Sozialwissenschaften
Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (7) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (4)
- Article (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Report (1)
Language
- English (7)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (7)
Keywords
- Datenschutz (4)
- Digital Humanities (3)
- Recht (3)
- Europäische Union (2)
- Forschungsdaten (2)
- Geistiges Eigentum (2)
- Personenbezogene Daten (2)
- Privatsphäre (2)
- Wissenschaftsforschung (2)
- American politics (1)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (4)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (3)
- Postprint (1)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (6)
Publisher
Sometimes legal scholars get relevant but baffling questions from laypersons like: “The reference to a work is personal data, so does the GDPR actually require me to anonymise it? Or, as my voice data is personal data, does the GDPR automatically give me access to a speech recognizer using my voice sample? Or, can I say anything about myself without the GDPR requiring the web host to anonymise or remove the post? What can I say about others like politicians? And, what can researchers say about patients in a research report?” Based on these questions, the authors address the interaction of intellectual property and data protection law in the context of data minimisation and attribution rights, access rights, trade secret protection, and freedom of expression.
Twitter data is used in a wide variety of research disciplines in Social Sciences and Humanities. Although most Twitter data is publicly available, its re-use and sharing raise many legal questions related to intellectual property and personal data protection. Moreover, the use of Twitter and its content is subject to the Terms of Service, which also regulate re-use and sharing. This extended abstract provides a brief analysis of these issues and introduces the new Academic Research product track, which enables authorized researchers to access Twitter API on a preferential basis.
Privacy in its many aspects is protected by various legal texts (e.g. the Basic Law, Civil Code, Criminal Code, or even the Law on Copyright in artistic and photographic works (KunstUrhG), which protects image rights). Data protection law, which governs the processing of information about individuals (personal data), also serves to protect their privacy. However, some information referring to the public sphere of an individual’s life (e.g. the fact that X is a mayor of Smallville) may still be considered personal data (see below), and as such fall within the scope of data protection rules. In this sense, data protection laws concern information that is not private.
Therefore, privacy and data protection, although closely related, are distinct notions: one can violate someone else’s privacy without processing his or her personal data (e.g. simply by knocking at one’s door at night, uninvited), and vice versa: one can violate data protection rules without violating privacy.
The following handouts focus exclusively on data protection rules, and specifically on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). However, please keep in mind that compliance with the GDPR is not the only aspect of protecting privacy of individuals in research projects. Other rules, such as academic ethics and community standards (such as CARE) also need to be observed.
Who is we? Disambiguating the referents of first person plural pronouns in parliamentary debates
(2021)
This paper investigates the use of first person plural pronouns as a rhetorical device in political speeches. We present an annotation schema for disambiguating pronoun references and use our schema to create an annotated corpus of debates from the German Bundestag. We then use our corpus to learn to automatically resolve pronoun referents in parliamentary debates. We explore the use of data augmentation with weak supervision to further expand our corpus and report preliminary results.
Digital humanities research under United States and European copyright laws. Evolving frameworks
(2021)
This chapter summarizes the current state of copyright laws in the United States and European Union that most affect Digital Humanities research, namely the fair use doctrine in the US and research exceptions in Europe, including the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which has been finally adopted in 2019. This summary begins with a description of recent copyright advances most relevant to DH research, and finishes with an analysis of a significant remaining legal hurdle which DH researchers face: how do fair use and research exceptions deal with the critical issue of circumventing technological protection measures (TPM, a.k.a. DRM). Our discussion of the lawful means of obtaining TPM-protected material may contribute to both current DH research and planning decisions and inform future stakeholders and lawmakers of the need to allow TPM circumvention for academic research.
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on personal data protection in the European Union entered into application on 25 May 2018. With its 173 recitals and 99 articles, it may be one of the most ambitious pieces of EU legislation to date. Rather than a guide to GDPR compliance for Digital Humanities researchers, this chapter looks at the use of personal data in DH projects from the data subject’s perspective, and examines to what extent the GDPR kept its promise of enabling the data subject to “take control of his data”. The chapter provides an overview of the right to privacy and the right to data protection, a discussion of the relation between the concept of data control and privacy and data protection law, an introduction to the GDPR, and an explanation of its relevance for scientific research in general and DH in particular. The main section of the chapter analyses two types of data control mechanisms (consent and data subject rights) and their impact on DH research.
We question the growing consensus in the literature that European Americans behave as a homogenous pan-ethnic coalition of voters. Seemingly below the radar of scholarship on voting groups in American politics, we identify a group of white voters that behaves differently from others: German Americans, the largest ethnic group, regionally concentrated in the ‘Swinging Midwest’. Using county level voting returns, ancestry group information from the American Community Survey (ACS), current survey data and historical census data going back as early as 1910, we provide evidence for a partisan and a non-partisan pathway that motivated German Americans to vote for Trump in 2016: a historically grown association with the Republican Party and an acquired taste for isolationist attitudes that mobilizes non-partisan German Americans to support isolationist candidates. Our findings indicate that European American experiences of migration and integration still echo into the political arena of today.