“…Legal privacy scholar Daniel Solove calls the presumed privacy paradox a myth: “It only appears to be a paradox because of conflated issues and flawed logic” (Solove, 2020, p. 42). Solove merits extended quotation (p. 6):Attitudes and behavior only appear to be in conflict; they actually involve different things.…”
Section: Three Presumed Paradoxes About “Smart Homes” Are Really Oxymmentioning
Surveillance is an important element of contemporary society. To understand current surveillance and its implications for privacy, this paper contributes to theory by identifying three oxymorons (apparent paradoxes) related to privacy and surveillance in the “smart home.” After discussing how “smart homes” are telling examples of the general privacy paradox (only an apparent paradox), the paper examines two related oxymorons: what I term the oxymoron of the surveillance of care and the oxymoron of inconvenient seamlessness. They are drawn from empirical, historical, and conceptual investigations of users' attitudes and behaviors. The paper identifies defining differences between automated and “smart homes,” the complexity of understanding implications for privacy and surveillance of such homes, and how empirical studies of attitudes about and behavior related to “smart homes” can inform theory. The paper is partially grounded in feminist and historical research about the home, individual and family life, and consideration of contemporary surveillance theories. Carefully examining oxymorons about surveillance and privacy is key to our understanding and to our scholarly and political action, showing the continuing need for critical surveillance and privacy studies.
“…Legal privacy scholar Daniel Solove calls the presumed privacy paradox a myth: “It only appears to be a paradox because of conflated issues and flawed logic” (Solove, 2020, p. 42). Solove merits extended quotation (p. 6):Attitudes and behavior only appear to be in conflict; they actually involve different things.…”
Section: Three Presumed Paradoxes About “Smart Homes” Are Really Oxymmentioning
Surveillance is an important element of contemporary society. To understand current surveillance and its implications for privacy, this paper contributes to theory by identifying three oxymorons (apparent paradoxes) related to privacy and surveillance in the “smart home.” After discussing how “smart homes” are telling examples of the general privacy paradox (only an apparent paradox), the paper examines two related oxymorons: what I term the oxymoron of the surveillance of care and the oxymoron of inconvenient seamlessness. They are drawn from empirical, historical, and conceptual investigations of users' attitudes and behaviors. The paper identifies defining differences between automated and “smart homes,” the complexity of understanding implications for privacy and surveillance of such homes, and how empirical studies of attitudes about and behavior related to “smart homes” can inform theory. The paper is partially grounded in feminist and historical research about the home, individual and family life, and consideration of contemporary surveillance theories. Carefully examining oxymorons about surveillance and privacy is key to our understanding and to our scholarly and political action, showing the continuing need for critical surveillance and privacy studies.
“…There are existing studies that analyzed privacy concerns as predictors of perceived privacy risks (e.g., Keith et al, 2013;Lancelot Miltgen et al, 2013;Li et al, 2011;Zhou, 2015; see the review in Gerber et al, 2018). Solove (2020) contends that risk perceptions, measuring more specific assessment of risks embedded in certain contexts, should function as a more proximal predictor of an individual's tendency to share information. "The behavior in the privacy paradox…," writes Solove (2020, p. 19), "… involves decisions about risk in specific contexts."…”
“…"The behavior in the privacy paradox…," writes Solove (2020, p. 19), "… involves decisions about risk in specific contexts." According to Solove (2020), instances of the "paradox" in the empirical literature may result from the mismatch in levels of specificity (e.g., using a broad, general measure of value in privacy as a direct predictor of specific, context-dependent behaviors). It is conceivable, therefore, that the more general privacy concerns shape risk assessments, which in turn predict behavioral intentions and behaviors in online disclosure settings.…”
“…Theoretical complexities of the privacy paradox, of course, go beyond these key variables depicted here. Issues related to construct explication (e.g., different dimensions of "privacy," Solove, 2020) are also fundamental to unpacking the privacy paradox framework and uncovering the underlying mechanisms. Without clear theoretical and conceptual explications, empirical findings may reflect operational ambiguities or conflations, and we researchers end up talking across each other.…”
In their meta-analysis on how privacy concerns and perceived privacy risks are related to online disclosure intention and behavior, Yu et al. (2020) conclude that “the ‘privacy paradox’ phenomenon [...] exists in our research model” (p. 8). In this comment, we contest this conclusion and present evidence and arguments against it. We find three areas of problems: (1) flawed logic of hypothesis testing; (2) erroneous and implausible results; (3) questionable decision to use only the direct effect of privacy concerns on disclosure behavior as evidence in testing the privacy paradox. In light of these issues and to help guide future research, we propose a research agenda for the privacy paradox. We encourage researchers to (1) go beyond the null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), (2) engage in open science practices, (3) refine theoretical explications, (4) consider confounding, mediating, and boundary variables, and (5) improve the rigor of causal inference. Overall, while we value this meta-analytic effort by Yu et al., we caution its readers that, contrary to the authors’ claim, it does not offer evidence in support of the privacy paradox.
“…Não obstante, parcela significativa da literatura (v.g. SOLOVE, 2013;2020;BAROCAS;NISSENBAUM, 2014;BIONI, 2019) tem ressaltado as insuficiências do consentimento na tarefa de tutelar a privacidade e de proteger os dados pessoais dos cidadãos frente aos desafios contemporâneos trazidos, por exemplo, pela ascensão do Big Data 5 , pela difusão da publicidade comportamental 6 , pela proliferação de tecnologias relacionadas ao rastreamento e ao monitoramento dos usuários na Internet entre outros. Além disso, em frente a essas insuficiências, iniciativas normativas mais recentes, como a Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados (Lei n° 13.709/2018, doravante LGPD) e o Regulamento Geral de Proteção de Dados (RGPD), têm apresentado abordagens distintas e medidas complementares com o intuito de garantir maior efetividade e segurança ao consentimento do titular dos dados.…”
O presente artigo tem como objetivo debater o enfoque no consentimento do titular dos dados como instrumento regulatório nuclear da proteção de dados pessoais. Para tanto, são brevemente abordados três aspectos que demonstram as insuficiências do paradigma do consentimento: (i) as limitações cognitivas do titular dos dados pessoais para avaliar os custos e benefícios envolvidos quanto aos seus direitos; (ii) a lógica binária “take it or leave it”, que reflete a ausência de uma vontade livre em razão da assimetria de poderes entre ele e o agente responsável pelo tratamento, bem como a sua dependência a muitos serviços da sociedade da informação; e (iii) as modernas técnicas de tratamento e de análise dos dados pessoais, que possibilitam a agregação de informações e que dificilmente podem ser gerenciadas pelo titular de dados no momento da coleta dos dados. Para superar essas insuficiências, tendências contemporâneas de materialização da proteção de dados apresentam-se como soluções interessantes, tornando-a mais responsiva tanto aos riscos gerados pelo tratamento, como aos obstáculos concretos a uma decisão livre e autônoma. Neste texto, exploraram-se três caminhos nesse sentido: (i) estratégias a partir da tecnologia e do desenho dos sistemas informacionais (privacy by design) a fim de auxiliar o titular no controle de seus dados; (ii) implementação da regulação pautada na prestação de contas pelos agentes de tratamento (accountability), dimensionando os riscos prévios ao tratamento de dados pessoais; e (iii) o controle contextual do consentimento.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
