International comparative research and confidentiality issues. An archival perspective

1. International comparative research and confidentiality issues. An archival perspective by Oliver Watteler (GESIS-ZA) CESSDA Expert Seminar, Athens (GR) 2006

2. Introduction Title of this seminar reads: „Open Access to Data: Anonymisation, Data Protection & Confidentiality“ • Major aim: Find a way around the heterogeneous legal situation within Europe to foster data access. • Two areas of open access: • Access to publicly financed data (e.g. OECD) • Facilitation of access through archives • Aims of my presentation • Idea: international comparative studies and confidentiality issues from a(n) (German) archival perspective • German data protection laws (privacy protection) • Approach to this topic at ZA • Examples of comparative studies in the ZA holdings were privacy was an issue

3. a) German data protection laws Laws and control bodies • Federal Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz) • Data Protection Acts of the Länder (Landesdatenschutzgesetze) • Commissioners for Data Protection and Freedom of Information on federal and state level • All public and private bodies dealing with personal data should also have such a commissioner.

4. a) German data protection laws The „Bundesdatenschutzgesetz“ (Federal Data Protection Act) • At the core are „personal data“, defined as: • „any information concerning the personal or material circumstances of an identified or identifiable individual (the data subject).“ (§3,1) • Purpose of this law is: • „to protect the individual against his right to privacy being impaired through the handling of his personal data.“ (§1,1) • Principles for use of personal data are: • a definite purpose of collection (Zweckbindung), • data reduction (Datenvermeidung > avoidance), • data economy (Datensparsamkeit > thrift).

5. a) German data protection laws Collection and consent: §3,3 „If personal data are collected from the data subject, the controller is to inform him as to • 1. the identity of the controller, • 2. the purposes of collection, processing or use and • 3. the categories of recipients only in so far as the circumstances of the individual case provide no grounds for the data subject to assume that data will be transferred to such recipients, unless the data subject has already acquired such knowledge by other means.“ §4,1 „Consent shall be effective only when based on the data subject's free decision.“ > requires written form

6. a) German data protection laws Major exception: research (§40) • Collection of personal data legitimate for purpose of research only. • „The personal data shall be rendered anonymous as soon as the research purpose permits this.“ (§40,2) • If data is anonymous, it is no longer subject to the law and can be archived! • Anonymity means „factual anonymity“: • „‘Rendering anonymous‘ means the modification of personal data so that the information concerning personal or material circumstances can no longer or only with a disproportionate amount of time, expense and labour be attributed to an identified or identifiable individual.“ (§3,6)

7. Intermezzo: „Factual anonymity“ • Topic and concept have been discussed elsewhere. • Nonetheless interesting for analytic reasons: • Defines a space in the span between personal and anonym data. • There is no absolute anonymity. • Hence, make it as hard as possible for potential attacks to be successful. • Thus, it is not far from most approaches to privacy protection.

8. b) Approach to privacy and data protection at ZA • Check of incoming studies for completeness of data and documentation. • Check also of content of data: • Primary focus on geographic variables and coding of professions (e.g. Allbus). • Secondary focus on combination of items. • No single check list due to variety of studies (e.g. community study of Halle). • With European Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) and increased dissemination via the Internet new thinking.

9. b) Approach to privacy and data protection at ZA • Concept of „factual anonymity“ gives us room for decisions. • Reduction of data quality per se (meaning e.g. the deleting of certain variables) not always useful. Example election studies: • Membership in workers‘ union considered sensitive information by Data Protection Act. • But it can be considered an important item for analysing voting behaviour. • If I cannot localize an individual, this information can stay in the dataset.

10. Intermezzo: Importance of data protection Why is data protection so important at ZA if we only archive study data that is deemed „factually anonymous“? • Ever since the beginning of the discussion on data protection, critics thought we were seeking an exclusive niche for social science research. • Other critics think that danger is just around the corner. • And then others: who needs this data anyway? Categorical imperative: we try to keep up responsible preservation and data service policies.

11. c) Examples of comparative studies (1) • The following examples are meant to illustrate certain problems. • The studies do not allow direct identification of any respondent.

12. c) Examples of comparative studies (2) International Social Survey Program (ISSP) • Have there been participating countries without existing data protection laws? • Bangladesh in 1997 • Chile in 1998 (act in 1999, first in Latin America) • Philippines since 1991 (proposal for e-commerce) • Are there countries with data protection laws that do not make exemptions for research? • Example: Chile • Art. 3 of the „Ley sobre proteccion de la vida privada“ (Law on the protection of the private life) talks about the collection of data in surveys. • But no explicit exceptions for research Missing data protection legislation problem for research?

13. c) Examples of comparative studies (3) European Values Study (EVS) 1999/2000 • Second release now available online • Iceland was a problematic case: • Population rather small (about 300.000). • Administrative items big enough for European circumstances, but not for Icelandic ones. Regions in Iceland • Problem: round tripping of data. Data collected in Iceland and actually too sensible could have found its way back to Iceland. National measures cannot be transferred easily!

14. c) Examples of comparative studies (4) European Election Studies • National election studies were harmonized for comparison (European Voter Group). • Available online at ZA. • Problem: access to Norwegian data is restricted, due to geographical variables. Awareness of the researchers!

15. (c) Examples of comparative studies (5) Comparative Candidate Survey (CCS) • Initiated by Mannheim Center for European Social Research (MZES). • Based on candidate studies for national parliaments, also non-European ones. • Possible problem in Germany: all candidates are registered with the Federal Returning Officer (Bundeswahlleiter). Registration includes name, age, profession and directions. What do we do in a case like this?

16. In case we get lost on our quest

17. Regions in Iceland Region of Westfjords • 9.500 km² • 8.000 inhabitants • Capital Isafjöδur (3.000 inhabitants) Back