Paper by Nadia N. Sawicki: “Informed consent law’s emphasis on the disclosure of purely medical information – such as diagnosis, prognosis, and the risks and benefits of various treatment alternatives – does not accurately reflect modern understandings of how patients make medical decisions. Existing common law disclosure duties fail to capture a variety of non-medical factors relevant to patients, including information about the physician’s personal characteristics; the cost of treatment; the social implications of various health care interventions; and the legal consequences associated with diagnosis and treatment. Although there is a wealth of literature analyzing the merits of such disclosures in a few narrow contexts, there is little broader discussion and no consensus about whether there the doctrine of informed consent should be expanded to include information that may be relevant to patients but falls outside the traditional scope of medical materiality. This article seeks to fill that gap.
I offer a normative argument for expanding the scope of informed consent disclosure to include non-medical information that is within the physician’s knowledge and expertise, where the information would be material to the reasonable patient and its disclosure does not violate public policy. This proposal would result in a set of disclosure requirements quite different from the ones set by modern common law and legislation. In many ways, the range of required disclosures may become broader, particularly with respect to physician-specific information about qualifications, health status, and financial conflicts of interests. However, some disclosures that are currently required by statute (or have been proposed by commentators) would fall outside the scope of informed consent – most notably, information about support resources available in the abortion context; about the social, ethical, and legal implications of treatment; and about health care costs….(More)”
Please, Corporations, Experiment on Us
Michelle N. Meyer and Christopher Chabris in the New York Times: ” Can it ever be ethical for companies or governments to experiment on their employees, customers or citizens without their consent?
The conventional answer — of course not! — animated public outrage last year after Facebook published a study in which it manipulated how much emotional content more than half a million of its users saw. Similar indignation followed the revelation by the dating site OkCupid that, as an experiment, it briefly told some pairs of users that they were good matches when its algorithm had predicted otherwise.
But this outrage is misguided. Indeed, we believe that it is based on a kind of moral illusion.
Companies — and other powerful actors, including lawmakers, educators and doctors — “experiment” on us without our consent every time they implement a new policy, practice or product without knowing its consequences. When Facebook started, it created a radical new way for people to share emotionally laden information, with unknown effects on their moods. And when OkCupid started, it advised users to go on dates based on an algorithm without knowing whether it worked.
Why does one “experiment” (i.e., introducing a new product) fail to raise ethical concerns, whereas a true scientific experiment (i.e., introducing a variation of the product to determine the comparative safety or efficacy of the original) sets off ethical alarms?
In a forthcoming article in the Colorado Technology Law Journal, one of us (Professor Meyer) calls this the “A/B illusion” — the human tendency to focus on the risk, uncertainty and power asymmetries of running a test that compares A to B, while ignoring those factors when A is simply imposed by itself.
Consider a hypothetical example. A chief executive is concerned that her employees are taking insufficient advantage of the company’s policy of matching contributions to retirement savings accounts. She suspects that telling her workers how many others their age are making the maximum contribution would nudge them to save more, so she includes this information in personalized letters to them.
If contributions go up, maybe the new policy worked. But perhaps contributions would have gone up anyhow (say, because of an improving economy). If contributions go down, it might be because the policy failed. Or perhaps a declining economy is to blame, and contributions would have gone down even more without the letter.
You can’t answer these questions without doing a true scientific experiment — in technology jargon, an “A/B test.” The company could randomly assign its employees to receive either the old enrollment packet or the new one that includes the peer contribution information, and then statistically compare the two groups of employees to see which saved more.
Let’s be clear: This is experimenting on people without their consent, and the absence of consent is essential to the validity of the entire endeavor. If the C.E.O. were to tell the workers that they had been randomly assigned to receive one of two different letters, and why, that information would be likely to distort their choices.
Our chief executive isn’t so hypothetical. Economists do help corporations run such experiments, but many managers chafe at debriefing their employees afterward, fearing that they will be outraged that they were experimented on without their consent. A company’s unwillingness to debrief, in turn, can be a deal-breaker for the ethics boards that authorize research. So those C.E.O.s do what powerful people usually do: Pick the policy that their intuition tells them will work best, and apply it to everyone….(More)”
When Guarding Student Data Endangers Valuable Research
Susan M. Dynarski in the New York Times: “There is widespread concern over threats to privacy posed by the extensive personal data collected by private companies and public agencies.
