Difference between revisions of "Talk:Chris Pena"

Revision as of 14:04, 19 February 2020

Caitlyn Zawideh's Comments:

Hi Chris, I found your data identity statement really interesting. I really liked the tone and voice of your introduction, and it sets up the content of the rest of your statement really well. I think it's great that you dove into the data identities of some of the other people that share your name, and you made an interesting point about the benefit of relative online anonymity when people with your name are seeking out the opposite by trying to have a strong online presence. One thing I would consider adding your statement, because we're asked for it to be autobiographical, is a little more information about you. Was there anything you expected to see show up that didn't? Also, I would suggest that you align your images to the right so they're more integrated into the format of your page, so you can have less white space. Overall, great job and good luck with the next draft!

Rohan Patel's Comments:

Hey Chris,

I really enjoyed the tone of your writing, it was easy to read and interesting. There are a few places where the sentences become a little bit awkward, I would try reading your whole paper out loud to identify them and just re write them the same way you would speak naturally. For example, for the sentences "Unfortunately, that’s all the information they were willing to give without providing my credit card number. Our professor was kind enough to do just that, so let’s take a look at what one particular data broker found on me." You could instead write it as "Unfortunately, that's all the information they were willing to give without providing my credit card number, but since Professor Conway was kind enough to run checks for us, I did not have to. Lets take a look at what one data broker, instant checkmate, found on me. It just provides a little smoother transition to the next topic. Also, I noticed you tend to over use commas. You only need commas before conjunctions (and, but, or, etc) when they are joining independent clauses (sentences that can stand on their own). For example, "I was somewhat mortified to see not only her name and current address, but previous addresses, possible relatives (where I come in), current and old email addresses, and even her phone number all on the open web!" Here, you do not need a comma after address because the clause that follows is not independent. Instead I would remove the comma and add a transition like "also" after the but. The flow is good, but I don't really understand why you went to google, then went to Facebook, then went back to google. It would be simpler to just present all the information you learned from google at once.

Although I think you did a pretty good job assessing your data identify, I think you could be more thorough and explain things a little more. You don't really present the hard facts of the data broker report which I would like to see. Stuff like how many known associates did they have for you, how many wrong "Chris Pena" aliases were there in the report. For example, by going through my report and all the profiles in it I was able to deduce it was an integration of at least 3 people. You don't really dive into any of the data and really see what it means. I'm not saying tell us exactly what's in your report, but I would like to see some more analysis on what you presented. You also didn't really comment on the authenticity of the report besides saying that you maintain a relatively quiet digital footprint. I want to know what you think all this means, maybe why you feel you have such a small footprint. I also want to know what they got wrong in the report more, because that matters for authenticity. I think you're on the right path, it just needs a little beefing up.