Michael Morris’ piece Mining Student Data Could Save Lives presents the argument that universities in the United States have the technological capabilities to monitor their student bodies and act upon any suspect behaviors they may detect. Such a breach of privacy would better enable these institutions to facilitate the safety of their students, but at the trade-off of each individual’s privacy. While most of the piece is an objective analysis of the ways in which universities could employ data mining technology, he does eventually advocate for a position, saying that the American university should make use of their “crystal ball” to better prevent violent incidents on campus. I agree with this sentiment, given the current climate of gun violence within this country. Time and time again, it has been proven that the antiquated methodologies of yesteryear are insufficient to prevent the heinous acts like those perpetrated at Virginia Tech from happening again. Too often is the response to these atrocities to “send our thoughts and prayers” and simply wait with bated breath for the next one down the road. As such, the only effective system of preventing mass shootings and other premeditated violent acts is the one Morris describes: the use of a data mining algorithm to analyze suspicious behaviors and activities as they occur in real time, therefore giving law enforcement the time to respond. While this may constitute a breach in the fundamental privacy afforded to all Americans by the Constitution, the frequency and efficiency with which these acts are being carried out with forces us to reexamine the intrinsic worth of privacy within society. However, given recent events, it seems that the answer is clear: university campuses have a moral obligation to use the data they have access to to adequately facilitate the protection of their student bodies, even if that demands some intrusions on their digital privacy.
Tag: data mining Page 2 of 5
The central argument of Morris’s essay is: although mining students’ data can not perfectly predict the campus violence and may provide issues of getting student private information without permission, this method is still helpful to reduce the possibility of school violence event. I agree with it. By surveilling student’s data on the internet, the school can both protect the student himself and the campus. First, if the school uses the data mining method to get students’ searching frequency and their comments on the social media, the school can analyze the data and find out the reasons that are responsible for the wired behavior. After this, the school can send faculty to solve the metal problems and prevent the situation become more serious. What’s more, if the school solves the students’ metal issues, it will create a healthier environment for studying. With this improvement, it can create a loop that healthier environment will lead to less mental issues. Less mental issues can lead to less campus violence. Thus, mining students’ data creates more benefits compare to doing nothing. However, school should still keep the data private instead of telling the situation to the whole faculty to prevent the violence. The school should use proper methods to solve the students’ metal issues in order to build a safer campus life.
One thing I noticed both in this book and in real life is how quickly people’s opinions can change on a subject after dealing with certain experiences. In the case of this novel, the subject is data-mining and surveillance. Throughout the course of the book, we see many different stances on privacy rights, but we also see many people change their ideas after going through life-changing experiences.
One of the primary examples of this is Marcus’s dad Drew, who we see going back and forth between sides multiple times. On page 109, we see Drew come back home, after Marcus was questioned by the police. To Marcus and his mom, this questioning was unjust and a waste of time. According to them, it made no sense to detain every single person in the city who showed some sort of odd travel behavior. But when Drew heard about it, he believed that they were just doing their jobs, and if anything, all of this tracking and surveillance was helping to keep them safe. This was a complete turnaround from page 78, immediately after Marcus returned from DHS custody. His dad was absolutely livid, but at the time, he hadn’t had a chance to learn what had happened. Later in the book, Drew changes his mind again, after learning what truly happened to Marcus after the bridge bombing. He went from supporting all the extra surveillance, to hating it in an instant. This shows that just having one extreme experience can completely change one’s views on a lot of subjects.
Not only did this happen in the book, but I have also experienced this in our class. When we originally answered the question about security and privacy, I believed that having privacy was more important than having more security. Once we read the article about the college campus and data-mining, my opinion changed to having more security. After reading little brother though, my opinion has changed back to more privacy. It’s possible that these examples are skewing my opinions because of how extreme they are, but I’m still realizing how easy it was for them to change my mind. From now on, I plan on being more aware of this as I continue to learn more about how surveillance can be used on us.
Not long after Marcus is released, he was followed by two police officers and was arrested for taking unusual trips at unusual times using the BART. Because Marcus’s fast pass was able to collect data on where and when he took trips, a computer algorithm incorrectly marked him down as a possible criminal. When he was brought home in handcuffs his parents talked the police out of incarcerating him. Following these events, Marcus and his father argued on the role of data mining algorithms. Marcus believed that the police are ineffective to deal with the ‘haystack’ of data that data mining algorithms sifted through. On the other hand, his father believed that it was beneficial to have data samples of everyone so that abnormal patterns could be detected and questioned.
Taking a stance on data mining and its accompanying algorithms is not easy. Depending on the context, my view would relate closer to Marcus’s side or his father’s. One example that has been brought up in our class was when our credit card companies freeze our accounts. On an international trip, a few expense will trigger the computer algorithm to freeze the account. These algorithms are in place to compare your expenditures with your previous patterns of spending. This system is in place to protect the user from fraud, and it is beneficial because it causes very little inconvenience to the user. Another example of data mining is how companies use their customers’ data to develop custom marketing strategies. Companies want to be successful and to do this, they wish to brand their product to any type of consumer. This might be seen as a benefit to companies but it does infringe on the public’s privacy. The controversial aspect is how specific companies choose to survey people, Google for example is though to have used ambient sound from their users to generate ads.