Some of the potential danger comes from the government: The National Security Agency has swept up the telephone records of millions of people, in what it describes as a search for terrorists. Other threats are posed by hackers, who have exploited security gaps to steal data from retail giantslike Target and from the federal Office of Personnel Management.
Resistance to data collection was inevitable — and it has been particularly intense in education.
Privacy laws have already been strengthened in some states, and multiple bills now pending in state legislatures and in Congress would tighten the security and privacy of student data. Some of this proposed legislation is so broadly written, however, that it could unintentionally choke off the use of student data for its original purpose: assessing and improving education. This data has already exposed inequities, allowing researchers and advocates to pinpoint where poor, nonwhite and non-English-speaking children have been educated inadequately by their schools.
Data gathering in education is indeed extensive: Across the United States, large, comprehensive administrative data sets now track the academic progress of tens of millions of students. Educators parse this data to understand what is working in their schools. Advocates plumb the data to expose unfair disparities in test scores and graduation rates, building cases to target more resources for the poor. Researchers rely on this data when measuring the effectiveness of education interventions.
To my knowledge there has been no large-scale, Target-like theft of private student records — probably because students’ test scores don’t have the market value of consumers’ credit card numbers. Parents’ concerns have mainly centered not on theft, but on the sharing of student data with third parties, including education technology companies. Last year, parentsresisted efforts by the tech start-up InBloom to draw data on millions of students into the cloud and return it to schools as teacher-friendly “data dashboards.” Parents were deeply uncomfortable with a third party receiving and analyzing data about their children.
In response to such concerns, some pending legislation would scale back the authority of schools, districts and states to share student data with third parties, including researchers. Perhaps the most stringent of these proposals, sponsored by Senator David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, would effectively end the analysis of student data by outside social scientists. This legislation would have banned recent prominent research documenting the benefits of smaller classes, the value of excellent teachersand the varied performance of charter schools.
Under current law, education agencies can share data with outside researchers only to benefit students and improve education. Collaborations with researchers allow districts and states to tap specialized expertise that they otherwise couldn’t afford. The Boston public school district, for example, has teamed up with early-childhood experts at Harvard to plan and evaluate its universal prekindergarten program.
In one of the longest-standing research partnerships, the University of Chicago works with the Chicago Public Schools to improve education. Partnerships like Chicago’s exist across the nation, funded by foundations and the United States Department of Education. In one initiative, a Chicago research consortium compiled reports showing high school principals that many of the seniors they had sent off to college swiftly dropped out without earning a degree. This information spurred efforts to improve high school counseling and college placement.
Specific, tailored information in the hands of teachers, principals or superintendents empowers them to do better by their students. No national survey could have told Chicago’s principals how their students were doing in college. Administrative data can provide this information, cheaply and accurately…(More)”
Why open data should be central to Fifa reform
Gavin Starks in The Guardian: “Over the past two weeks, Fifa has faced mounting pressure to radically improve its transparency and governance in the wake of corruption allegations. David Cameron has called for reforms including expanding the use of open data.
Open data is information made available by governments, businesses and other groups for anyone to read, use and share. Data.gov.uk was launched as the home of UK open government data in January 2010 and now has almost 21,000 published datasets, including on government spending.
Allowing citizens to freely access data related to the institutions that govern them is essential to a well-functioning democratic society. It is the first step towards holding leaders to account for failures and wrongdoing.
Fifa has a responsibility for the shared interests of millions of fans around the world. Football’s popularity means that Fifa’s governance has wide-ranging implications for society, too. This is particularly true of decisions about hosting the World Cup, which is often tied to large-scale government investment in infrastructure and even extends to law-making. Brazil spent up to £10bn hosting the 2014 World Cup and had to legalise the sale of beer at matches.
Following Sepp Blatter’s resignation, Fifa will gather its executive committee in July to plan for a presidential election, expected to take place in mid-December. Open data should form the cornerstone of any prospective candidate’s manifesto. It can help Fifa make better spending decisions and ensure partners deliver value for money, restore the trust of the international football community.
Fifa’s lengthy annual financial report gives summaries of financial expenditure,budgeted at £184m for operations and governance alone in 2016, but individual transactions are not published. Publishing spending data incentivises better spending decisions. If all Fifa’s outgoings – which totalled around £3.5bn between 2011 and 2014 – were made open, it would encourage much more efficiency….(more)”
Flawed Humans, Flawed Justice
Adam Benforado in the New York Times on using …”lessons from behavioral science to make police and courts more fair…. WHAT would it take to achieve true criminal justice in America?
Imagine that we got rid of all of the cops who cracked racist jokes and prosecutors blinded by a thirst for power. Imagine that we cleansed our courtrooms of lying witnesses and foolish jurors. Imagine that we removed every judge who thought the law should bend to her own personal agenda and every sadistic prison guard.
We would certainly feel just then. But we would be wrong.
We would still have unarmed kids shot in the back and innocent men and women sentenced to death. We would still have unequal treatment, disregarded rights and profound mistreatment.
The reason is simple and almost entirely overlooked: Our legal system is based on an inaccurate model of human behavior. Until recently, we had no way of understanding what was driving people’s thoughts, perceptions and actions in the criminal arena. So, we built our institutions on what we had: untested assumptions about what deceit looks like, how memories work and when punishment is merited.
But we now have tools — from experimental methods and data collection approaches to brain-imaging technologies — that provide an incredible opportunity to establish a new and robust foundation.
Our justice system must be reconstructed upon scientific fact. We can start by acknowledging what the data says about the fundamental flaws in our current legal processes and structures.
Consider the evidence that we treat as nearly unassailable proof of guilt at trial — an unwavering eyewitness, a suspect’s signed confession or a forensic match to the crime scene.
While we charge tens of thousands of people with crimes each year after they are identified in police lineups, research shows that eyewitnesses chose an innocent person roughly one-third of the time. Our memories can fail us because we’re frightened. They can be altered by the word choice of a detective. They can be corrupted by previously seeing someone’s image on a social media site.
Picking out lying suspects from their body language is ineffective. And trying then to gain a confession by exaggerating the strength of the evidence and playing down the seriousness of the offense can encourage people to admit to terrible things they didn’t do.
Even seemingly objective forensic analysis is far from incorruptible. Recent data shows that fingerprint — and even DNA — matches are significantly more likely when the forensic expert is aware that the sample comes from someone the police believe is guilty.
With the aid of psychology, we see there’s a whole host of seemingly extraneous forces influencing behavior and producing systematic distortions. But they remain hidden because they don’t fit into our familiar legal narratives.
We assume that the specific text of the law is critical to whether someone is convicted of rape, but research shows that the details of the criminal code — whether it includes a “force” requirement or excuses a “reasonably mistaken” belief in consent — can be irrelevant. What matters are the backgrounds and identifies of the jurors.
When a black teenager is shot by a police officer, we expect to find a bigot at the trigger.
But studies suggest that implicit bias, rather than explicit racism, is behind many recent tragedies. Indeed, simulator experiments show that the biggest danger posed to young African-American men may not be hate-filled cops, but well-intentioned police officers exposed to pervasive, damaging stereotypes that link the concepts of blackness and violence.
Likewise, Americans have been sold a myth that there are two kinds of judges — umpires and activists — and that being unbiased is a choice that a person makes. But the truth is that all judges are swayed by countless forces beyond their conscious awareness or control. It should have no impact on your case, for instance, whether your parole hearing is scheduled first thing in the morning or right before lunch, but when scientists looked at real parole boards, they found that judges were far more likely to grant petitions at the beginning of the day than they were midmorning.
The choice of where to place the camera in an interrogation room may seem immaterial, yet experiments show that it can affect whether a confession is determined to be coerced. When people watch a recording with the camera behind the detective, they are far more likely to find that the confession was voluntary than when watching the interactions from the perspective of the suspect.
With such challenges to our criminal justice system, what can possibly be done? The good news is that an evidence-based approach also illuminates the path forward.
Once we have clear data that something causes a bias, we can then figure out how to remove that influence. …(More)
Safecity: Combatting Sexual Violence Through Technology
“Safecity, …. is a not for profit organization that provides a platform for people to share their personal stories of sexual harassment and abuse in public spaces. This data, which may be anonymous, gets aggregated as hot spots on a map indicating trends at a local level. The idea is to make this data useful for individuals, local communities and local administration for social and systemic change for safer cities. We launched on 26 Dec 2012 and since then have collected over 4000 stories from over 50 cities in India and Nepal.
How can Safecity help?
Safecity is a crowd map that converts these individual stories into data that is then plotted on a map. It is then easier to see trends at the location level (e.g. a street). The focus is taken away from the individual victim and instead we can focus on solving the problem at the local neighborhood level.
