Optimizing Privacy Policy Videos to Mitigate the Privacy Policy Paradox

This research takes a design science approach to improving privacy policies through the design and use of mediated content, such as video. Research has emerged to indicate that privacy policies communicated through video (separate from-”and in addition to-”traditional textual privacy policy documents) are more effective at engendering trust, decreasing perceived risk, and encouraging information disclosure than textual privacy policies, which are seldom read or understood. We extend this research by examining design factors such as narrator gender, animation style, music tone, and color scheme. We implemented a field experiment and survey to determine how variations in these design elements affect consumers’ perceived risk, perceived benefits, and disclosure decisions. The results indicate that the most effective privacy policy videos use female narrators with vibrant color palettes and light musical tones. The animation style (animated imagery versus animated text) has no effect on consumers’ perceived risk/benefits or disclosure decisions

Privacy Paradox 2.0

As a starting point, this essay offers six basic propositions. First, the \u27privacy paradox\u27 refers to inconsistencies between individuals\u27 [asserted] intentions to disclose personal information and [individuals\u27] actual ... disclosure behaviors. Put simply, we indicate-at a granular level-specific items of personal information that we will not disclose, but we then give away that same data with what appears to be little regard for the risks of doing so and for little in return. Second, the privacy paradox is a wellestablished concept in many fields of the social sciences, even though the precise contours and causes of the paradox are quite controversial. Third, broadly speaking, legal scholarship has failed to adequately consider either the various conceptions of the privacy paradox set forth in other fields of scholarship or the import of these conceptions to what may be intended or perceived as more normative legal works. Fourth, this failure creates a significant gap in what might be termed relevance, credibility, or practical effect, marginalizing the impact of legal scholarship in the formation of privacy policy. Fifth, this space in the sphere of influence elevates the role of fields that are traditionally less concerned with the core privacy values of personhood, autonomy, and control-inter alia, economics, contract law, marketing theory, and computer science. Sixth, the emergence of social network sites both alters the conditions of the privacy paradox and intensifies the rate and depth of uncontrolled disclosure, further marginalizing legal scholarship that fails to seriously consider the role of the law in privacy policy. Focusing on this final point, the goal of this essay is to describe both the current market in personal information and the privacy paradox as a product of market distortion. Part I identifies two unique phenomena that modify the conditions of the privacy paradox by creating new and powerful distortions in the market, thereby intensifying the rate and depth of personal data disclosure. The first is a transformation in social organization, which drives individuals to join social network sites and to disclose a great deal of personal information on those networks. The second is an alteration of the basic structure of the information exchange agreement that permits social networking sites to recede into the background as third-party beneficiaries to the social exchange of personal information. Part II addresses the necessity to account for the effect of these phenomena in the formation of privacy policies by briefly addressing various proposals for regulating the collection, storage, use, and transfer of personal information. This section argues that many of these proposals are misguided, either because they under-protect personal information by failing to adequately address the problems of valuation and consent or because they overprotect personal information by failing to adequately preserve functionality in socially valuable communications platforms. Part III attempts to briefly conceptualize the broad outline of a more workable solution that, rather than reforming the current notice-and-choice system of privacy protection, is guided by user expectations in imposing minimal restraints on the margins of data collection, storage, use, and transfer practices. Although a solution would impose certain boundaries on the scope of consent, significant space would remain for the negotiation and development of social norms around privacy practices

Privacy Paradox 2.0

As a starting point, this essay offers six basic propositions. First, the \u27privacy paradox\u27 refers to inconsistencies between individuals\u27 [asserted] intentions to disclose personal information and [individuals\u27] actual ... disclosure behaviors. Put simply, we indicate-at a granular level-specific items of personal information that we will not disclose, but we then give away that same data with what appears to be little regard for the risks of doing so and for little in return. Second, the privacy paradox is a wellestablished concept in many fields of the social sciences, even though the precise contours and causes of the paradox are quite controversial. Third, broadly speaking, legal scholarship has failed to adequately consider either the various conceptions of the privacy paradox set forth in other fields of scholarship or the import of these conceptions to what may be intended or perceived as more normative legal works. Fourth, this failure creates a significant gap in what might be termed relevance, credibility, or practical effect, marginalizing the impact of legal scholarship in the formation of privacy policy. Fifth, this space in the sphere of influence elevates the role of fields that are traditionally less concerned with the core privacy values of personhood, autonomy, and control-inter alia, economics, contract law, marketing theory, and computer science. Sixth, the emergence of social network sites both alters the conditions of the privacy paradox and intensifies the rate and depth of uncontrolled disclosure, further marginalizing legal scholarship that fails to seriously consider the role of the law in privacy policy. Focusing on this final point, the goal of this essay is to describe both the current market in personal information and the privacy paradox as a product of market distortion. Part I identifies two unique phenomena that modify the conditions of the privacy paradox by creating new and powerful distortions in the market, thereby intensifying the rate and depth of personal data disclosure. The first is a transformation in social organization, which drives individuals to join social network sites and to disclose a great deal of personal information on those networks. The second is an alteration of the basic structure of the information exchange agreement that permits social networking sites to recede into the background as third-party beneficiaries to the social exchange of personal information. Part II addresses the necessity to account for the effect of these phenomena in the formation of privacy policies by briefly addressing various proposals for regulating the collection, storage, use, and transfer of personal information. This section argues that many of these proposals are misguided, either because they under-protect personal information by failing to adequately address the problems of valuation and consent or because they overprotect personal information by failing to adequately preserve functionality in socially valuable communications platforms. Part III attempts to briefly conceptualize the broad outline of a more workable solution that, rather than reforming the current notice-and-choice system of privacy protection, is guided by user expectations in imposing minimal restraints on the margins of data collection, storage, use, and transfer practices. Although a solution would impose certain boundaries on the scope of consent, significant space would remain for the negotiation and development of social norms around privacy practices

Addressing the \u27Failure\u27 of Informed Consent in Online Data Protection: Learning the Lessons from Behaviour-Aware Regulation

Information notice and data subject\u27s consent are the current main legal safeguards of data protection and privacy rights: they reflect individuals\u27 instances, such as self-determination and control over one\u27s own private sphere, that have been acknowledged in many jurisdictions. However, the theoretic strength of these safeguards appears frustrated by current online practices that seem suggesting to give-up with their most common form of implementation: privacy notices and request for consent. These measures are proving to be unsuccessful in increasing users\u27 awareness and in fostering a privacy protective-behaviour. As recent studies have shown, although people declare privacy concerns, their actual behaviour diverges from their statements (the privacy paradox ), as they seem to increasingly disclose personal data and to not even read privacy notices available online; eventually, the current privacy notices are not effective in regulating user\u27s data disclosure. Behaviourally informed approaches to regulatory problems, already applied to different areas of information provision and public policy, helped to clarify the reasons of similar peoples\u27 behaviour that cannot be reduced to a simplistic users do not care about privacy. Highlighting the regulatory weakness of traditional information notices, applied behavioural science has also demonstrated to be particularly effective in improving users\u27 decision-making and attaining concrete policy objectives if accompanied by ad hoc design interventions to display the relevant, salient information. As users do not read privacy policies or act in contradiction with them, other strategies might be more successful in promoting, nudging, privacy-protective behaviour. The use of innovative information notices, like salient alerts and nudges, seems to be a promising means of behavioural change also in the area of digital privacy, a possible new area of application of behavioural insights. Building on recent studies in the field ( conducted mainly in the U.S.), this paper considers new forms of privacy notices (like visceral notices), as alternative or complement to current legal (technical) measures for data protection. For the informed consent approach (or notice and choice approach) to work, it needs to be improved with welldesigned, transparent and regulated nudging system, capable to help citizens in their decision-making as regards their privacy. Without disregarding the challenges and limitations of nudging strategies in public policy in general and in the privacy area in particular, and examining their legal grounds, the paper aims also to integrate that branch of legal-policy research that see nudging methods as an effective way to gently encourage safer behaviours in the citizens.

Big Data Ethics in Research

The main problems faced by scientists in working with Big Data sets, highlighting the main ethical issues, taking into account the legislation of the European Union. After a brief Introduction to Big Data, the Technology section presents specific research applications. There is an approach to the main philosophical issues in Philosophical Aspects, and Legal Aspects with specific ethical issues in the EU Regulation on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (Data Protection Directive - General Data Protection Regulation, "GDPR"). The Ethics Issues section details the specific aspects of Big Data. After a brief section of Big Data Research, I finalize my work with the presentation of Conclusions on research ethics in working with Big Data. CONTENTS: Abstract 1. Introduction - 1.1 Definitions - 1.2 Big Data dimensions 2. Technology - 2.1 Applications - - 2.1.1 In research 3. Philosophical aspects 4. Legal aspects - 4.1 GDPR - - Stages of processing of personal data - - Principles of data processing - - Privacy policy and transparency - - Purposes of data processing - - Design and implicit confidentiality - - The (legal) paradox of Big Data 5. Ethical issues - Ethics in research - Awareness - Consent - Control - Transparency - Trust - Ownership - Surveillance and security - Digital identity - Tailored reality - De-identification - Digital inequality - Privacy 6. Big Data research Conclusions Bibliography DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11054.4640

