Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Privacy as a right or as a commodity in the online world: the limits of regulatory reform and self-regulation

  • Published:
Electronic Commerce Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The increased use of the internet and information technology to enable online transactions, distribute information and customer reviews through ecommerce and social networking sites, online advertising, and data mining is both creating efficiencies and challenging our privacy. This paper highlights the growing fear that current federal and state laws in the United States are not adequate to protect the privacy of the data collected while we process electronic transactions or browse the internet for information. The notion of efficiency and cost-benefit are used to justify a certain level of privacy loss, thus treating privacy as a commodity to be transacted rather than a right to be defended. To address developing concerns about personal privacy invasions, we discuss the role and limits that both government regulation and self-regulation play in protecting our privacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lepore, J. (2013, June). Privacy in an age of publicity. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/06/24/130624fa_fact_lepore?currentPage=all. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

  2. Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2014). Law and ethics in the business environment (Legal Studies in Business). Stamford: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., & Xu, H. (2011). Information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 989–1016.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Culnan, M. J., & Bies, R. J. (2003). Consumer privacy: Balancing economic and justice considerations. Journal of Social Issues, 59(2), 323–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Li, Y. (2012). Theories in online information privacy research: A critical review and an integrated framework. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 471–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Arrow, K. J., Chenery, H. B., Minhas, B. S., & Solow, R. M. (1961). Capital-labor substitution and economic efficiency. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 43, 225–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Harold, O. (1993). The measurement of productive efficiency: Techniques and applications—Techniques and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Arrow, K. J. (1973). Social responsibility and economic efficiency. Public Policy, 21(3), 303–317.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Westin, A. F. (2003). Social and political dimensions of privacy. Journal of Social Issues, 59(2), 431–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sheng, H., Nah, F. F.-H., & Siau, K. (2008). An experimental study on ubiquitous commerce adoption: Impact of personalization and privacy concerns. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(6), 15.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Xu, H., Luo, X. R., Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2011). The personalization privacy paradox: An exploratory study of decision making process for location-aware marketing. Decision Support Systems, 51(1), 42–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Page, T. (2013). Conservation and economic efficiency: An approach to materials policy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Unger, D. J. (2013, October). Energy efficiency: How the internet can lower your electric bill. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2013/1006/Energy-efficiency-How-the-Internet-can-lower-your-electric-bill/(page)/2. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

  14. Unknown. (2014). How green is the internet? https://www.google.com/green/efficiency/industry-collaboration/. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

  15. Taylor, D. G., Davis, D. F., & Jillapalli, R. (2009). Privacy concern and online personalization: The moderating effects of information control and compensation. Electronic Commerce Research, 9(3), 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Earp, J. B., & Baumer, D. (2003). Innovative web use to learn about consumer behavior and online privacy. Communications of the ACM, 46(4), 81–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Taddicken, M. (2014). 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 of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(2), 248–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Case. (2012). Pneus Touchette Distribution inc. c. Pneus Chartrand inc. - 2012 QCCS 3241 (CanLII) - Quebec, Canada. http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2012/2012qccs3241/2012qccs3241.html. Accessed 1 Mar 2015.

  19. Case. (2012). Images Turbo inc. c. Marquis - 2012 QCCS 4386 - Quebec, Canada. http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2012/2012qccs4386/2012qccs4386.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2015.

  20. Ren, Y., Cheng, F., Peng, Z., Huang, X., & Song, W. (2011). A privacy policy conflict detection method for multi-owner privacy data protection. Electronic Commerce Research, 11(1), 103–121. doi:10.1007/s10660-010-9067-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Landau, S. (2013). Making sense from Snowden. IEEE Security & Privacy Magazine, 4, 54–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. MPR. (2013). Conflict between privacy rights and security is nothing new. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2013/06/18/daily-circuit-government-surveillance. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

  23. Robbin, J. E. (1980). Geodemographics: The new magic. Campaigns and Elections, 1(1), 106–125.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Marwick, A. E. (2014, January). How your data are being deeply mined. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/jan/09/how-your-data-are-being-deeply-mined/. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

  25. Lohr, S. (2014, May). New curbs sought on the personal data industry. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/technology/ftc-urges-legislation-to-shed-more-light-on-data-collection.html?hpw&rref=busines&_r=0. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

  26. Berendt, B., Günther, O., & Spiekermann, S. (2005). Privacy in e-commerce: Stated preferences vs. actual behavior. Communications of the ACM, 48(4), 101–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Henderson, S. C., & Snyder, C. A. (1999). Personal information privacy: Implications for MIS managers. Information & Management, 36(4), 213–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kleinberg, J. (2006). The world at your fingertips. Nature, 440(7082), 279–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Miller, C. C. (2014, May). It’s not as simple as asking to ‘Be Forgotten’ by google. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/upshot/its-not-as-simple-as-asking-to-be-forgotten-by-google.html?hpw&rref=&_r=1. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

