Development of Remote Access Systems Tanvi Desai LSE Research Laboratory Data Manager Research Laboratory IASSIST 2008: Stanford

Cycles  1990ish inadequate processing power, RAM  research PC is a dumb terminal  data stored and analysed on central server  improved desktop computing  data released to researchers to analyse on PCs  increased dissemination = increased security risk  better understanding of confidentiality issues  sensitive data no longer released to analyse at desktop  storage on central server Research Laboratory IASSIST 2008: Stanford

Solutions Stage 1: complete withdrawal  AAAAARGHHH!!!! Stage 2: Safe Centres  inconvenient  inequitable  often expensive Stage 3: Remote Solution  more convenient - analysis at desktop  less expensive, but Research Laboratory IASSIST 2008: Stanford

Remote Access v Remote Execution UNECE Glossary on Statistical Disclosure Control Definitions  Remote access: On-line access to protected microdata  Remote execution: Submitting scripts on-line for execution on disclosive microdata stored within an institute’s protected network. If the results are regarded safe data, they are sent to the submitter of the script. Otherwise, the submitter is informed that the request cannot be acquiesced. Remote execution may either work through submitting scripts for a particular statistical package such as SAS, SPSS or STATA which runs on the remote server or via a tailor made client system which sits on the user’s desk top. Research Laboratory IASSIST 2008: Stanford

Remote access: examples LEED project identified remote access systems in Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden Denmark: remote access using RSASecurID Netherlands: Remote access using fingerprint recognition  easy to use (though Denmark problems for people with slower typing speeds and Netherlands problems with recognition)  access at national institutions only  qualified staff needed to check output  expensive for both users and providers Research Laboratory IASSIST 2008: Stanford

Remote Execution: examples 1 LEED project identifieed remote executions systems in Czech republic (TREXIMA), Germany, Netherlands  Netherlands Employment and Earnings Dataset  researchers supplied with synthetic dataset on which to develop statistical programs, which are then sent to to CBS staff to run on full data  Germany LIAB  following an initial on-site visit, researchers send analysis programs to FDZ staff Research Laboratory IASSIST 2008: Stanford

Remote Execution: examples 2 LISSY (v1 1983)  Data available include Luxembourg Income Study, European Structure of Earnings Survey, Banca d’Italia Survey of Industrial and Service Firms  ESES and Banca d’Italia block some (key?) analyses  cheap system in terms of hardware, setup and support unless depending on level of manual checking Research Laboratory IASSIST 2008: Stanford

Remote Access  Advantages  full access to data  providers can maintain very high level of control  Disadvantages  slow return of output  access to confidential data  experts needed to check output Research Laboratory IASSIST 2008: Stanford

Remote Execution  Advantages  fast job return  economical  reduced access to sensitive data  manual checking not always necessary  Disadvantages  sensitive analyses often blocked  no access to full dataset  not enough research on potentially disclosive analyses to ensure high level security  preparation of synthetic files may be necessary Research Laboratory IASSIST 2008: Stanford

Conclusions  remotte access/execution can provide equitable access to sensitive data  systems are relatively cheap to run compared with Safe Centres  remote systems fit researchers standard working practices  there is a need to expand remote access beyond national borders primarily in Europe BUT  as the number of remote systems increases can the qualified staff be found for manual checking? Research Laboratory IASSIST 2008: Stanford

Thank you Research Laboratory IASSIST 2008: Stanford