News as Surveillance

As inhabitants of the Information Age, we are increasingly aware of the amount and kind of data that technology platforms collect on us. Far less publicized, however, is how much data news organizations collect on us as we read the news online and how they allow third parties to collect that personal data as well. A handful of studies by computer scientists reveal that, as a group, news websites are among the Internet’s worst offenders when it comes to tracking their visitors. On the one hand, this surveillance is unsurprising. It is capitalism at work. The press’s business model has long been advertising-based. Yet, today this business model raises particular First Amendment concerns. The press, a named beneficiary of the First Amendment and a First Amendment institution, is gathering user reading history. This is a violation of what legal scholars call “intellectual privacy”—a right foundational to our First Amendment free speech rights. And because of the perpetrator, this surveillance has the potential to cause far-reaching harms. Not only does it injure the individual reader or citizen, it injures society. News consumption helps each of us engage in the democratic process. It is, in fact, practically a prerequisite to our participation. Moreover, for an institution whose success is dependent on its readers’ trust, one that checks abuses of power, this surveillance seems like a special brand of betrayal. Rather than an attack on journalists or journalism, this Essay is an attack on a particular press business model. It is also a call to grapple with it before the press faces greater public backlash. Originally given as the keynote for the Washburn Law Journal’s symposium, The Future of Cyber Speech, Media, and Privacy, this Essay argues for transforming and diversifying press business models and offers up other suggestions for minimizing the use of news as surveillance

The control over personal data: True remedy or fairy tale ?

This research report undertakes an interdisciplinary review of the concept of "control" (i.e. the idea that people should have greater "control" over their data), proposing an analysis of this con-cept in the field of law and computer science. Despite the omnipresence of the notion of control in the EU policy documents, scholarly literature and in the press, the very meaning of this concept remains surprisingly vague and under-studied in the face of contemporary socio-technical environments and practices. Beyond the current fashionable rhetoric of empowerment of the data subject, this report attempts to reorient the scholarly debates towards a more comprehensive and refined understanding of the concept of control by questioning its legal and technical implications on data subject\^as agency

Introduction. Reconsidering Some Dogmas About Desire

Desire has not been at the center of recent preoccupations in the philosophy of mind. Consequently, the literature settled into several dogmas. The first part of this introduction presents these dogmas and invites readers to scrutinize them. The main dogma is that desires are motivational states. This approach contrasts with the other dominant conception: desires are positive evaluations. But there are at least four other dogmas: the world should conform to our desires (world-to-mind direction of fit), desires involve a positive evaluation (the “guise of the good”), we cannot desire what we think is actual (the “death of desire” principle), and, in neuroscience, the idea that the reward system is the key to understanding desire. The second part of the introduction summarizes the contributions to this volume. The hope is to contribute to the emergence of a fruitful debate on this neglected, albeit crucial, aspect of the mind

Disposition toward privacy and information disclosure in the context of emerging health technologies.

ObjectiveWe sought to present a model of privacy disposition and its development based on qualitative research on privacy considerations in the context of emerging health technologies.Materials and methodsWe spoke to 108 participants across 44 interviews and 9 focus groups to understand the range of ways in which individuals value (or do not value) control over their health information. Transcripts of interviews and focus groups were systematically coded and analyzed in ATLAS.ti for privacy considerations expressed by respondents.ResultsThree key findings from the qualitative data suggest a model of privacy disposition. First, participants described privacy related behavior as both contextual and habitual. Second, there are motivations for and deterrents to sharing personal information that do not fit into the analytical categories of risks and benefits. Third, philosophies of privacy, often described as attitudes toward privacy, should be classified as a subtype of motivation or deterrent.DiscussionThis qualitative analysis suggests a simple but potentially powerful conceptual model of privacy disposition, or what makes a person more or less private. Components of privacy disposition are identifiable and measurable through self-report and therefore amenable to operationalization and further quantitative inquiry.ConclusionsWe propose this model as the basis for a psychometric instrument that can be used to identify types of privacy dispositions, with potential applications in research, clinical practice, system design, and policy