While anonymity can support positive practices of sharing, it can also foster negative or even illegal practices. So, if collaborative information management involves a high level of anonymity, de-linking persons from data might disrupt accountability. This might be useful when the purpose is to extract lessons learnt without apportioning blame, but there is tension between supporting anonymity but also providing the means to hold people accountable/liable for choices and actions which are either not in the public’s best interest and/or are against the law. This issue has been impacted upon by some of the provisions in the new general data protection regulation which give data subjects greater control over their data with, for example, a right to be informed, a right of access to data and a right of rectification.
Guiding Questions
How can collaborative information management be set up in a way that balances accountability with anonymity?
How can systems support their users in taking responsibility for their actions and use of the system?
If a system flags up irregularities, what irregularities warrant flagging? Why?
What legal and ethical justifications are there for what is logged about a user?
How are users made aware of what they are being held accountable for?
To what extent could or should the system offer the possibility of contextualising logs?