  30. Antoniou, G., & Batten, L. (2011). E-commerce: Protecting purchaser privacy to enforce trust. Electronic Commerce Research, 11(4), 421–456. doi:10.1007/s10660-011-9083-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bowie, N. E., & Jamal, K. (2006). Privacy rights on the internet: self-regulation or government regulation? Business Ethics Quarterly, 16, 323–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hahn, R. W., & Layne-Farrar, A. (2002). The benefits and costs of online privacy legislation. Administrative Law Review, 54, 85–171.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ashworth, L., & Free, C. (2006). Marketing dataveillance and digital privacy: Using theories of justice to understand consumers’ online privacy concerns. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 107–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace: Proceedings of AMCIS 2007 (p. 339).

  35. Raji, F., Miri, A., Jazi, M. D., & Malek, B. (2011). Online social network with flexible and dynamic privacy policies: CSI International Symposium on Computer Science and Software Engineering (CSSE), 2011 (pp. 135–142). IEEE.

  36. Saltz, J. (2014, January). Art at arm’s length: A history of the selfie. http://www.vulture.com/2014/01/history-of-the-selfie.html. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

  37. Palmer, D. E. (2005). Pop-ups, cookies, and spam: Toward a deeper analysis of the ethical significance of Internet marketing practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(1–3), 271–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kakutani, M. (2014, May). Snowden’s story, behind the scenes. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/books/no-place-to-hide-by-glenn-greenwald.html?_r=1. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

  39. Whitman, J. Q. (2004). The two western cultures of privacy: Dignity versus liberty. Yale Law Journal, 113(6), 1151–1221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Preibusch, S., Kübler, D., & Beresford, A. R. (2013). Price versus privacy: An experiment into the competitive advantage of collecting less personal information. Electronic Commerce Research, 13(4), 423–455. doi:10.1007/s10660-013-9130-3. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Case. (1965). Griswold versus Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 - US Supreme Court. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/381/479.html.

  42. Case. (1967). Katz versus US, 389 U.S. 347 - US Supreme Court. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/347/case.html. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

  43. Craig, B. (2013). Cyberlaw: The law of the internet and information technology. Prentice Hall: Pearson Education Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  44. DOJ. (1966). What is FOIA. http://www.foia.gov/about.html. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

  45. Schultz, B. S. (1999). Electronic money, internet commerce, and the right to financial privacy: A call for new federal guidelines. University of Cincinnati Law Review 67, 779, 791–792.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hirsh, D. D. (2011). The law and policy of online privacy: Regulation, self-regulation, or co-regulation. The Seattle University Law Review, 439, 457–458.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Case. (2010). Young versus Facebook, Inc - U.S. Dist. - (N.D.Cal. Oct. 25, 2010). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14196698777849520612&q=Young+v.+Facebook&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_ylo=2011. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

  48. Case. (2010). FenF, LLC versus Healio Health, Inc. - U.S. Dist. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9276471333322576008&q=FenF,+LLC+v.+Healio+Health,+Inc&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&as_vis=1. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

  49. Case. (1976). United States versus Miller - 425 U.S. 435, 443 - US Supreme Court. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=425&invol=435. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

  50. Case. (2010). Courtright versus Madigan - Civil No. 09-CV-208-JPG WL 3713654 (S.D.Ill. Nov. 4, 2009). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7495388096977244675&q=Courtright+v.+Madigan&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&as_vis=1. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

  51. Kang, C. (2011, April). Kerry, McCain offer bill to protect web users’ privacy rights, p. 203.

  52. Case. (2006). United States versus Schuster - 467 F.3d 614, 616 (7th Cir. 2006). https://casetext.com/case/us-v-schuster-4. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

  53. BCP. (2009). The CAN-SPAM act: A compliance guide for business - the federal trade commission. http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus61-can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business/. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

  54. Cate, F. H. (2008). Government data mining: The need for a legal framework. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (CR-CL), 43, 435–438.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Smith, M. (2014). Targeted: How technology is revolutionizing advertising and the way companies reach consumers. New York: AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, 07109, USA

    Diana Walsh & Katia Passerini

  2. Law Offices of Murphy McKeon, P.C., Riverdale, NJ, 07547, USA

    James M. Parisi

Authors
  1. Diana Walsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James M. Parisi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katia Passerini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katia Passerini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walsh, D., Parisi, J.M. & Passerini, K. Privacy as a right or as a commodity in the online world: the limits of regulatory reform and self-regulation. Electron Commer Res 17, 185–203 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-015-9187-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-015-9187-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation