A Survey on Interdependent Privacy

Abstract

The privacy of individuals does not only depend on their own actions and data but may also be affected by the privacy decisions and by the data shared by other individuals. This interdependence is an essential aspect of privacy and ignoring it can lead to serious privacy violations. In this survey, we summarize and analyze research on interdependent privacy risks and on the associated (cooperative and non-cooperative) solutions. We also demonstrate that interdependent privacy has been studied in isolation in different research communities. By doing so, we systematize knowledge on interdependent privacy research and provide insights on how this research should be conducted and which challenges it should address.

Privacy self-management and the issue of privacy externalities: of thwarted expectations, and harmful exploitation

“…Besides, the phenomenon violates individuals' right to privacy and threatens the ideal of privacy self-management itself, independently from whether it produces concrete (latent, tangible or intangible) harm or not, and inde-10. This was also demonstrated by Humbert et al (2020) regarding interdependent privacy. However, through my analysis of privacy externalities, yet more of these clusters have been uncovered-accentuating the point that "research on the topic has been conducted in isolation in different communities" (ibid, pp.…”

“…Part of the contribution made by this article is the collection of relevant literature, which otherwise stands in isolated clusters and refers to a similar phenomenon using different concepts, such as: joint controllership, and privacy infringements (Helberger and van Hoboken, 2010;van Alsenoy, 2015;Edwards et al, 2019) or infringements of data protection law and networked services (Mahieu et al, 2019); collective privacy (Squicciarini et al, 2009) and collective action problems in privacy law (Strahilevitz, 2010); multi-party privacy (Thomas et al, 2010); collateral damage and spillover (Hull et al, 2011;Symeonidis et al, 2016); interpersonal management of disclosure (Lampinen et al, 2011); networked privacy (boyd, 2011;Lampinen, 2015;Marwick and boyd, 2014); interdependent privacy (Biczók and Chia, 2013;Symeonidis et al, 2016;Pu and Grossklags, 2017;Kamleitner and Mitchell, 2019); peer privacy (Chen et al, 2015;Ozdemir et al, 2017); multiple subjects personal data (Gnesi et al, 2014); privacy leak factor, shadow profiles and online privacy as a collective phenomenon (Sarigol et al, 2014); privacy externalities (Laudon, 1996, pp. 14-6;MacCarthy, 2011;Humbert et al, 2015Humbert et al, , 2020Symeonidis et al, 2016;Choi et al, 2019), especially as compared to externalities in the context of environmental pollution (Hirsch, 2006(Hirsch, , 2014Hirsch and King, 2016;Froomkin, 2015;Nehf, 2003;Ben-Shahar, 2019); 1 genetic groups…”

Assisting humans in privacy management: an agent-based approach

“…Humpert et al [26] survey the interdependent privacy problems and technical solutions in various domains. They have found that almost all the technical solutions focus on either photos or generic data (including photos).…”

The cardboard box study: understanding collaborative data management in the connected home

“…In short, what is at stake is not simply the privacy of individuals, but the social and moral ordering of the group [9]. In this respect, we find that existing approaches to collaborative data management furnished by efforts to engineer 'interdependent privacy' [34] do not resonate with the ways in which access control is socially managed and negotiated within the home. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of these findings.…”