Search results

The COVID-19 pandemic has driven universities to deliver education online, making use of digital platforms for both formal and informal learning. This move has accelerated concerns regarding institutions’ capabilities to protect students from online abuse and support those who fall victim to its many forms. Empirical data drawn from UK universities prior to the pandemic highlight the lack of policy and practice across the university sector around both awareness of, and support from, online abuse among the student body. Further concerns during the pandemic, which highlight failures not just of safeguarding policy, but cybersecurity practice, demonstrate the need for universities to not only recognise their duty of care regarding student welfare but also to provide training and education for all, making use of online and hybrid higher education.

The chapter deliberates on research ethics and the unanticipated side effects that technological developments have brought in the past decades. It looks at data protection and privacy through the prism of ethics and focuses on the need for safeguarding the fundamental rights of the research participants in the new digital era. Acknowledging the benefits of data analytics for boosting scientific process, the chapter reflects on the main principles and specific research derogations, introduced by the EU General Data Protection Regulation. Further on, it discusses some of the most pressing ethics concerns, related to the use, reuse, and misuse of data; the distinction between publicly available and open data; ethics challenges in online recruitment of research participants; and the potential bias and representativeness problems of Big Data research. The chapter underscores that all challenges should be properly addressed at the outset of research design. Highlighting the power asymmetries between Big Data studies and individuals’ rights to data protection, human dignity, and respect for private and family life, the chapter argues that anonymization may be reasonable, yet not the ultimate ethics solution. It asserts that while anonymization techniques may protect individual data protection rights, the former may not be sufficient to prevent discrimination and stigmatization of entire groups of populations. Finally, the chapter suggests some approaches for ensuring ethics compliance in the digital era.

Research with vulnerable groups is crucial to get their input into public policy design that will directly impact on them. However, there are many methodological and ethical challenges involved in encouraging participation from groups with a wide range of intellectual, cognitive and physical capacities while ensuring that the rights and well-being of participants are protected. Rather than exploring ethical theories, this chapter is a case study describing the practical ethical considerations that were involved in designing and holding a series of focus groups with adult health and social care service users from vulnerable cohorts. It is based on a series of focus groups which the Institute of Public Health (IPH) held with specified cohorts as part of a policy development process on adult safeguarding for the Department of Health (DOH) in Ireland. The four cohorts were people with intellectual disability, cognitive impairments, significant mental health challenges and nursing home residents. This chapter does not describe the findings of the focus groups but outlines the ethical and methodological considerations that arose in designing and conducting this research, and the practical ethical safeguards employed to mitigate risk and comply with Irish and EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) legislation governing health research. It outlines the ethical issues around protecting confidentiality and using incentives to encourage participation, how individuals' capacity to give informed consent was maximized, the risk-assessment and mitigation procedures used to prevent harms arising and the measures put in place to provide follow-up emotional support to participants.

The study focusses on the legal issues surrounding artificial intelligence (AI), which are being investigated and debated about several European Union initiatives to manage and regulate Information and Communication Technologies. The goal is to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of adopting AI technology and the ramifications for the articulations of law and politics in democratic constitutional countries. Thus, the study aims to identify socio-legal concerns and possible solutions to protect individuals’ interests. The exploratory study is based on statutes, rules, and committee reports. The study has used news pieces, reports issued by organisations and legal websites. The study revealed computer security vulnerabilities, unfairness, bias and discrimination, and legal personhood and intellectual property issues. Issues with privacy and data protection, liability for harm, and lack of accountability will all be discussed. The vulnerability framework is utilised in this chapter to strengthen comprehension of key areas of concern and to motivate risk and impact mitigation solutions to safeguard human welfare. Given the importance of AI’s effects on weak individuals and groups as well as their legal rights, this chapter contributes to the discourse, which is essential. The chapter advances the conversation while appreciating the legal work done in AI and the fact that this sector needs constant review and flexibility. As AI technology advances, new legal challenges, vulnerabilities, and implications for data privacy will inevitably arise, necessitating increased monitoring and research.

Abuse and misuse of Substitute Decision-Making (SDMg) authority impacts the lives of children and adults with decision-making disabilities. The concerns raised in this paper amplify previous attention addressed by advocacy agencies and law reformists such as the Law Commission of Ontario. I analyse problems associated with Plenary Guardianship from both the lived experience of the non-guardian perspective and from the authority bestowed to the Guardian pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 of Western Australia legitimating the unintended capacity to abuse one’s substitute decision-making authority. Substitute decision-making arrangements enable decisions to be made on behalf of a person with a decision-making disability; usually made when such arrangements are necessary and subject to safeguards. Detrimentally, the substitute decision-maker (SDM) can assert broader powers beyond sensible measures that include thwarting investigations undertaken by family members; removing family members from the life of the person for whom an order is made; inappropriately applying a paternalistic or ‘best interest’ approach to decision-making where other approaches are required; failing to consider the individual’s wishes or making decisions contrary to those wishes; having insufficient contact with the individual; and, sharing insufficient or incorrect information. Moreover, they may subject the individual for whom an SDM order is made to experimental medical treatment in tandem with imposing or condoning severe and harmful restrictive-practices. Consequently, the second issue addressed in this paper concerns normalising both chemical and physical restrictive-practices that are both morally abhorrent and clinically highly questionable. Furthermore, often undertaken by service providers and their contracted psychiatrists and treating teams, endorsed under authority of a collaborating Guardian or SDM.

