[HacktionLab] Anonymous survey tech?

Mon May 6 20:43:55 UTC 2019

Hi Mark

Thanks. Cool, will do a summary for the blog. So you mean addressing
questions around anonymity in research/surveys?
(Can take off-list if better)
b

On Mon, 6 May 2019 at 15:14, mark <mark at aktivix.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> HacktionLab mailing list
> HacktionLab at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/hacktionlab
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/hacktionlab/attachments/20190506/83d3037a/attachment.html>