The Objectives:
• Create awareness on street harassment and abuse and get people, especially women, victims of hate and LGBTQ crimes to break their silence and report their personal experiences.
• Collate this information to showcase location based trends.
• Make this information available and useful for individuals, local communities and local administration to solve the problem at the local level through urban planning aimed at addressing infrastructural deficits
• Establish successful models of community engagement using crowd sourced data to solve civic and local issues.
• Reach out to women who do not have equal access to technology through our Missed dial facility for them to report any cases of abuse and harassment.
We wish to take this data forward to lobby for systemic change in terms of urban planning and infrastructure, reforms in our law that are premised on gender equity, and social changes to loosen the shackles that do not allow us otherwise to live the way we want to, with the freedom we want to, and with the rights that are fundamental to all of us, and it will just build our momentum further by having as many passionate, concerned and diverse genders on board.
We are trying to build a movement by collecting these reports through campaigns, workshops and awareness programs with schools, colleges, local communities and partners with shared vision. Crime against women has been rampant and largely remains unreported even till date. That silence needs to gain a voice and the time is now. We are determined to highlight this serious social issue and we believe we are taking a step towards changing the way our society thinks and reacts and are hopeful that so are you. In time we hope it will lead to a safe and non-violent environment for all.
Safecity uses technology to document sexual harassment and abuse in public spaces in the following way. People can report incidents of sexual abuse and street harassment, that they have experienced or witnessed. They can share solutions that can help avoid such situations and decide for themselves what works best for them, their geographic location or circumstances.
By allowing people to pin such incidents on a crowd-sourced map, we aim to let them highlight the “hotspots” of such activities. This accentuates the emerging trend in a particular area, enabling the citizens to acknowledge the problem, take personal precautions and devise a solution at the neighbourhood level.
Safecity believes in uniting millions of voices that can become a catalyst for change.
You can read the FAQs section for more information on how the data is used for public good. (More)”
Social Dimensions of Privacy
New book edited by Dorota Mokrosinska and Beate Roessler: “Written by a select international group of leading privacy scholars, Social Dimensions of Privacy endorses and develops an innovative approach to privacy. By debating topical privacy cases in their specific research areas, the contributors explore the new privacy-sensitive areas: legal scholars and political theorists discuss the European and American approaches to privacy regulation; sociologists explore new forms of surveillance and privacy on social network sites; and philosophers revisit feminist critiques of privacy, discuss markets in personal data, issues of privacy in health care and democratic politics. The broad interdisciplinary character of the volume will be of interest to readers from a variety of scientific disciplines who are concerned with privacy and data protection issues.
- Takes an innovative approach to privacy which focuses on the social dimensions and value of privacy in contrast to the value of privacy for individuals
- Addresses readers from a variety of disciplines, including law, philosophy, media studies, gender studies and political science
- Addresses new privacy-sensitive areas triggered by recent technological developments (More)”
The Missing Statistics of Criminal Justice
Matt Ford at the Atlantic: “An abundance of data has fueled the reform movement, but from prisons to prosecutors, crucial questions remain unquantified.
After Ferguson, a noticeable gap in criminal-justice statistics emerged: the use of lethal force by the police. The federal government compiles a wealth of data on homicides, burglaries, and arson, but no official, reliable tabulation of civilian deaths by law enforcement exists. A partial database kept by the FBI is widely considered to be misleading and inaccurate. (The Washington Post has just released a more expansive total of nearly 400 police killings this year.) “It’s ridiculous that I can’t tell you how many people were shot by the police last week, last month, last year,” FBI Director James Comey told reporters in April.
This raises an obvious question: If the FBI can’t tell how many people were killed by law enforcement last year, what other kinds of criminal-justice data are missing? Statistics are more than just numbers: They focus the attention of politicians, drive the allocation of resources, and define the public debate. Public officials—from city councilors to police commanders to district attorneys—are often evaluated based on how these numbers change during their terms in office. But existing statistical measures only capture part of the overall picture, and the problems that go unmeasured are often also unaddressed. What changes could the data that isn’t currently collected produce if it were gathered?….
