On the Android platform, apps make use of personal data as part of their business model, trading location, contacts, photos and more for app use. Few people are particularly aware of the permission settings or make changes to them. We hypothesize that both the difficulty in checking permission settings for all apps on a device, along with the lack of flexibility in deciding what happens to one's data, makes the perceived cost to protect one's privacy too high. In this paper, we present the preliminary results of a study that explores what happens when permission settings are more discretional at install time. We present the results of a pilot experiment, in which we ask users to negotiate which data they are happy to share, and we show that this results in higher user satisfaction than the typical take-it-or-leave-it setting. Our preliminary findings suggest negotiating consent is a powerful interaction mechanism that engages users and can enable them to strike a balance between privacy and pricing concerns.
A conclave is a voting mechanism in which a committee selects an alternative by voting until a sucient supermajority is reached. We study experimentally welfare properties of simple three-voter conclaves with privately known preferences over two outcomes and waiting costs. The resulting game is a form of multiplayer war of attrition. Our key nding is that, consistent with theoretical predictions, when voters are ex ante heterogeneous in terms of the intensity of their preferences the conclave leads to eciency gains relative to simple majority voting. We also compare welfare properties of a static versus a dynamic version of a conclave. When social cost of waiting is taken into account, the dynamic conclave is superior in terms of welfare than its static version.JEL classication: C78, C92, D72, D74
We study communication in committees selecting one of two alternatives when consensus is required and agents have private information about their preferences. Delaying the decision is costly, so a form of multiplayer war of attrition emerges. Waiting allows voters to express the intensity of their preferences and may help to select the alternative correctly more often than simple majority. In a series of laboratory experiments, we investigate how various rules affect the outcome reached. We vary the amount of feedback and the communication protocol available to voters: complete secrecy about the pattern of support; feedback about this support; public communication; and within-group communication. The feedback no-communication mechanism is worse than no feedback benchmark in all measures of welfare-the efficient alternative is chosen less often, waiting cost is higher, and thus net welfare is lower. Our headline result is that adding communication restores net efficiency, but in different ways. Public communication does poorly in terms of selecting the correct alternative, but limits the cost of delay, while group communication improves allocative efficiency, but has at best a moderate effect on delay.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.