Nudging as a Threat to Privacy
- 849 Downloads
Nudges can pose serious threats to citizens’ privacy. The essay discusses several examples of nudges that must appear problematic to anyone valuing privacy. The paper also re-draws a well established connection between privacy and autonomy and argues that insofar as nudges incur too great a loss of privacy, they are incompatible with the libertarianism that libertarian paternalism is committed to by virtue of its very name.
KeywordsPersonal Data Privacy Protection Privacy Concern Default Rule Privacy Cost
The research of the first author was funded by the German Research Foundation (Project PI 1082/1-1 0228 885 2134).
We would like to thank Simon Garnett, Prof. Gerrit Hornung, three anonymous referees and the editors for helpful comments on this paper.
Compliance with ethical standards
The work complies with all ethical standards as listed on the ROPP webpage.
- Dworkin, G. 2014. Paternalism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition), <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/paternalism/>. 22nd January 2015
- Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. New York: Random House LLC.Google Scholar
- Mill, J. S. 1869. On liberty. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, G. 2005. Libertarian paternalism is an oxymoron. Northwestern University Law Review 99: 1245–1277.Google Scholar
- Nissenbaum, H. 2011. A contextual approach to privacy online. Daedalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 140: 32–48.Google Scholar
- Porat, A., and L. Strahilevitz. 2013. Personalizing default rules and disclosure with big data. Michigan Law Review 112: 1417–1478.Google Scholar
- Richards, N. 2008. Intellectual privacy. Texas Law Review 87: 387–445.Google Scholar
- Rössler, B. 2005. The value of privacy. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
- Rössler, B. 2008. New ways of thinking about privacy. In The Oxford Handbook of political theory, ed. Dryzek, Honig, and Phillips, 694–712. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Rössler, B. 2013. Autonomy, paternalism, and privacy: some remarks on Anita Allen. APA Newsletter 13(1): 14–18.Google Scholar
- Singh, S. 1997. Fermat’s last theorem. London: Fourth Estate.Google Scholar
- Slobogin, C. (2002). Public Privacy: Camera Surveillance of Public Places and the Right toAnonymity. Mississippi Law Journal, 72, p. 213-299.Google Scholar
- Solove, D. 2007. ‘I’ve got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy. San Diego Law Review 44: 745–772.Google Scholar
- Solove, D. 2008. Understanding privacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Sunstein, C. 2011. Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies, and of independent regulatory agencies: Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”.Google Scholar
- Sunstein, C. 2013a. Simpler: the future of government. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
- Sunstein, C. 2013b. The storrs lectures: behavioral economics and paternalism. Yale Law Journal 122: 1826–1899.Google Scholar
- Sunstein, C. 2013c. Impersonal default rules vs. active choices vs. personalized default rules: a triptych. Manuscript available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2171343 or doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2171343, earlier version mentioned in the text available at http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/9876090. 22nd January 2015.
- Thaler, R., and C. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Wang, Y., et al. 2013. From facebook regrets to facebook privacy nudges. Ohio State Law Journal 74: 1307–1344.Google Scholar
- Willis, L. 2013. When nudges fail: slippery defaults. The University of Chicago Law Review 80: 1155–1229.Google Scholar