Without reliable official statistics, scholars often must gather and compile necessary data themselves. “A few years ago, I was struck at how many police killings of civilians we seemed to be having in Philadelphia,” Gottschalk said as an example. “They would be buried in the newspaper, and I was stunned by how difficult it was to compile that information and compare it to New York and do it on a per-capita basis. It wasn’t readily available.” As a result, criminal-justice researchers often spend more time gathering data than analyzing it.
This data’s absence shapes the public debate over mass incarceration in the same way that silence between notes of music gives rhythm to a song. Imagine debating the economy without knowing the unemployment rate, or climate change without knowing the sea level, or healthcare reform without knowing the number of uninsured Americans. Legislators and policymakers heavily rely on statistics when crafting public policy. Criminal-justice statistics can also influence judicial rulings, including those by the Supreme Court, with implications for the entire legal system.
Beyond their academic and policymaking value, there’s also a certain power to statistics. They have the irreplaceable ability to both clarify social issues and structure the public’s understanding of them. A wealth of data has allowed sociologists, criminologists, and political scientists to diagnose serious problems with the American criminal-justice system over the past twenty years. Now that a growing bipartisan consensus recognizes the problem exists, gathering the right facts and figures could help point the way towards solutions…(More)”
Measuring ‘governance’ to improve lives
Robert Rotberg at the Conversation: “…Citizens everywhere desire “good governance” – to be governed well within their nation-states, their provinces, their states and their cities.
Governance is more useful than “democracy” if we wish to understand how different political rulers and ruling elites satisfy the aspirations of their citizens.
But to make the notion of “governance” useful, we need both a practical definition and a method of measuring the gradations between good and bad governance.
What’s more, if we can measure well, we can diagnose weak areas of governance and, hence, seek ways to make the weak actors strong.
Governance, defined as “the performance of governments and the delivery of services by governments,” tells us if and when governments are in fact meeting the expectations of their constituents and providing for them effectively and responsibly.
Democracy outcomes, by contrast, are much harder to measure because the meaning of the very word itself is contested and impossible to measure accurately.
For the purposes of making policy decisions, if we seek to learn how citizens are faring under regime X or regime Y, we need to compare governance (not democracy) in those respective places.
In other words, governance is a construct that enables us to discern exactly whether citizens are progressing in meeting life’s goals.
Measuring governance: five bundles and 57 subcategories
Are citizens of a given country better off economically, socially and politically than they were in an earlier decade? Are their various human causes, such as being secure or being free, advancing? Are their governments treating them well, and attempting to respond to their various needs and aspirations and relieving them of anxiety?
Just comparing national gross domestic products (GDPs), life expectancies or literacy rates provides helpful distinguishing data, but governance data are more comprehensive, more telling and much more useful.
Assessing governance tells us far more about life in different developing societies than we would learn by weighing the varieties of democracy or “human development” in such places.
Government’s performance, in turn, is according to the scheme advanced in my book On Governance and in my Index of African Governance, the delivery to citizens of five bundles (divided into 57 underlying subcategories) of political goods that citizens within any kind of political jurisdiction demand.
The five major bundles are Security and Safety, Rule of Law and Transparency, Political Participation and Respect for Human Rights, Sustainable Economic Opportunity, and Human Development (education and health)….(More)”
Law school students crowdsource commencement address
Chronicle of Higher Education: “Though higher education is constantly changing, commencement ceremonies have largely stayed the same. A graduating student at Stanford Law School is trying to change that.
Marta F. Belcher is crowdsourcing the speech she will give next month at the law school’s precommencement diploma ceremony, offering her classmates an opportunity to share in crafting that final message.
The point of a student commencement speaker, Ms. Belcher said, is to have someone who can speak to the student experience. But as she learned when she gave the student address at her undergraduate ceremony, it’s not easy for one person to represent hundreds, or even thousands, of classmates.
With all the online collaboration tools that are available today, Ms. Belcher saw the possibility of updating the tradition. So she competed to be the student speaker and invited classmates to contribute to her address.
“That was so clearly the right choice — for Stanford, especially, in the Silicon Valley at the cutting edge of innovation — that we should be the ones to sort of pioneer this new kind of way of writing a graduation speech,” she said.
After holding a number of meetings and fielding questions from skeptics, Ms. Belcher set up a wiki to gather ideas. The months-long effort was divided into three stages. First students would establish themes and ideas; next they would start contributing actual content for the speech; and finally, those pieces would be edited into a cohesive narrative during collaborative “edit-a-thons.”
Since the wiki went up, in February, 85 students have contributed to it….(More)”