Big data analytics and the limits of privacy self-management

Abstract

This paper looks at how the logic of big data analytics, which promotes an aura of unchallenged objectivity to the algorithmic analysis of quantitative data, preempts individuals' ability to self-define and closes off any opportunity for those inferences to be challenged or resisted. We argue that the predominant privacy protection regimes based on the privacy self-management framework of "notice and choice" not only fail to protect individual privacy, but also underplay privacy as a collective good. To illustrate this claim, we discuss how two possible individual strategies-withdrawal from the market (avoidance) and complete reliance on market-provided privacy protections (assimilation)-may result in less privacy options available to the society at large. We conclude by discussing how acknowledging the collective dimension of privacy could provide more meaningful alternatives for privacy protection.

Protective behavior against personalized ads: Motivation to turn personalization off

“…More protection motivation leads in turn to more protective behavior (see Milne, Sheeran, & Orbell, 2000 for meta-analysis). Similarly, in the context of privacy protection, higher levels of objective knowledge about a phenomenon are related to higher engagement in general protective behavior (Baruh & Popescu, 2017), while behavioral intention was found to predict management of privacy settings (Gerber, Gerber, & Volkamer, 2018). Applying this to personalization context, we expect that someone who possesses technical knowledge about personalized advertising will be more motivated and thus more likely to act.…”

Research Ethics of Twitter for MOOCs

“…Rather, it may be one of chat and intimate expression. Certainly, researchers would do well to guard against an overly reductive focus in such contexts (Baruh & Popescu, 2017;Selwyn, Henderson, & Chao, 2018).…”

Age differences in privacy attitudes, literacy and privacy management on Facebook

“…This is primarily because privacy related behavior in the context of SNSs does not take place in isolation but involve the consideration of wider network of others that may be affected by one's actions (Baruh & Popescu, 2015;Marwick & boyd, 2014). Indeed, as CPM suggests, privacy management in networked environments entails sharing of the responsibility in protecting boundaries.…”