There are not many inconveniences of data mining, the important matter is the level of privacy that the data contains. Sensitive data is not usually used in these data mining algorithms and the data mining framed in the book is a exaggeration of what could possibly happen if surveillance extends too far. The systems we have in place now and are currently being developed are assets rather than obstacles.
What do you value more: your safety or your privacy? Essentially, this is the argument Michael Morris attempts to build through his emotional example of how horrific school shootings and other incidents could be avoided through data mining. He builds this thesis on the back of his statement that “universities must be prepared to use data mining to identify and mitigate the potential for tragedy.”
Like most, I started the article with the title, which is definitely very powerful. The idea of saving lives is always a step in the right direct in my opinion. As I began to read, Morris continued to pull me closer and closer to being totally on board with the idea. Several times he used the analogy of a “crystal ball” as being this omniscient safety blanket for all. These vivid heart-rending examples were what really drew me in. Morris relied heavily on the use of pathos, which is always a good idea for an argument. However, it did create bias that deterred me in more than one way. There were no examples of how this power could be abused, regulations that needed to be in place, or even how information could be misinterpreted. After all, there are no voice inflections over the internet and sarcasm is very hard to convey. Furthermore, for me, emotions alone are not a strong enough reason for the creation of more regulations.
I personally feel that desensitizing the public to agencies accessing personal information creates greater problems down the line. Slowly, our lives are already becoming more and more monitored. I do not believe that another layer is a step in the right direction. Also, by slowly implementing access to a plethora of our information, we further open ourselves up to people we could not even begin to imagine. While the average person would not be able to hop on the a school’s server and steal personal data, it is still a possibility that someone could. Apple was not even able to prevent their iCloud database from being compromised. So who is to say that we are really safe from data mining anywhere?
Both good and bad can be found in everything. I am sure a lot of good could come from data mining for public safety. In fact, I am sure it already exists to some extent and has prevented catastrophic events. However, I feel that once that door is publicly open, it is one that cannot be shut and will root too deep.
In the essay, “Mining Student Data Could Save Lives,” author Michael Morris claims that universities should use data mining to monitor the online activity of students as a safety precaution. Access to information about students’ online behavior could theoretically be used to identify individuals at risk of committing acts of violence and allow university officials to intervene before anyone gets hurt.
Personally, I agree with the idea that university officials should have access to information that could end up saving lives. While a certain degree of individual privacy would inevitably be sacrificed, I believe the overall benefits outweigh the costs. It is unlikely that a typical student would even be affected by the presence of increased surveillance. However, data mining is a controversial concept and any implementation of such practices would require clearly outlined procedures and restrictions. First of all, it would be necessary to ensure that the algorithm used to identify red-flag behavior is reliable. You wouldn’t want it to constantly raise alarms at behavior that turns out to be completely harmless, but at the same time, it’s important that when there is a real threat, even a subtle one, university officials are able to catch it and determine the correct steps of action. Additionally, university protocol would have to be designed so that personal student information is only disclosed to appropriate parties, in accordance with FERPA regulations.
One of the most important considerations with online surveillance is the response protocol used when at-risk students are discovered. In order for university data mining to be successful, potential threats must be dealt with tentatively. No accusations could be made based solely on analysis of online activity; intervention would have to be non-hostile and carried out with the intent to understand the student’s behavior without jumping to conclusions. Officials must have the mindset to help at-risk students, not attack them.
In conclusion, universities should be allowed monitor student activity via data mining, since it can potentially identify risks of violent behavior. If implemented correctly, universities could prevent tragedies without interfering with students’ daily lives. As Morris mentioned, we are all already subject to data mining from other sources, and many people are still unaware of its existence. To me, the fact that data mining could save lives makes it well worth the sacrifice of a small degree of privacy.
In his essay “Mining student data could save lives”, Michael Morris employed several examples to put forward his argument that college should use data-mining methods to predict and prevent potential crime and violence on campus. He utilized the example that schools are not allowed to use the information in the student’s record before and the benefits after changing the rules to illustrate that data mining is necessary for protection of everyone.
As the question of privacy and safety been raised again. I personally agree with the author’s view. Data mining, as suggested, can help the officers analyze the students’ online activities and identify when it’s tend to become a threat to the campus. Some people may argue that we will have no privacy at all. However, this is a digital world now. Hackers can easily get people information if them want. Privacy nowadays is not as valuable as it used to be in the past. From my own perspective, I’d prefer to trade that little privacy for the precious safety of my own. What’s more, for students, there’s not so much secret that we need to protect for ourselves. We are not making secret contacts in the old spy movies. It won’t matter if our daily chat with friends was used for data mining. The school only means to help protect the students not monitoring them. Using the “Crystal ball” to “predict the future” can certainly reduce lots of unnecessary loss.
