Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 39–48 | Cite as

Privacy exchanges: restoring consent in privacy self-management

Original Paper

Abstract

This article reviews the qualitative changes that big data technology introduced to society, particularly changes that affect how individuals control the access, use and retention of their personal data. In particular interest is whether the practice of privacy self-management in this new context could still ensure the informed consent of individuals to the privacy terms of big data companies. It is concluded that that accepting big data companies’ privacy policies falls short of the disclosure and understanding requirements for informed consent. The article argues that the practice of privacy self-management could remain viable if the review, understanding and acceptance of privacy agreements is streamlined, standardized and automated. Technology should be employed to counter the privacy problems created by big data technology. The creation of the privacy exchange authorities (PEA) is proposed as a solution to the failures of privacy self-management. The PEA are intermediaries that empower individuals to define their own privacy terms and express informed consent in their dealings with data companies. They will create the technological infrastructure for individuals to select their own privacy terms from a list of standard choices, potentially only once. The PEA will further mediate the delivery and authentication of the individual users’ privacy terms to data companies. A logical proof of concept is offered, illustrating the potential steps involved in the creation of the PEA.

Keywords

Privacy Big data Consent Privacy self-management Big data ethics Notice and consent Privacy exchange authorities 

References

  1. Apache Software Foundation. (2014). Welcome to Apache™ Hadoop®! https://hadoop.apache.org/index.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2016.
  2. Barocas, S., & Nissenbaum, H. (2014). Big data’s end run around anonymity and consent. In J. Lane, V. Stodden, S. Bender, & H. Nissenbaum (Eds.), Privacy, big data, and the public good: Frameworks for engagement (pp. 44–75). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beal, V. (2016). Public key cryptography. http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/P/public_key_cryptography.html. Accessed 17 Aug 2016.
  4. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boninger, F., & Molnar, A. (2016). Learning to be watched: Surveillance culture at school. The eighteenth annual report on schoolhouse commercialism trends. National Center for Education Policy at the University of Colorado at Boulder. http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/publications/RB%20Boninger-Molnar%20Trends.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2016.
  6. Brunton, F., & Nissenbaum, H. (2013). Political and ethical perspectives on data obfuscation. In M. Hildebrandt & K. De Vries (Eds.), Privacy, due process and the computational turn: The philosophy of law meets the philosophy of technology (pp. 164–188). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Calo, R. (2014). Digital market manipulation. George Washington Law Review, 82, 995–1051.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, T. (2016). A message to our customers. https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/. Accessed 17 May 2016.
  9. Dwoskin, E. (2016). A shift away from big data: Tech firms race to protect users. The Washington Post. May 23. A1; A12.Google Scholar
  10. Earle, G. (2016). Google’s extraordinary access to Obama revealed as White House visitor logs show 427 meetings between company and administration officials. Daily Mail. May 17, 2016. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3595166/Google-s-extraordinary-access-revealed-White-House-visitor-logs-meeting-meeting-company-execs-Obama-administration-officials.html#ixzz492RElb9J. Accessed 17 May 2016.
  11. Ginsburg, J., et al. (2009). Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data. Nature, 457, 1012–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldberg, R. (2016). Lack of trust in internet privacy and security may deter economic and other online activities. May 13, 2016. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/lack-trust-internet-privacy-and-security-may-deter-economic-and-other-online-activities. Accessed 17 May 2016.
  13. Harzog, W. (2012). Chain-link confidentiality. Georgia Law Review, 46, 657–704.Google Scholar
  14. Howard, P. (2015). Pax technica: How the internet of things may set us free or lock us up. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kord, D., & Patterson, D. (2012). Ethics of Big Data: Balancing risk and innovation. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  16. Madrigal, A. (2012). If it was your job to read privacy policies for 8 h per day, it would take you 76 work days to complete the task. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/reading-the-privacy-policies-you-encounter-in-a-year-would-take-76-work-days/253851/. Accessed 14 Jan 2016.
  17. Mayer-Schonberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2013). Big Data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  18. Ohm, P. (2010). Broken promises of privacy: Responding to the surprising failure of anonymization. UCLA Law Review, 57, 1702–1777.Google Scholar
  19. Richards, N. (2014). Intellectual privacy: Rethinking civil liberties in the digital age. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Schneier, B. (2015). Data and Goliath: The hidden battles to capture your data and control your world. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  21. Solove, D. J. (2013). Privacy self-management and the consent paradox. Harvard Law Review, 126, 1880–1903.Google Scholar
  22. Strauss, V. (2015). Report: Big education firms spend millions lobbying for pro-testing policies. The Washington Post. March 30, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/03/30/report-big-education-firms-spend-millions-lobbying-for-pro-testing-policies/. Accessed 17 May 2016.
  23. Thomson, J. J. (1975). The right to privacy. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 4, 295–314.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research FellowBulgarian Center for BioethicsSofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations