Right to Privacy Meets Online Platforms: Exploring Privacy Complaints against Facebook and Google

Jørgensen, Rikke Frank; Desai, Tariq

doi:10.1080/18918131.2017.1314110

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a U.S. context, a number of privacy complaints have been raised via the Federal Trade Commission. See Jørgensen and Desai ().…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Platforms Mean When They Talk About Human Rights

Jørgensen¹

2017

Policy & Internet

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines how staff working on two major Internet platforms—Google and Facebook—make sense of human rights such as freedom of expression and privacy. Based on interviews and online material, the article examines how the two rights are spoken of, how threats are perceived, and how the companies define their role in terms of protecting those rights. The article finds that both companies frame themselves as strongly committed to (and actively promoting) human rights. The framing, however, focuses primarily on potential human rights violations by governments, and pays less attention to areas where the companies’ own business practices may have a negative impact on their users’ rights and freedoms. While the platforms are spoken of using civic‐minded metaphors connected to people's ability to exercise rights and thus to participate in public life, the companies actually retain the freedom to set and enforce their own rules of engagement.

show abstract

“…In a U.S. context, a number of privacy complaints have been raised via the Federal Trade Commission. See Jørgensen and Desai ().…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Platforms Mean When They Talk About Human Rights

Jørgensen¹

2017

Policy & Internet

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the European Union has explicitly presented a vision, the Next-Generation-Internet initiative, where "Human-centredness is key for a human and sustainable development of IoT" (Brynskov et al 2019), the United States of America (USA) have historically put forward policy rationales with an emphasis on minimal regulation in technological innovation and development. The recent US policy focus, however, introduces regulatory measures at the State level that protect consumers and citizens from harms associated with undermining public values (Jørgensen and Desai 2017). China has strategically adopted a top-down industry policy to IoT, with sustained financial investments, that influence the international technical standards of nextgeneration network technology (Lee 2021).…”

Section: Policy Goals and Underlying Value Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of the theory, principles, and design requirements of human-centric Internet of Things (IoT)

Ystgaard¹,

Atzori

Palma³

et al. 2023

J Ambient Intell Human Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid evolution of Internet of Things (IoT) technologies, with ever more profound implications for humans and societies, has triggered visions and initiatives to re-align the Next-Generation IoT with what works for humans and humanity first. However, despite the increased push towards “human-centric” IoT, it is still poorly understood what “human-centric” actually means in this context, how it is interpreted and embedded into the design, by whom, and for which purposes. To address these questions, we conducted a systematic literature review (N = 84) on the theory, principles, and design requirements of human-centric IoT. A key observation is that, despite the recent increase in research on humane perspectives for IoT, “human-centredness” often still seems to be used primarily as a label and overarching paradigm, not leading to a profound change in the underlying practices. We found no shared understanding of what “human-centric” implies in this context or common agreement on which principles human-centric IoT should be built upon. Furthermore, our analysis confirmed the predominance of technology-oriented fields, with a traditional approach towards user involvement and limited involvement of other disciplines. Overall, our findings point towards an apparent discrepancy between how contributions are positioned and framed (“human-centric”), the practices and assumptions they are based on, and their actual impact and ability to orient existing efforts towards genuine human-centric outcomes and key values. Based on the results, we formulate directions for future research aimed at building a more human-centric and empowering IoT.

show abstract

“…Also, cloud computing operated on a different paradigm than traditional computing and cloud service providers were mostly neutral intermediaries with little knowledge of the data they processed or stored, including whether it was private or public (Kuan Hon et al 2011). Technological change, and the practices of technology constituencies, posed a problem for upholding the right to privacy (Jørgensen & Desai 2017).…”

Section: Placing the Regulation On The Legislative Agendamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2011). Technological change, and the practices of technology constituencies, posed a problem for upholding the right to privacy (Jørgensen & Desai 2017).…”

Section: Findings: the Formulation And Adoption Of The Gdprmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why and how does the regulation of emerging technologies occur? Explaining the adoption of the EU General Data Protection Regulation using the multiple streams framework

Goyal

Howlett

Taeihagh

2021

Regulation & Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why and how the regulation of emerging technologies occurs is not clear in the literature. In this study, we adapt the multiple streams frameworkoften used for explaining agenda-setting and policy adoptionto examine the phenomenon. We hypothesize how technological change affects policy-making and identify conditions under which the streams can be (de-) coupled. We trace the formulation of the General Data Protection Regulation to show that the regulation occupied the legislative agenda when a policy window was exploited through policy entrepreneurship to frame technological change as a problem for data privacy and legislative harmonization within the European Union. Although constituencies interested in promoting internet technologies made every effort to stall the regulation, various actors, activities, and events helped the streams remain coupled, eventually leading to its adoption. We conclude that the alignment of problem, policy, politics, and technologythrough policy entrepreneurshipinfluences the timing and design of technology regulation.

show abstract

Right to Privacy Meets Online Platforms: Exploring Privacy Complaints against Facebook and Google

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

What Platforms Mean When They Talk About Human Rights

What Platforms Mean When They Talk About Human Rights

Review of the theory, principles, and design requirements of human-centric Internet of Things (IoT)

Why and how does the regulation of emerging technologies occur? Explaining the adoption of the EU General Data Protection Regulation using the multiple streams framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About