Research on relational maintenance of long-distance or cross-residential romantic relationships is limited. Moreover, relatively little is known about relational maintenance among non-marital intimate partners in later life, many of whom prefer to live-apart-together (LAT) rather than cohabit. This research paper examines how older adults from the United States maintain their romantic relationships across residences. The authors conducted a grounded theory study drawing on interviews collected from 22 older adults in LAT relationships. The data revealed that older LAT partners engage in a process of safeguarding autonomy to maintain their partnerships and relationship satisfaction. Two broad strategies were identified: upholding separateness and reshaping expectations. While safeguarding autonomy was paramount, participants also emphasized the importance of having a flexible mindset about the physical copresence of their relationships. The findings have implications for practice, suggesting that creating an interdependent couple-identity may undermine, or at least have little bearing on, the relationship stability of older LAT couples. Future research is needed to determine how LAT experiences among racially/ethnically or socioeconomically diverse samples might differ.

All school staff need to have a critical self-understanding of how their perceptions of children, childhood and risk inform their practice when they are engaging with children and reflecting on factors linked to safeguarding. This chapter begins by discussing and briefly revisiting the duties and obligations that all staff have in relation to safeguarding children in educational settings. It then goes onto discuss the concept of teachers as ‘significant non parental adults’ (Rishel, Sales, & Koeske, 2005) and explores some of the finer details of why teachers and teaching staff are key players in relation to identifying risks, preventing harms whilst dealing with safeguarding concerns. We conclude this chapter by illustrating and arguing that teachers are key players identifying the needs of children and also have the potential to influence positive behaviour change in them. We also set a context for the remainder of this section: understanding the nature of concerns and risk by outlining the contribution each of the remaining individual chapters has to bring to this collection.

Advances in Big Data, artificial Intelligence and data-driven innovation bring enormous benefits for the overall society and for different sectors. By contrast, their misuse can lead to data workflows bypassing the intent of privacy and data protection law, as well as of ethical mandates. It may be referred to as the ‘creep factor’ of Big Data, and needs to be tackled right away, especially considering that we are moving towards the ‘datafication’ of society, where devices to capture, collect, store and process data are becoming ever-cheaper and faster, whilst the computational power is continuously increasing. If using Big Data in truly anonymisable ways, within an ethically sound and societally focussed framework, is capable of acting as an enabler of sustainable development, using Big Data outside such a framework poses a number of threats, potential hurdles and multiple ethical challenges. Some examples are the impact on privacy caused by new surveillance tools and data gathering techniques, including also group privacy, high-tech profiling, automated decision making and discriminatory practices. In our society, everything can be given a score and critical life changing opportunities are increasingly determined by such scoring systems, often obtained through secret predictive algorithms applied to data to determine who has value. It is therefore essential to guarantee the fairness and accurateness of such scoring systems and that the decisions relying upon them are realised in a legal and ethical manner, avoiding the risk of stigmatisation capable of affecting individuals’ opportunities. Likewise, it is necessary to prevent the so-called ‘social cooling’. This represents the long-term negative side effects of the data-driven innovation, in particular of such scoring systems and of the reputation economy. It is reflected in terms, for instance, of self-censorship, risk-aversion and lack of exercise of free speech generated by increasingly intrusive Big Data practices lacking an ethical foundation. Another key ethics dimension pertains to human-data interaction in Internet of Things (IoT) environments, which is increasing the volume of data collected, the speed of the process and the variety of data sources. It is urgent to further investigate aspects like the ‘ownership’ of data and other hurdles, especially considering that the regulatory landscape is developing at a much slower pace than IoT and the evolution of Big Data technologies. These are only some examples of the issues and consequences that Big Data raise, which require adequate measures in response to the ‘data trust deficit’, moving not towards the prohibition of the collection of data but rather towards the identification and prohibition of their misuse and unfair behaviours and treatments, once government and companies have such data. At the same time, the debate should further investigate ‘data altruism’, deepening how the increasing amounts of data in our society can be concretely used for public good and the best implementation modalities.