Privacy and Knowledge Commons

Abstract

Although "privacy" and "commons" might on first impression seem conceptually orthogonal or even opposed, a deeper analysis suggests there are insights to be gained from studying information privacy as a question of knowledge commons governance. Privacy often is taken to connote constraint and control over information, while commons often connotes openness and sharing. Neither of these stereotypes, however, are accurate reflections. A more nuanced perspective reveals that sharing and constraint are two sides of the same coin, acting as complements, both in social situations ordinarily conceived in privacy terms and in institutions aimed at creative production through knowledge sharing. Privacy is not simply a matter of constraint, but is more usefully understood, as Helen Nissenbaum has argued, as a matter of "appropriate flow of personal information" for specific social contexts (2009, p. 127).When defined as such, it becomes apparent both that privacy is not secrecy and that privacy often involves knowledge sharing. Indeed, true secrecy, in which information is completely unshared (Friedrich, 1971;Neitzke, 2007), is a rarity.

Privacy governance not included: analysis of third parties in learning management systems

“…Connecting to this broader literature on the unequal (Fuchs, 2011; Miller, 2020) and contextual nature of privacy (Badillo-Urquiola et al , 2018; Nissenbaum, 2009), recent studies have illustrated the importance of critically engaging with conceptual and theoretical frameworks to strengthen empirical studies of privacy (Sanfilippo et al , 2018; Shvartzshnaider et al , 2022), spanning qualitative, quantitative and mixed research designs (Li, 2011; Sanfilippo et al , 2021). The research community elucidates the social and networked nature of privacy, critically examining the implications of sociotechnical systems on individual collaborators’ (Wardrip et al , 2013), experts (Emami Naeini et al , 2018) and users’ (Badillo-Urquiola et al , 2018), as well as on communities’ privacy (Khojasteh et al , 2019) as experienced.…”

Too Much of a Good Thing? A Governing Knowledge Commons Review of Abundance in Context

“…Most important to this article, we note that the GKC has a track record, which documents its steady progress toward not simply adoption and use but toward utility as a research device. What is now known as the GKC framework was launched in 2010 in an article titled “Constructing Commons in the Cultural Environment” (Madison et al, 2010 ) and has since been elaborated via three published collections of case studies overseen by the authors of that work and various other research, some produced under the umbrella of what is known as the Workshop on Governing Knowledge Commons ( https://knowledge-commons.net ) (Frischmann et al, 2014 , 2017 ; Sanfilippo M. R. et al, 2021 ) and some produced by researchers working independently (Dekker and Kuchar, 2021 ).…”

Designing data policy and governance for smart cities: theoretical essay using the IAD framework to analyze data-driven policy

“…Also, the IAD framework questioning the attributes of the resources and capacities, the actors participating in the policy, the governance rules, and the standards. Finally, understanding the policy outcomes that are shared and disputed in the provision of public goods and services (Sanfilippo, Frischmann, & Strandburg, 2021).…”