Editing Privacy (section)

===Privacy paradox and economic valuation===
The ''privacy paradox'' is a phenomenon in which online users state that they are concerned about their privacy but behave as if they were not.<ref name="Swartz, J. 2000">Swartz, J., "'Opting In': A Privacy Paradox", The Washington Post, 03 Sep 2000, H.1.</ref> While this term was coined as early as 1998,<ref>Bedrick, B., Lerner, B., Whitehead, B. "The privacy paradox: Introduction", ''News Media and the Law'', Washington, DC, Volume 22, Issue 2, Spring 1998, pp. P1–P3.</ref> it was not used in its current popular sense until the year 2000.<ref>J. Sweat "Privacy paradox: Customers want control – and coupons", ''Information Week'', Manhasset Iss, 781, April 10, 2000, p. 52.</ref><ref name="Swartz, J. 2000"/>

Susan B. Barnes similarly used the term ''privacy paradox'' to refer to the ambiguous boundary between private and public space on social media.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/issue/view/203|title=Volume 11, Number 9 |date= 4 September 2006|website=firstmonday.org|access-date=2019-11-25}}</ref> When compared to adults, young people tend to disclose more information on [[#Social Media|social media]]. However, this does not mean that they are not concerned about their privacy. Susan B. Barnes gave a case in her article: in a television interview about Facebook, a student addressed her concerns about disclosing personal information online. However, when the reporter asked to see her Facebook page, she put her home address, phone numbers, and pictures of her young son on the page.

The privacy paradox has been studied and scripted in different research settings. Several studies have shown this inconsistency between privacy attitudes and behavior among online users.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Taddicken|first=Monika|date=January 2014|title=The 'Privacy Paradox' in the Social Web: The Impact of Privacy Concerns, Individual Characteristics, and the Perceived Social Relevance on Different Forms of Self-Disclosure|journal=Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication|language=en|volume=19|issue=2|pages=248–273|doi=10.1111/jcc4.12052|doi-access=free}}</ref> However, by now an increasing number of studies have also shown that there are significant and at times large correlations between privacy concerns and information sharing behavior,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Nemec Zlatolas|first1=Lili|last2=Welzer|first2=Tatjana|last3=Heričko|first3=Marjan|last4=Hölbl|first4=Marko|date=April 2015|title=Privacy antecedents for SNS self-disclosure: The case of Facebook|url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0747563214007274|journal=Computers in Human Behavior|language=en|volume=45|pages=158–167|doi=10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.012}}</ref> which speaks against the privacy paradox. A meta-analysis of 166 studies published on the topic reported an overall small but significant relation between privacy concerns and informations sharing or use of privacy protection measures.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Baruh|first1=Lemi|last2=Secinti|first2=Ekin|last3=Cemalcilar|first3=Zeynep|date=February 2017|title=Online Privacy Concerns and Privacy Management: A Meta-Analytical Review: Privacy Concerns Meta-Analysis|url=https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/67/1/26-53/4082433|journal=Journal of Communication|language=en|volume=67|issue=1|pages=26–53|doi=10.1111/jcom.12276}}</ref> So although there are several individual instances or anecdotes where behavior appear paradoxical, on average privacy concerns and privacy behaviors seem to be related, and several findings question the general existence of the privacy paradox.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Gerber|first1=Nina|last2=Gerber|first2=Paul|last3=Volkamer|first3=Melanie|date=August 2018|title=Explaining the privacy paradox: A systematic review of literature investigating privacy attitude and behavior|url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167404818303031|journal=Computers & Security|language=en|volume=77|pages=226–261|doi=10.1016/j.cose.2018.04.002|s2cid=52884338}}</ref>

However, the relationship between concerns and behavior is likely only small, and there are several arguments that can explain why that is the case. According to the [[Value-action gap|attitude-behavior gap]], attitudes and behaviors are ''in general'' and in most cases not closely related.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Kaiser|first1=Florian G.|last2=Byrka|first2=Katarzyna|last3=Hartig|first3=Terry|date=November 2010|title=Reviving Campbell's Paradigm for Attitude Research|url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1088868310366452|journal=Personality and Social Psychology Review|language=en|volume=14|issue=4|pages=351–367|doi=10.1177/1088868310366452|pmid=20435803|s2cid=5394359|issn=1088-8683}}</ref> A main explanation for the partial mismatch in the context of privacy specifically is that users lack awareness of the risks and the degree of protection.<ref>Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006, June). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In ''Privacy enhancing technologies'' (pp. 36–58). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.</ref> Users may underestimate the harm of disclosing information online.<ref name="Cambridge University Press"/> On the other hand, some researchers argue that the mismatch comes from lack of technology literacy and from the design of sites.<ref>{{cite journal | author = S. Livingstone | year = 2008 | title = Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers' use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression | url = http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27072/1/Taking_risky_opportunities_in_youthful_content_creation_%28LSERO%29.pdf| journal = New Media & Society | volume = 10 | issue = 3| pages = 393–411 | doi = 10.1177/1461444808089415 | s2cid = 31076785 }}</ref>  For example, users may not know how to change their [[Privacy settings|default settings]] even though they care about their privacy. Psychologists Sonja Utz and Nicole C. Krämer particularly pointed out that the privacy paradox can occur when users must trade-off between their privacy concerns and impression management.<ref>Utz, S., & Kramer, N. (2009). The privacy paradox on social network sites revisited: The role of individual characteristics and group norms. ''Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace,'' article 1. [http://www.cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2009111001&article=1] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160413214515/http://cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2009111001&article=1|date=2016-04-13}}</ref>

====Research on irrational decision making====
{{further|#Social networking|#Advertising on Mobile Devices}}

A study conducted by Susanne Barth and Menno D.T. de Jo demonstrates that decision making takes place on an irrational level, especially when it comes to mobile computing. Mobile applications in particular are often built up in such a way that spurs decision making that is fast and automatic without assessing risk factors. Protection measures against these unconscious mechanisms are often difficult to access while downloading and installing apps. Even with mechanisms in place to protect user privacy, users may not have the knowledge or experience to enable these mechanisms.<ref name="Barth 1038–1058">{{Cite journal|last1=Barth|first1=Susanne|last2=de Jong|first2=Menno D. T.|date=2017-11-01|title=The privacy paradox – Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – A systematic literature review|journal=Telematics and Informatics|volume=34|issue=7|pages=1038–1058|doi=10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013|issn=0736-5853|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Users of mobile applications generally have very little knowledge of how their personal data are used. When they decide which application to download, they typically are not able to effectively interpret the information provided by application vendors regarding the collection and use of personal data.<ref name="Kokolakis 122–134">{{Cite journal|last=Kokolakis|first=Spyros|date=January 2017|title=Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon|journal=Computers & Security|language=en|volume=64|pages=122–134|doi=10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002|s2cid=422308 }}</ref> Other research finds that this lack of interpretability means users are much more likely to be swayed by cost, functionality, design, ratings, reviews and number of downloads than requested permissions for usage of their personal data.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Barth|first1=Susanne|last2=de Jong|first2=Menno D. T.|last3=Junger|first3=Marianne|last4=Hartel|first4=Pieter H.|last5=Roppelt|first5=Janina C.|date=2019-08-01|title=Putting the privacy paradox to the test: Online privacy and security behaviors among users with technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources|journal=Telematics and Informatics|volume=41|pages=55–69|doi=10.1016/j.tele.2019.03.003|issn=0736-5853|doi-access=free}}</ref>

====The economic valuation of privacy====
{{see also|Surveillance capitalism|Mass surveillance industry}}

The willingness to incur a privacy risk is suspected to be driven by a complex array of factors including risk attitudes, personal value for private information, and general attitudes to privacy (which are typically measured using surveys).<ref name="Frik">{{Cite journal|last1=Frik|first1=Alisa|last2=Gaudeul|first2=Alexia|date=2020-03-27|title=A measure of the implicit value of privacy under risk|journal=Journal of Consumer Marketing|volume=37 |issue=4 |language=en|pages=457–472|doi=10.1108/JCM-06-2019-3286|s2cid=216265480|issn=0736-3761}}</ref> One experiment aiming to determine the monetary value of several types of personal information indicated relatively low evaluations of personal information.<ref name="Kokolakis 122–134" /> Despite claims that ascertaining the value of data requires a "stock-market for personal information",<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://blog.mozilla.org/internetcitizen/2018/08/24/the-privacy-paradox-is-a-privacy-dilemma|title=The privacy paradox is a privacy dilemma|last=Burkhardt|first=Kai|website=Internet Citizen|language=en-US|access-date=2020-01-10}}</ref> [[surveillance capitalism]] and the [[mass surveillance industry]] regularly place price tags on this form of data as it is shared between corporations and governments.

