Group 3 presented an argument that involved the storing of data done by technology data giants such as Google and Microsoft, and how it is unethical for these data companies to collect its users information without users knowing what information is being kept. Group 3 proposed that the university must be transparent about the information that the university stores  and protect the personal information of students and their collected data from being misused. This solution does not seem very clear in requesting protection from misuse when misuse is not defined. The university may not share the same definition of misuse, so I would advise Group 3 to be more specific in defining what they want their data protected from. Do you want your data protected from the police to use against you in court? Be specific.

Group 3 also proposed for the university to delete any storage collected from students that is not being used. What can the university do with the data other than get you in trouble with it? If the university is selling data to businesses to attract students through advertisements, then will the university be allowed to keep the data since they are using it? Or would you consider this as being misused? Again, misuse needs to be defined clearly.

The action of Group 3 to submit a proposal letter to the ASUC student body is a very logical and suitable choice to carry out their proposal. They understand that the ASUC will be able to access the policies of the university and are most fit to track the actions of the university abiding to the proposals requests. Based on the above, our group would like to give Group 3 a B.