[HacktionLab] Anonymous survey tech?

[mark]

Interesting stuff Brent, nice one. Would you like to write a summary to
go in the main n23 blog https://network23.org/announcements/ ? This
would anwser some questions we get asked regularly, in a more rigorous
way than we have done before.

Also on the topic of network23, can we also use this as an opportunity
to let the list know that network23 is completely un-broken and open for
new blog sign-ups, for the first time in a long while. Hoorah! So tell
your activisty friends to scoot on over to https://network23.org/

We've even got something vaguely resembling an aggregated news feed
here: https://network23.org/active-blogs/

Cheers,
Mark



Brent:
> Hi
> 
> So, a shout out to network23- I used it to run an anonymous survey on
> digital privacy for coursework, and it worked well (
> https://network23.org/theb).
> 
> There's a summary of the research on the website. The technology setup was
> interesting, so there's a short write-up on that. There are complex
> decisions in providing anonymity with no straightforward choices (as the
> email discussions below shows). There are trade-offs in technical and
> research factors, and need to consider user perceptions. I conclude
> anonymity can improve credibility of responses, but does complicate
> research, so should be considered whether it's justified for research
> projects.
> 
> https://network23.org/theb/research-summary/
> https://network23.org/theb/research-summary/#privacy-enhanced-survey
> 
> Short summary of the research:
> A small survey was done around digital privacy, with a sample of
> respondents from higher education. Respondents rated some GDPR provisions
> and organisation privacy measures in relation to a computing scenario they
> described. The results show these respondents do value such provisions, but
> are critical of practice. They are concerned about  tracking and ‘linking’
> across services, and want real transparency and control in relation to
> personal data. The GDPR should better incorporate these provisions.
> 
> If anyone wants the fuller report, or any comments/questions, let me know.
> 
> Thanks,
> Brent
> 
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 at 13:20, Brent <thebrentc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>>
>> So thanks for the discussion everyone. Some good points. Add privacy as
>> another thing that's hard in computing!
>>
>> I'll make a play for a network23 blog. There is some tradeoff against
>> usability to consider, so other possible option is just hosting a survey on
>> shared hosting, with informed consent about data storage.
>>
>> Other infos as an aside:
>> I've installed limesurvey to try, it seems quite good- quite powerful,
>> slightly technical, but not too bad.
>> For unique respondents, limesurvey has option of giving out tokens to
>> known invitees to track completions; from the software:
>> "If you used an identifying token to access this survey, please rest
>> assured that this token will not be stored together with your responses. It
>> is managed in a separate database and will only be updated to indicate
>> whether you did (or did not) complete this survey. There is no way of
>> matching identification tokens with survey responses."
>> I keep looking for a nice wordpress plugin to do generic forms that isn't
>> a restricted freemium model and ideally saves data in nice standard
>> database tables, without success. There also doesn't seem to be great
>> survey plugin options. If any wordpress-heads have tips, welcome. Btw I've
>> done some WP these days, so happy to try answer others' questions on list
>> or off.
>>
>> Thanks all!
>> b
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 12:00, Charlie Harvey <charlie at newint.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/12/2018 11:07, Michael Rogers wrote:
>>>> On 11/12/2018 10:51, Charlie Harvey wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2018 17:47, naomi wrote:
>>> ----------------------8<------------------------
>>>>> Given you have to store your responses anyway, you could just use the
>>>>> row id in your database to store it and rely on your database to
>>>>> increment it.
>>>>
>>>> How does this detect multiple responses from the same person, which was
>>>> the reason for suggesting storing the hashed IP address?
>>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> It can't do that - but that's inevitable if the system is anonymous (as
>>> far as I know).
>>>
>>> Hashing the IP (or IP and UA) won't work for detecting duplicate
>>> responses either.
>>>
>>> For example in a university or large workplace you're probably sharing
>>> an IP address and if you're using one of their machines it'll have the
>>> same useragent string. So if two people at a uni or workplace submit
>>> responses you'll get the same hash and it'll be flagged as a duplicate.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie Harvey
>>> IT Director
>>> New Internationalist
>>>
>>> t: +44 (0)1865 403249
>>> w: https://newint.org/
>>> k: https://ox4.li/gpgkey/
>>>
>>> ** Shop with a conscience: https://ethicalshop.org **
>>>
>>> New Internationalist is an independent not-for-profit communications
>>> cooperative. We publish the multi-award winning New Internationalist
>>> magazine, a huge range of books from non-fiction to graphic novels, and
>>> run an ethical mail order business. Learn more at:
>>> https://newint.org/about
>>>
>>> Incorporated in the UK under no.1005239.
>>>
>>> Old Music Hall, 106-108 Cowley Rd., Oxford, OX4 1JE, UK
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> HacktionLab mailing list
>>> HacktionLab at lists.aktivix.org
>>> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/hacktionlab
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> HacktionLab mailing list
> HacktionLab at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/hacktionlab
> 

-- 
OpenPGP key expiry date extended - refresh from pool.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/hacktionlab/attachments/20190506/57a362de/attachment-0001.sig>