Editing Privacy (section)

====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>