=====Information asymmetry=====
{{see also|#User empowerment}}

Users are not always given the tools to live up to their professed privacy concerns, and they are sometimes willing to trade private information for convenience, functionality, or financial gain, even when the gains are very small.<ref>{{Citation|last1=Egelman|first1=Serge|title=Choice Architecture and Smartphone Privacy: There's a Price for That|date=2013|work=The Economics of Information Security and Privacy|pages=211–236|publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg|isbn=978-3-642-39497-3|last2=Felt|first2=Adrienne Porter|author2-link=Adrienne Porter Felt|last3=Wagner|first3=David|doi=10.1007/978-3-642-39498-0_10|s2cid=11701552 }}</ref> One study suggests that people think their browser history is worth the equivalent of a cheap meal.<ref name="2. The Privacy Paradox">{{Citation|chapter=2. The Privacy Paradox|year=2018|pages=45–76|publisher=transcript Verlag|isbn=978-3-8394-4213-5|doi=10.14361/9783839442135-003|title=Network Publicy Governance|series=Digitale Gesellschaft|s2cid=239333913|last1=Belliger|first1=Andréa|last2=Krieger|first2=David J.|volume=20}}</ref> Another finds that attitudes to privacy risk do not appear to depend on whether it is already under threat or not.<ref name="Frik"/> The methodology of [[#User empowerment|user empowerment]] describes how to provide users with sufficient context to make privacy-informed decisions.

======Inherent necessity for privacy violation======
{{further|Privacy concerns with social networking services}}

It is suggested by [[Andréa Belliger]] and David J. Krieger that the privacy paradox should not be considered a paradox, but more of a ''privacy dilemma'', for services that cannot exist without the user sharing private data.<ref name="2. The Privacy Paradox"/> However, the general public is typically not given the choice whether to share private data or not,<ref name=bloomberg-siri-alexa-listen/><ref name=state-arizona-redacted-complaint/> making it difficult to verify any claim that a service truly cannot exist without sharing private data.

====== Privacy calculus model======
{{Expand section|small=no|with=more description of the mechanics of the privacy calculus model and how it relates to the privacy paradox|date=June 2023}}

The privacy calculus model posits that two factors determine privacy behavior, namely privacy concerns (or perceived risks) and expected benefits.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Laufer|first1=Robert S.|last2=Wolfe|first2=Maxine|date=July 1977|title=Privacy as a Concept and a Social Issue: A Multidimensional Developmental Theory|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01880.x|journal=Journal of Social Issues|language=en|volume=33|issue=3|pages=22–42|doi=10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01880.x}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Culnan|first1=Mary J.|last2=Armstrong|first2=Pamela K.|date=February 1999|title=Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation|url=http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.10.1.104|journal=Organization Science|language=en|volume=10|issue=1|pages=104–115|doi=10.1287/orsc.10.1.104|s2cid=54041604 |issn=1047-7039}}</ref> By now, the privacy calculus has been supported by several studies.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Trepte|first1=Sabine|last2=Reinecke|first2=Leonard|last3=Ellison|first3=Nicole B.|last4=Quiring|first4=Oliver|last5=Yao|first5=Mike Z.|last6=Ziegele|first6=Marc|date=January 2017|title=A Cross-Cultural Perspective on the Privacy Calculus|journal=Social Media + Society|language=en|volume=3|issue=1|pages=205630511668803|doi=10.1177/2056305116688035|issn=2056-3051|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Krasnova|first1=Hanna|last2=Spiekermann|first2=Sarah|last3=Koroleva|first3=Ksenia|last4=Hildebrand|first4=Thomas|date=June 2010|title=Online Social Networks: Why We Disclose|url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1057/jit.2010.6|journal=Journal of Information Technology|language=en|volume=25|issue=2|pages=109–125|doi=10.1057/jit.2010.6|s2cid=33649999|issn=0268-3962}}</ref>