Can a data commons, as envisioned in the article by Dana Cuff and Jerry Kang, provide widely divergent and useful data while protecting privacy? I think that the article leaves me wondering what kinds of uses are envisioned for projects like this that could not exist online or in other forms of media. Is making the invisible visible something that will benefit society as a whole, or the largely the rich and powerful, as most social changes have done for some time now.
I can’t help thinking that just because we CAN do something doesn’t mean we SHOULD do it.
What real and unique benefits could urban sensing provide equally to all citizens than cannot be achieved in other, potentially less invasive ways? Does agreeing to share personal information constitute a benefit to the individual providing it, or only to those who have the technology, training and equipment to make viable use of it? Does this type of information gathering that starts voluntarily become something that is required of all of us down the road? Who gets to make money from it? Is money earned put back into community development, or does it line the pockets of those in control?
Who is responsible for logging, categorizing and authenticating the data, and more importantly, how do we ensure that everyone has equal access to it, and that privacy will be maintained? These are all big questions, currently without any clear answers.
