Cited by 19Digitalization, Law, and RegulationThoreau and American LiteraturePrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Digital health fiduciaries: protecting user privacy when sharing health data

Open access
Arora, Chirag·2019·Ethics and Information Technology

Abstract

Wearable self-tracking devices capture multidimensional health data and offer several advantages including new ways of facilitating research. However, they also create a conflict between individual interests of avoiding privacy harms, and collective interests of assembling and using large health data sets for public benefits. While some scholars argue for transparency and accountability mechanisms to resolve this conflict, an average user is not adequately equipped to access and process information relating to the consequences of consenting to further uses of her data. As an alternative, this paper argues for fiduciary relationships, which put deliberative demands on digital health data controllers to keep the interests of their data subjects at the forefront as well as cater to the contextual nature of privacy. These deliberative requirements ensure that users can engage in collective participation and share their health data at a lower risk of privacy harms. This paper also proposes a way to balance the flexible and open-ended nature of fiduciary law with the specific nature and scope of fiduciary duties that digital health data controllers should owe to their data subjects.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10676-019-09499-x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. Abelson, H., Anderson, R., Bellovin, S. M., Benaloh, J., Blaze, M., Diffie, W., et al. Weitzner, D. J. (2015). Keys under doormats: Mandating insecurity by requiring government access to all data and communications. Journal of Cybersecurity, 1(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyv009 . · DOI
  2. Acquisti, A., Adjerid, I., & Brandimarte, L. (2013). Gone in 15s: The limits of privacy transparency and control. IEEE Security Privacy, 11(4), 72–74. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2013.86 . · DOI
  3. Adjerid, I., Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2013). Sleights of privacy: framing, disclosures, and the limits of transparency. In Proceedings of the ninth symposium on usable privacy and security (pp. 9:1–9:11). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2501604.2501613 . · DOI
  4. Balkin, J. M. (2015). Information fiduciaries and the first amendment. U.C. Davis Law Review, 49, 1183.
  5. Barocas, S., & Nissenbaum, H. (2009). On notice: The trouble with notice and consent (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2567409). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2567409 .
  6. Brennan-Marquez, K. (2015). Fourth amendment fiduciaries. Fordham Law Review, 84, 611.
  7. Brinig, M. F. (2011). Parents, trusted but not trustees or (Foster) parents as Fiduciaries (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1767412). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1767412 .
  8. Bu-Pasha, S. (2017). Cross-border issues under EU data protection law with regards to personal data protection. Information and Communications Technology Law, 26(3), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2017.1330740 . · DOI
  9. Byres, E. J., Franz, M., & Miller, D. (2004). The use of attack trees in assessing vulnerabilities in scada systems. In IEEE conference international infrastructure survivability workshop (IISW’04). Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
  10. Candeub, A. (2013). Transparency in the administrative state. Houston Law Review, 51, 385.
  11. Crawford, K., Lingel, J., & Karppi, T. (2015). Our metrics, ourselves: A hundred years of self-tracking from the weight scale to the wrist wearable device. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(4–5), 479–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549415584857 . · DOI
  12. Dobbs, D. (2008). Law of torts (hornbook series). Eagan: West Academic.
  13. Evans, B. J. (2011). Much ado about data ownership. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 25, 69.
  14. Farrell, H. M. (2012). Transparency in psychiatric care. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 5(3), 273–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2012.07.011 . · DOI
  15. Ford, R. A., & Price, W. N. I. (2016). Privacy and accountability in black-box medicine. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 23, 1.
  16. Frankel, T. T. (2010). Fiduciary law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Gelter, M., & Helleringer, G. (2018). Fiduciary principles in European Civil Law Systems (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 3142202). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3142202 .
  18. Gold, A. S. (2013). The loyalties of Fiduciary law (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2370598). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2370598 .
  19. Gostin, L. O., & Hodge, J. G. J. (2001). Personal privacy and common goods: A framework for balancing under the national health information privacy rule. Minnesota Law Review, 86, 1439.
  20. Higgins, J. P. (2016). Smartphone applications for patients’ health and fitness. The American Journal of Medicine, 129(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.05.038 . · DOI
  21. Hintze, M. (2017). Viewing the GDPR through a de-Identification Lens: A tool for compliance, clarification, and consistency (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2909121). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2909121 .
  22. Holman, C. D., Bass, A. J., Rosman, D. L., Smith, M. B., Semmens, J. B., Glasson, E. J., et al. Stanley, F. J. (2008). A decade of data linkage in Western Australia: Strategic design, applications and benefits of the WA data linkage system. Australian Health Review: A Publication of the Australian Hospital Association, 32(4), 766–777. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH080766 . · DOI · Paper page
