The Distribution of Privacy Risks: Who Needs Protection?

Abstract

It is commonly accepted that the use of personal information in business and government puts individual privacy at risk. However, little is known about these risksÐ for instance, whether and how they can be measured, and how they vary across social groups and the sectors in which personal data are used. Unless we can gain a purchase on such issues, our knowledge of the societal effects of information technology and systems will remain de® cient, and the ability to make and implement better policies for privacy protection, and perhaps for a more equitable distribution of risk and protection, will remain impaired. The article explores this topic, examining conventional paradigms in data protection, including the one-dimensional view of the ª data subject,º that inhibit better conceptualizations and practices. It looks at some comparative survey evidence that casts light on the question of the distribution of privacy risks and concerns. It examines theoretical issues in the literature on risk, raising questions about the objectivity and perception of the risk of privacy invasion.

Bridging the gap between organizational and user perspectives of security in the clinical domain

“…Within the traditional computer privacy paradigm, personal information relates to both information about an individual (name, etc.) and their social groupings (ethnic background, political / religious convictions, area in which we live, etc; Raab and Bennet, 1998). This highlights the importance of the individual's place within society.…”

“…Conversely, through consultations, security professionals can identify current informal work-practices and associated security and privacy risks and adapt systems to increase security while reducing changes to work practices. Raab and Bennet (1998) refer to the concept of personal grouping data as placing an individual (data subject) within a group. This can increase the sensitivity of the data (for the data subject), as judgements about an individual may be based on information about the group (e.g.…”

“…Raab and Bennet (1998) have argued that this is a rather one-dimensional view of the data subject failing to acknowledge that data subjects' perceptions of privacy invasion risks may differ (personal exposures to risk, perceptions or fears of risk) across social groups and sectors (e.g. some socio-economic backgrounds being more vulnerable ).…”

Towards a conceptual framework

“…The threat of surveillance and intrusions into people's private lives are accompanied by claims that the new paradigm is more likely to disempower, than to empower (Perri 6, et al, 1998;Raab and Bennett, 1998). The predominant 'guiding principles' of our technologically mediated lives are concerned with tracking and monitoring and a compelling consumer culture focused on commodified digital information.…”

Classifying customers on the basis of their attitudes towards telemarketing

“…46 Vulnerability emerges as an important notion from the complex defi nition of privacy. It describes the perceived potential risk when personal information is revealed, 74 and has been considered in literature as a factor that determines the perceived state of privacy and individual experiences. 75 -77 Because others may seek to use information to advance their own goals in ways that may have negative consequences for an individual, one ' s ability to maintain one ' s privacy implies an antagonism between the individual and others.…”