers the opportunity for data broker to store and analyze the individual’s personality and preference.[17 move after number 3

Selected text: of remove

Selected text: from these methods: replace with by

Selected text: mainly remove

Finland

Selected text: are stricter in recent years have gotten stricter in ...,

Selected text: European 1995 European

Selected text: from 1995 remove

Selected text: like all European Union nations. remove

Selected text: Personal Similarly, personal

Selected text: European Union nations Nations in the European Union

Selected text: system, systems

China

Selected text: network networks

Selected text: technological technologically

Selected text: government through the use of digital technology delete

Governments

Selected text: regime replace with "governmental archetype"

Selected text:PII is also collected by governments remove highlight and combine sentences with "and when..."

Definition

Selected text: these data this data

Selected text: of maybe for instead of of

Lead

Selected text: with calls for increasing With increasing occurrences of data breaches, the importance of

Selected text: ,with calls change, to "."

Selected text: Facebook of over 87 million users caused Facebook, has resulted in increasing...

Selected text: hotly debated a hotly debated

Selected text: wildly remove

Selected text: PII gathering exists everywhere and anytime. This sentence seems like fluff you may be able to remove it.

Selected text: contributed has contributed

Selected text: e smartphones

Selected text: than before ever before (might be a little persuasive/opinion based)

Selected text: such as of consumer

Selected text: f priva their privacy

Selected text: as a t often view PII gathering

The link to the Google doc is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ydo4HL7tI5_uLSQBr39PinnxgjdsNMUSbx96WVury_c/edit?usp=sharing Class20 (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
First off, I think the article is very well organized. The lead is very straightforward and the definition does a good job at explaining that there is not just one definition of PII gathering. Including a section on concerns is also very useful for the reader as it provides different viewpoints in a non-biased way. Everything in the article is definitely relevant to the topic. I think you could probably consider merging some of the information with the PII page, as some sections seem pretty similar. You do a good job of making sure everything is supported by a reliable source. Perhaps there are some other types of collectors you could add to your list. Additionally, you could also add more information on different countries in addition to the US and China. I like that you included information on how democratic and authoritarian regimes use PII gathering. As far as any corrections and edits, I would say my biggest suggestion is just to check some grammar. For instance, PII should probably be singular (like "PII is gathered" rather than "are gathered"). Some of the spelling can be reviewed too, such as growth instead of grow in the Companies section. Overall, the article is very well organized and interesting so far! Adding more countries and collector types would be beneficial as it would provide more information around the world. Great job so far! --Prizmic (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
I agree with Prizmic, the article is very well drafted, concise and to the point, it also provides examples through specific cases. I am glad you expended on the data market/data broker section. Having read the article I feel very well-informed. Some suggestions included, maybe exploring more examples of infringements, maybe even bringing in some court cases as examples of the threats that this type of gathering may be as a cause for concern. I would also suggest adding more hyperlinks to other wikipages within the text for some of the more complex terms or phrases such as data broker for people who want a more in-depth understanding of some of the subtopics that are apart of your main article. Overall, I would say a job well done, because I definitely was able to follow your article without confusion.Class20 (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Your lead section is easy to understand and gives a good overview of the rest of the article. For someone like me who doesn’t know much about personally identifiable information, this was very helpful. I do have a question about the first sentence. What do you mean by legal and illegal applications? Under the section about “Concerns”, I would like to ask about the second sentence. It starts with “By Milne e.t.c.”, would you be able to clarify this? I may just be reading it wrong or not familiar with the source but as I read it I got a bit thrown off. Overall, your structure is clear. After reading I realized some sections might make more sense in a different order. I would suggest that the section about “concerns” should be placed after “collectors”. This would make sense because first you are introducing how and by who the data is collected and then talking about the concerns come with it. Also, out of curiosity what made you choose these specific countries? Are there any other countries that you can add? For the section about “Hackers”, I don’t know if it would be appropriate but as a reader myself I would like to learn about major instances of hacking. Perhaps providing examples of major instances, if any, would be good. I think you have a pretty balanced article with neutral content. Moreover, you have a good set of sources to back up your article. Great job so far!