  23. Jensen, C., & Potts, C. (2004). Privacy policies as decision-making tools: An evaluation of online privacy notices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 471–478). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985752 . · DOI
  24. Johnson, L. (2003). After enron: Remembering loyalty discourse in corporate law. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 28, 27.
  25. Kaplan, B. (2016). How should health data be used? Privacy, secondary use, and big data sales. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 25(2), 312–329. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000614 . · DOI
  26. Konnoth, C. (2015). Classification and standards for health information: ethical and practical approaches. Washington and Lee Law Review Online, 72, 397.
  27. Kumar, A. (2014). Zero day exploit (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2378317). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2378317 .
  28. Licht, A. N. (2016). Motivation, information, negotiation: Why fiduciary accountability cannot be negotiable (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2811237). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2811237 .
  29. Lupton, D. (2015). Digital health technologies and digital data: New ways of monitoring, measuring and commodifying human embodiment, health and illness (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2552998). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2552998 .
  30. Martin, G., Martin, P., Hankin, C., Darzi, A., & Kinross, J. (2017). Cybersecurity and healthcare: how safe are we? BMJ, 358. · DOI
  31. McDonald, A. M., & Cranor, L. F. (2008). The cost of reading privacy policies. I/S: A. Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 4, 543.
  32. Mehlman, M. J. (2015). Why physicians are fiduciaries for their patients. Indiana Health Law Review, 12(1), 1–64. https://doi.org/10.18060/18959 . · DOI
  33. Miller, P. (2011). A theory of fiduciary liability. McGill Law Journal/Revue de Droit de McGill, 56(2), 235–288. https://doi.org/10.7202/1002367ar . · DOI
  34. Ohm, P. (2009). Broken promises of privacy: Responding to the surprising failure of anonymization (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1450006). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1450006 .
  35. Patil, S., Patruni, B., Lu, H., Dunkerley, F., Fox, J., Potoglou, D., & Robinson, N. (2015). Privacy of health records: Europeans’ preferences on electronic health data storage and sharing. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.
  36. Price, W. N. (2017a). Medical malpractice and black-box medicine (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2910417). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2910417 .
  37. Price, W. N. (2017b). Regulating black-box medicine (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2938391). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2938391 .
  38. Rubinstein, I. (2012). Big data: The end of privacy or a new beginning? (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2157659). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2157659 .
  39. Sharon, T. (2016). The Googlization of health research: From disruptive innovation to disruptive ethics. Personalized Medicine, 13(6), 563–574. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme-2016-0057 . · DOI
  40. Sitkoff, R. H. (2011). The economic structure of Fiduciary law. Boston University Law Review, 91, 1039.
  41. Smith, D. G. (2002). The critical resource theory of Fiduciary duty. Vanderbilt Law Review, 55, 1399.
  42. Smith, H. E. (2013). Why Fiduciary law is equitable (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2321315). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2321315 .
  43. Solove, D. J. (2007). I’ve got nothing to hide and other misunderstandings of privacy. San Diego Law Review, 44, 745.
  44. Spagnuelo, D., & Lenzini, G. (2016). Patient-centred transparency requirements for medical data sharing systems. In New advances in information systems and technologies (pp. 1073–1083). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31232-3_102 . · DOI
  45. Terry, N. (2012). Protecting patient privacy in the age of big data (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2153269). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2153269 .
  46. Wachter, S. (2018). The GDPR and the internet of things: A three-step transparency model. Law, Innovation and Technology, 10(2), 266–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2018.1527479 . · DOI
  47. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications: A study in the economics of internal organization (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1496220). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1496220 .
  48. Worthington, S. (2006). Equity. Oxford: OUP Oxford. · DOI
  49. Yakowitz, J. (2011). Tragedy of the data commons. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 25, 1.
  50. Zarsky, T. Z. (2016). Incompatible: The GDPR in the age of big data. Seton Hall Law Review, 47, 995.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Arora, C.
Affiliations
Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
Corresponding author
Arora, Chirag
Venue
Ethics and Information Technology
Published
2019-02-13
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
181-196
ISSN
  • 1388-1957 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8439
OpenAlex
W2911449978
Cited by
19
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2
FWCI
17.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ethics and Information Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • TU/e Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Thoreau and American Literature
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
fiduciary duty, health data privacy, health data sharing, data controllers, data subjects, contextual privacy, transparency and accountability, collective participation, informed consent, digital health

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review