Data mining can not only prevent the crime but also can help the students in other ways. If the students are showing to much stress or anxious, they can be reached for help if they are too shy to turn for help. We should always hold the belief that the university is thinking the best for us. They are trying to protect and help instead of monitoring or destruction. Overall, if the data mining can work as it meant to be, I do believe that it will be worth it to sacrifice a little privacy for help and safety of everyone.
Do we as a society value privacy or safety more? A lieutenant in the University Police Department System in California argues that we have already made our answer clear through the increasing use of the internet and Social Media. Michael Morris makes the controversial stand in his essay that since we have already “forfeited” our privacy through our ever growing interconnectedness. By this logic Morris argues that University Officials would be mistaken to not implement data mining in order to catch early warning signs of threatening behavior.
As morally upright as the end game of saving lives in his argument stands, the means by which it might be accomplished directly contradicts what many people value about living in the United States. I, myself, disagree with a few key aspects of the suggestion.
Morris mentions the complicated algorithms used to organize data into usable information such as screen or early warning signs of violent behavior. This seems like a practical application of such tech, but then Morris compares it with a concerning example of data mining. I know personally when I have been with my parents at a store far from home or on a vacation, the most stressful thing is having to call our credit card company and explain, and prove beyond a doubt that our card has not been stolen. A stressful inconvenience that results from a predictive algorithm, but ultimately with a little consequence. Now imagine being stopped or detained by a police officer and going through a night of interrogation all because your name was flagged by an error or coincidence in a large scale algorithm. A concern that sounds eerily similar to a dystopian situation in Cory Doctorow’s Little Brother, in which the Department of Homeland Security begins detaining and interrogating thousands of innocent citizens because of flaws in their “terrorist detecting algorithm”.
I don’t think Officials of the Law should ignore explicitly concerning data about gun orders and suicide notes, but I do take issue with the extent data mining could influence the freedom in our speech, actions, and lives. When does venting on the internet end and threatening start? Morris makes valid points regarding the potential safety of the group, but sacrifices the independence of the individual.
The central thesis in Michael Morris’ essay, “Mining Student Data Could Save Lives”, is colleges should utilize readily-available data-mining technology to prevent crime on campus. He supports his theory by showcasing the need for crime-prevention, highlighting other examples of data-mining used in society, and addressing privacy concerns.
Due to the large concentrations of people on college campuses, Morris concludes, colleges are prime locations for large-scale shootings. Therefore, there is a greater need to prevent violence in high risk locations. The investigations of all acts large-scale campus violence has revealed, in most cases, there were early-warning signs present however they were not recognized or responded to by campus staff. Conclusively, data-mining as a prevention method would be effective in reducing a large number of mass shootings at college campuses.
To further his central argument, Morris exemplifies a case in which data-mining is used in society for crime prevention. For example, banks use mining algorithms to recognize unusual spending patterns. Then, the bank will freeze the credit card to prevent further transactions, thus preventing more loss. Campuses too, can implement such an algorithm to monitor online student activities to detect behavioural patterns indicative of planned crime.
Lastly, Morris refutes any privacy concerns by highlighting how our online activities have always been surveilled and despite this knowledge, society continues to forfeit their privacy rights by using social-networking sites. Companies like Amazon and Gmail already use data-mining to analyze our behaviour patterns so they can better market to our needs. Additionally, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) has been modified to allow exceptions to releasing a student’s education record without their permission to address concerns about privacy violation.
I agree with Morris’ central argument because I would forfeit my privacy if it increased the possibility of helping save even one life. Additionally, the loss of privacy does not seem severe to me in a world where I am already under constant surveillance, as Morris points out. Considering the availability of data-mining technology and its benefits, it would be a waste to forgo utilizing it.
Morris’s argument appeals to the emotions of his readers starting when he describes a horrid event that we all are very familiar with: school shootings. He notes that these deadly school shootings come with a fair amount of warnings and if the correct people saw these warning signs hidden among the internet, they could have take the opportunity to prevent many campus massacres. Morris logically believes that if a university provides access to the internet, email, and high tech equipment, the university does have the power to also monitor the students’ activity to some degree. The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (Ferpa) has been one of the largest reasons that the topic of students’ internet privacy has been untouched but in the wake of more school shooting Ferpa is making changes and Morris believe that schools should now take advantage of these revolutionary data mining algorithms and prevent further shootings.
I agree with Morris’s overarching argument that school’s have a duty to protect their students from another potentially dangerous student. However, using data mining tools that could take account of students recent Google searches, recent social media posts, and even personal information would not be the best approach for a variety of reasons. While I do argue that too much of the students privacy is being infringed upon I like to view this issue from a different perspective. If a larger university uses a data mining tool to keep track of 15,000 students for example, all the data I mentioned before is being funneled through some algorithm that is running on one or multiple school owned computer systems. This facilitation of data that the school is now in charge of is not secure. Just how 100% security is not obtainable in our society now, the personal data of thousands of students is now vulnerable. A group of hackers could target the schools data and potential steal sensitive information from large chucks of the student population. Potential the student body would be even less safe. I think that schools should use some sort of surveillance, but also balance the weight of that surveillance with securing the privacy of their students information.
