From Privacy Pragmatist to Privacy Resigned: Challenging Narratives of Rational Choice in Digital Privacy Debates

Abstract

The “empowered consumer” (or “privacy pragmatist”), an autonomous individual who makes informed decisions about the disclosure of their personal information, has dominated discussions on digital privacy. Despite increasing evidence that “control” is a problematic framework through which to operationalize privacy, the power of this figure persists in academic, regulatory, and commercial discourses in the United States. This article examines how Alan Westin's “privacy pragmatist” figure has been used to frame privacy within a typology of personal preference. It begins by reviewing existing critiques of the pragmatist model and the version of privacy it supports. While critiques have tended to focus on the methodological and theoretical strengths and weaknesses of Westin's model, two recent studies suggesting that people may be resigned to online privacy violations reveal an additional rationale for broadening policy discussions about privacy beyond the model offered by Westin.

Cybervetting job applicants on social media: the new normal?

“…The value of social media data is not merely in analyzing the posts or photos, but in how the data is used and processed by third parties (Kennedy 2016), such as prospective employers. The pragmatic approach to privacy, or the rational consumer choice approach, is problematic as it puts the burden and responsibility on the individual to understand and decide what is the best privacy option for them (Draper 2016). Further, purely adopting the rational cost-benefit calculation of privacy would result in an oversimplification as it does not account for emotion (Lutz and Strathoff 2014;Stark 2016).…”

The Consent Paradox: Accounting for the Prominent Role of Consent in Data Protection

“…My discussion of the consent paradox speaks to an 20 emerging strand of literature exploring how political, scientific and popular discourses shape the field of data protection (Matzner et al 2016;Draper 2017;Hull 2015;Bellanova 2014;van Dijk, Gellert, and Rommetveit 2016). Quite a few of those works come to similar conclusions: They observe an increasing individualization and commodification of data protection (Matzner et al 2016;Draper 2017;Hull 2015;Crain 2016). It is tempting to dismiss these studies as broad and undifferentiated attempts to explain developments in data protection as influenced by a neoliberal zeitgeist.…”

“…It is tempting to dismiss these studies as broad and undifferentiated attempts to explain developments in data protection as influenced by a neoliberal zeitgeist. In fact, these studies paint a more nuanced picture, attempting to show (1) how data protection oscillates between different aims and understandings, most notably the free flow of data and the protection of individuals (see Bellanova 2017, 336), (2) how these understandings translate into laws and instruments and vice versa (see Draper 2017), and (3) how the field and its perceptions change over time (see van der Sloot 2014). Yet, further research is needed on all three points.…”

Ethiek in het big data tijdperk. Privacy als autonomie en als waardigheid

“…Deze plaatste als een van de eersten privacy in het digitale tijdperk op de agenda. Maar, zoals Draper (2016) in een scherpe analyse aantoont, Westin bleef volledig binnen het autonomie-en toestemmingsparadigma, waarvan we hebben gezien dat het in het digitale tijdperk tekortschiet.…”