skip to main content
10.1145/2501604.2501613acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessoupsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Sleights of privacy: framing, disclosures, and the limits of transparency

Published:24 July 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

In an effort to address persistent consumer privacy concerns, policy makers and the data industry seem to have found common grounds in proposals that aim at making online privacy more "transparent." Such self-regulatory approaches rely on, among other things, providing more and better information to users of Internet services about how their data is used. However, we illustrate in a series of experiments that even simple privacy notices do not consistently impact disclosure behavior, and may in fact be used to nudge individuals to disclose variable amounts of personal information. In a first experiment, we demonstrate that the impact of privacy notices on disclosure is sensitive to relative judgments, even when the objective risks of disclosure actually stay constant. In a second experiment, we show that the impact of privacy notices on disclosure can be muted by introducing simple misdirections that do not alter the objective risk of disclosure. These findings cast doubts on the likelihood of initiatives predicated around notices and transparency to address, by themselves, online privacy concerns.

References

  1. Acquisti A. (2004). Privacy in Electronic Commerce and the Economics of Immediate Gratification. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 21--29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Acquisti A. (2009). Nudging Privacy: The Behavioral Economics of Personal Information. Security & Privacy, IEEE 7(6): 82--85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Acquisti A, John L, and Loewenstein G. (2012). The Impact of Relative Standards on the Propensity to Disclose. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2): 160--174.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Brandimarte L, Acquisti A, and Loewenstein G. (2013). Misplaced Confidences: Privacy and the Control Paradox. Social Psychological and Personality Science, Volume 4, Issue: 3, 340--347. http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/08/08/1948550612455931.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Broadbent DE. (1958). Perception and Communication. Elmsford, NY, US: Pergamon Press. Volume 340 pp. doi: 10.1037/10037-010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. DellaVigna S. (2007). Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field. NBER Working Paper No 13420.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Frey JH. (1986). An Experiment with a Confidentiality Reminder in a Telephone Survey. Public Opinion Quarterly. 50, 267--269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. FTC. (2012). Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: Recommendations for businesses and policy makers. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2012/03/120326privacyreport.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Hossain T and Morgan J. (2006). Plus Shipping and Handling: Revenue (Non) Equivalence in Field Experiments on eBay. The B. E. Journals in Economic Analysis and Policy: Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy. Volume 6, Issue: 2, 1--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Jensen C and Potts C. (2004). Privacy Policies as Decision-making Tools: an Evaluation of Online Privacy Notices. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, New York, NY, 471--478. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. John L, Acquisti A, and Loewenstein G. (2011). Strangers on a Plane: Context-Dependent Willingness to Divulge Sensitive Information. Journal of Consumer Research. Volume 37, Issue: 5, 858--873.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Joinson AN, Woodley A, and Reips UD. (2007). Personalization, Authentication and Self-disclosure in Self-administered Internet Surveys. Computers in Human Behavior. 23, 275--285.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Kahneman D, Knetsch, JL., and Thaler, RH (1990). Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem. Journal of political Economy, 98:6, 1325--1348.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Kahneman D and Tversky A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica. Volume 47, Issue: 2, 263--291.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Kelley PG, Bresee J, Cranor LF, and Reeder RW. (2009). A "Nutrition Label" for Privacy. SOUPS '09: Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Krazit T. (2010). Google settles Buzz lawsuit for $8.5M. CNET. http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20015620-265.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Liang KY and Zeger SL. (1986). Longitudinal Data Analysis Using Generalized Linear Models. Biometrika. Volume:73, Issue:1, 13--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. McDonald A and Cranor L. (2009). The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies. I/S: A J. Law and Policy Inform. Soc. Volume 4, Issue:3, 543--568.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Oppenheimer DM, Meyvis T, and Davidenko N.(2009). Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing to Increase Statistical Power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Volume 45, Issue 4, 867--872.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (Sep. 23, 1980).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Phelps J, Nowak G, and Ferrell E. (2000). Privacy Concerns and Consumer Willingness to Provide Personal Information. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. 19:1, 27--41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Posner R. (1981). The Economics of Privacy. American Economic Review. Volume:71, Issue:2, 405--409.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Reitman R. (2012). FTC Final Privacy Report Draws a Map to Meaningful Privacy Protection in the Online World. Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/ftc-final-privacy-report-draws-map-meaningful-privacy-protection-online-worldGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Santalesa R. (2011). What's Next for thè FTC's Proposed Privacy Framework? Information Law Group. http://www.infolawgroup.com/2011/03/articles/data-privacy-law-or-regulation/whats-next-for-the-ftcs-proposed-privacy-framework.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Simon HA. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics. Volume 69, Issue:1, 99--118.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Singer E, Hippler H, and Schwarz N. (1992). Confidentiality Assurances in Surveys: Reassurance or Threat? International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 4:3, 256--268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Stigler GJ. (1980). An Introduction to Privacy in Economics and Politics. Journal of Legal Studies. Volume 9, 623--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. The White House. (2012). Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-final.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Tsai J, Egelman S, Cranor L, and Acquisti A. (2011). The Effect of Online Privacy Information on Purchasing Behavior: An Experimental Study. Information Systems Research. Vol. 22, Issue:2, 254--268. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Wakefield A and Fleming J. 2009. The Sage International Dictionary of Policing. Sage Publications, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Weisband S and Kiesler S. (1996). Self-disclosure on Computer Forms: Meta-analysis and Implications. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems, 3--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Sleights of privacy: framing, disclosures, and the limits of transparency

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        SOUPS '13: Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security
        July 2013
        241 pages
        ISBN:9781450323192
        DOI:10.1145/2501604

        Copyright © 2013 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s)

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 24 July 2013

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate15of49submissions,31%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader