Contextualizing privacy with wearable data in higher education

Abstract

This conceptual study uses dynamic systems theory (DST) and phenomenology as lenses to examine data privacy implications surrounding wearable devices that incorporate stakeholder, contextual and technical factors. Wearable devices can impact people's behaviour and sense of self, and DST and phenomenology provide complementary approaches for emphasizing the subjective experiences of individuals that occur with the use of wearable data. Privacy is approached through phenomenology as an individual's lived bodily experience and DST emphasizes the self‐regulation and feedback loops of individuals and their uses of wearable data. The data collection, analysis and communication of wearable data to support learning systems alongside privacy implications for each are examined. The IoT, cloud computing, metadata and algorithms are discussed as they relate to wearable data, pointing out privacy risks and strategies to minimize harm. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topic Data privacy is a complex topic and is approached through different perspectives, influencing the degree of an individual's data autonomy. Wearable technology is increasing in the consumer market and offers great potential to learning environments. What this paper adds Extends extant literature on dynamic systems theory and phenomenology, contributing these perspectives to educational research in the context of student data privacy and wearable technologies. Provides a framework to understand the complex and contingent ways that privacy can be understood in the collection, analysis, and communication of wearable data to support learning. Implications for practice and/or policy Higher education faculty and educational policymakers should consider various interactions in systems and among systems of how wearable data collection may be analysed, communicated and stored, potentially exposing students to privacy harms. Multiple actors in learning systems must engage in continuous and evolving feedback loops around data security, consent, ownership and control to determine who has access to student data, how it is used and for what purposes. The EU's General Data Protection and Regulation offers one of the most comprehensive frameworks for higher education institutions and faculty around the world to follow for protecting student data privacy.

Addressing privacy concerns with wearable health monitoring technology

“…Several studies have examined key risks and solutions for improving wearable privacy protections. Hagadone-Bedir et al (2023) propose a blockchain-based framework to enhance security, access control, and user consent management for health data sharing through wearables. They argue decentralization and encryption can mitigate breach and misuse risks.…”

“…They argue decentralization and encryption can mitigate breach and misuse risks. Hagadone-Bedir et al (2023) conducted an empirical study on user perspectives of wearable privacy. Most users were unaware of data sharing and protection policies.…”

“…• Wearable devices like smartwatches raise significant privacy and security concerns due to collection of sensitive health and activity data (Prieto-Avalos et al, 2022). • Proposed technical solutions include blockchain frameworks to enhance security, access control, and consent management (Hagadone-Bedir et al, 2023). Encryption can also help mitigate breach and misuse risks.…”

“…• Empirical studies reveal users are often unaware of data sharing policies and privacy controls of wearables. Improving informed consent and transparency of controls is needed (Hagadone-Bedir et al, 2023). • Recommendations include regulating wearables like medical devices under HIPAA to mandate security assessments, safeguards, and breach notification (Brown, 2016).…”

Regulatory Data Privacy Concerns in Proliferating IoT Era of Telecommunication Data Monetization: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Political Perspective The international debate surrounding civil liberty versus national interests, such as counter-terrorism and economic development, against the level of personal data privacy protection, has been ongoing for some time [63]. Australian government requiring Telcos to keep users' telephone, emails and internet metadata for two years in order to combat terrorism [42], and advocacy for laissez-faire economic development governmental policies [44], are among examples of the vast collection of personal data by governments to match respective countries' national interests [43]. The balance between civil liberties and national interests greatly influences the level of regulatory enforcement towards data privacy control [42].…”