Jaysdayy (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Gloria, your lead section is pretty straightforward. I would just suggest to re-word the last sentence slightly by perhaps breaking it in two: "PII owners often view it as a threat and violation of privacy. Meanwhile, entities such as information technology companies, governments, and organizations use PII for data analysis such as shopping behaviors, political preference, and personal interests." In the "Concerns" section I believe you are stating authors and would suggest to re-write as: "Milne et al. show other perceived risks to include..." Also, to embed links instead of it appearing as if you wrote it twice you can highlight "National Security Agency's" and go to the section that shows paperclip/link image and then click the embedded link you'd like to use. I like how you included both a U.S. and China perspective in terms of government, perhaps if you are able maybe you can add other countries as well? Is the section talking about companies generalized, as in not specific to U.S. and China and also, perhaps you could just list other major companies that take gather PII (probably all) or talk a little more about Cambridge Analytica and Facebook's consequences/ why this was a privacy issue?

Overall, your article is super informative and helpful especially now that technology is evolving rapidly that allows information to be gathered and disseminated faster than ever. I would just advice to go back and fix some minor grammar and sentence issues but overall find your article neutral and very source based! Keep it up! *Also if anything I said is confusing feel free to reach out* GibsOfficial (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Gibs

One-on-One Peer Review
Your lead section is very well written and straightforward, well done! I might suggest rewording "is a practice that collects" to "is the practice of collecting", but that is not super important. It might just help show that PII gathering is a specific, identifiable practice; totally up to you though. For the definition section, I would suggest putting "the" before "US National Institute". Nice job using a long quotation for a specific definition and providing a reliable source. Moving onto the Collectors section, it might be useful at the beginning to explain what kind of social and legal benefits are extended. Maybe you could just have a sentence with some examples. You could also include an example of what you mean by legal obligations. For the second half of the beginning, I have a reword suggestion: "Depending on a country's regime type, such as democratic or authoritarian, PII gathering is conducted using different methods. Regardless, countries share similar goals when PII gathering, as demonstrated by the examples below." Maybe you could find a source about the shared goals claim.

Here are some minor grammar/syntax edits for US section: In the United States, PII is gathered through application for assistance, registration of property, tax filing, registration for selective services, application for driver’s license, government employment, professional licensure, and other voluntary and mandatory information submission. PII is stored, accessed, and shared between different levels of government, departments, agencies, non-governmental entities, and the public.[5] For example, a potential home buyer can look up if a real estate agent is licensed or not. The government also gathers PII for crime prevention and national security purposes. Many of the programs are highly controversial among the US public. For example, the National Security Agency’s (NSA) collects and analyzes PII, including phone calls, emails, and social media interactions, from large numbers of people to uncover potential threats.[6]

China section: The Chinese government has made big data part of the governance strategy. The goal is a more efficient and transparent government through the use of digital technology. The government has implemented one of the most technologically advanced surveillance network on the planet called the “Skynet” [add link to wiki page?]. The system covers nearly every single public space in the country. PII protection in China mostly deals with collection by private companies and organizations. There has been no discussion or proposal about limiting government involvement in collecting, gathering, and analyzing PII.[7] European Union nations adopt stricter regulation on PII collecting than the United States.[8]

Finland: [add these sentences to Finland section as intro]European Union nations adopt stricter regulation on PII collecting than the United States and China.[8] Personal data processing in Finland has been protected under comprehensive regulations and laws like all European Union nations. The Personal Data Act in 1999 was the main national privacy regulation alongside the European Union Data Protection Directive from 1995. Other data regulations enacted in Finland include the Act on the Protection of Privacy in Electronic Communication, the Act on the Protection of Privacy in Working Life, and the Act on the Openness of Governmental Activities. The Personal Data Act was replaced by the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [year?]. Enforcement of privacy regulations are stricter in recent years after a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights which found that a Finnish hospital failed to safeguard personal data.[9]

Companies section: paragraph 1: grow to growth, user to users, lactation to location paragraph 2: change to "The Facebook and Cambridge Analytica data breach is an example."

Hackers section: sometime to sometimes, American to Americans

Concerns: "a violation, which can be negative."; remove By Milne et al, citation is enough.

Related laws section: "is opposed by privacy advocates"

I hope my suggestions were clear. Most of what I wrote above are just minor grammar, word choice, and sentence structure edits. Great job on your article! It is very informative and well organized. Please let me know if you have any questions about my suggestions! Again, great job!! --Prizmic (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)