There is a reasonable concern that posting raw data can be misleading for those who are not trained in its use and who do not have the broader perspective within which to place a particular piece of data that is raw.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It simply isn't acceptable for the likes of Google, Facebook, Amazon and others, which amass data by the terabyte, to say, 'Don't worry, your information's safe with us, as all sorts of rules protect you' - when all evidence suggests otherwise.
If someone's criticism is completely unfounded on data, then I don't want to hear it. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
I think politicians know how to misrepresent data in order to support a political agenda. Politicians and the people that work for them - I should say - are expert at that.
People believe the best way to learn from the data is to have a hypothesis and then go check it, but the data is so complex that someone who is working with a data set will not know the most significant things to ask. That's a huge problem.
I love data. I think it's very important to get it right, and I think it's good to question it.
Researchers should always consider ethical concerns on scientific research and disclose their data to the public. Scientists also need to discuss issues surrounding their research with those who are concerned.
The reason I spend so much of my time doing science is that the whole point of science is to help people resolve conflicting claims by saying: 'Show me the data.'
Data is cost. It takes money to create data, store it, clean it, and throw resources at it to learn anything from it.
And the user may have a higher comfort level deciding what information to provide rather than worrying about what inferences might be made from what they've gathered.
I don't see the logic of rejecting data just because they seem incredible.