In this paper we explore the extent to which privacy enhancing technologies (PETs) could be effective in providing privacy to citizens. Rapid development of ubiquitous computing and ‘the internet of things’ are leading to Big Data and the application of Predictive Analytics, effectively merging the real world with cyberspace. The power of information technology is increasingly used to provide personalised services to citizens, leading to the availability of huge amounts of sensitive data about individuals, with potential and actual privacy-eroding effects. To protect the private sphere, deemed essential in a state of law, information and communication systems (ICTs) should meet the requirements laid down in numerous privacy regulations. Sensitive personal information may be captured by organizations, provided that the person providing the information consents to the information being gathered, and may only be used for the express purpose the information was gathered for. Any other use of information about persons without their consent is prohibited by law; notwithstanding legal exceptions. If regulations are properly translated into written code, they will be part of the outcomes of an ICT, and that ICT will therefore be privacy compliant. We conclude that privacy compliance in the ‘technological’ sense cannot meet citizens’ concerns completely, and should therefore be augmented by a conceptual model to make privacy impact assessments at the level of citizens’ lives possible.
DOCUMENT
This paper argues online privacy controls are based on a transactional model of privacy, leading to a collective myth of consensual data practices. It proposes an alternative based on the notion of privacy coordination as an alternative vision and realizing this vision as a grand challenge in Ethical UX
DOCUMENT
According to Johnson & Grandison (2007), failure to safeguard privacy of users of services provided by private and governmental organisations, leaves individuals with the risk of exposure to a number of undesirable effects of information processing. Loss of control over information about a person may lead to fraud, identity theft, reputation damage, and may cause psychosocial consequences ranging from mild irritation, unease, social exclusion, physical harm or even, in extreme cases, death. Although pooh-poohed upon by some opinion leaders from search engine and ICT industries for over a decade (Sprenger, 1999; Esguerra, 2009), the debate in the wake of events like the tragic case of Amanda Todd could be interpreted as supporting a case for proper attention to citizens’ privacy. Truth be told, for a balanced discussion on privacy in the age of Facebook one should not turn towards the social media environment that seems to hail any new development in big data analysis and profiling-based marketing as a breathtaking innovation. If the myopic view of technology pundits is put aside, a remarkably lively debate on privacy and related issues may be discerned in both media and scientific communities alike. A quick keyword search on ‘privacy’, limited to the years 2000-2015, yields huge numbers of publications: Worldcat lists 19,240; Sciencedirect 52,566, IEEE explore 71,684 and Google scholar a staggering 1,880,000. This makes clear that privacy is still a concept considered relevant by both the general public and academic and professional audiences. Quite impressive for a subject area that has been declared ‘dead’.
MULTIFILE
