Article

Policy through software defaults

Authors:

Jay P. KesanAuthors Info & Claims

dg.o '06: Proceedings of the 2006 international conference on Digital government research

Pages 265 - 272

https://doi.org/10.1145/1146598.1146670

Published: 21 May 2006 Publication History

Abstract

As part of digital government, policymakers are increasingly considering the use software to influence societal concerns such as privacy, freedom of speech, and intellectual property protection. A necessary step is deciding what the settings should be for software. In this paper, we build upon work in computer science and behavioral economics to argue how defaults in software should be set.

References

[1]

Apple Computer Inc. Apple Human Interface Guidelines, 2005.]]

Digital Library

[2]

Ayres, I. and Gertner, R. Filling the Gaps in Incomplete Contracts: An Economic Theory of Default Rules. Yale Law Journal, 99 (1989), 97--130.]]

[3]

Barnett, R. E. The Sound of Silence: Default Rules and Contractual Consent. Virginia Law Review, 78 (1992), 821--911.]]

[4]

Bellman, S., Johnson, E. J. and Lohse, G. L. To Opt-In or Opt-Out? It Depends on the Question. Communications of the ACM, 44, 2 (2001), 25--27.]]

Digital Library

[5]

CNN. Microsoft, RealNetworks Battle, 2002.]]

[6]

Coase, R. The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 4 (1960), 1--44.]]

[7]

Cranor, L., Guduru, P. and Arjula, M. User Interfaces for Privacy Agents. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (Forthcoming).]]

Digital Library

[8]

Fowler, S. L. and Stanwick, V. R. GUI Style Guide. AP Professional, Boston, MA, 1995.]]

[9]

Grimmelmann, J. Regulation by Software. Yale Law Journal, 114 (2005), 1719--1758.]]

[10]

Herbert, D. Netscape in Talks with AOL, 1998.]]

[11]

Johnson, E. J. and Goldstein, D. Do Defaults Save Lives? Science, 302 (2003), 1338--1339.]]

[12]

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L. and Thaler, R. H. The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 1 (1991), 193--206.]]

[13]

Kelsey, D. Almost No One Rejects Cookies Newsbytes, 2001.]]

[14]

Kesan, J. P. and Shah, R. C. Shaping Code. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 18, 2 (2005), 319--399.]]

[15]

Korobkin, R. Endowment Effect and Legal Analysis. Northwestern University Law Review, 97 (2003), 1227--1293.]]

[16]

Lessig, L. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. Basic Books, New York, 1999.]]

Digital Library

[17]

Madrian, B. and Shea, D. F. The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116 (2001), 1149--1525.]]

[18]

National Cyber Security Alliance and America Online. Online Safety Study, 2004.]]

[19]

Orlowski, A. Why Real Sued Microsoft, 2003.]]

[20]

Posner, R. A. Economic Analysis of Law. Aspen Law & Business, New York, 2003.]]

[21]

Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S. and Carey, T. Human-Computer Interaction. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, UK, 1994.]]

Digital Library

[22]

Ritov, I. and Baron, J. Status-quo and Omission Biases. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 1 (1992), 49--61.]]

[23]

Samuelson, W. and Zeckhauser, R. Status Quo Bias in Decision Making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 1 (1988), 7--59.]]

[24]

Schwartz, A. and Scott, R. E. Contract Theory and the Limits of Contract Law. Yale Law Journal, 113 (2003), 541--601.]]

[25]

Shah, R. C. and Kesan, J. P. Manipulating the Governance Characteristics of Code. Info, 5, 4 (2003), 3--9.]]

[26]

Shah, R. C. and Sandvig, C., Software Defaults as De Facto Regulation: The Case of Wireless Access Points. in Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, (Washington, DC, 2005).]]

[27]

Sunstein, C. R. Switching the Default Rule. New York University Law Review, 77 (2002), 106--134.]]

[28]

Sunstein, C. R. and Thaler, R. H. Libertarian Paternalism is Not an Oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review, 70, 4 (2003), 1159--1202.]]

[29]

Thaler, R. H. and Benartzi, S. Save More Tomorrow: Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112, S1 (2004), S164--S167.]]

[30]

Wegert, T. The Web Cookie is Crumbling -- and Marketers Feel the Fallout Globe and Mail, 2005.]]

Cited By

Paunov YVogel TIngendahl MWänke M(2022)Transparent by choice: Proactive disclosures increase compliance with digital defaultsFrontiers in Psychology10.3389/fpsyg.2022.98149713Online publication date: 6-Oct-2022
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.981497
Nguyen FQiao XHeer JHullman J(2020)Exploring the Effects of Aggregation Choices on Untrained Visualization Users' Generalizations From DataComputer Graphics Forum10.1111/cgf.1390239:6(33-48)Online publication date: 29-Feb-2020
https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13902
Kroll TStieglitz S(2019)Digital nudging and privacy: improving decisions about self-disclosure in social networksBehaviour & Information Technology10.1080/0144929X.2019.158464440:1(1-19)Online publication date: 27-Feb-2019
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1584644
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Policy through software defaults
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Computing / technology policy

Recommendations

The Janus-Faced Approach to Governance: A Mismatch Between Public Sector Reforms and Digital Government in Estonia
ICEGOV '18: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance

While the Estonian digital government has received considerable attention in research and policy circles, there has been a lack of broader understanding of digital government initiatives in the context of public sector governance. By relying on ...
Information technology and regulatory policy: new directions for digital government research

Information technology holds the potential for improving the process by which government makes regulatory decisions affecting vital aspects of society and the economy. This article charts new directions for research on the application of information ...
Security, Privacy, and the Role of Law

US President Barack Obama promised a "new comprehensive approach" to cybersecurity and guaranteed to preserve "personal privacy and civil liberties," but the administration has stopped short of committing to the legal changes necessary to protect either ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

dg.o '06: Proceedings of the 2006 international conference on Digital government research

May 2006

526 pages

Conference Chairs:
José A. B. Fortes
University of Florida
,
Ann Macintosh
Napier University

Sponsors

NSF: National Science Foundation

Publisher

Digital Government Society of North America

Publication History

Published: 21 May 2006

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Conference

dg.o '06

Sponsor:

NSF

dg.o '06: Digital government research

May 21 - 24, 2006

California, San Diego, USA

Acceptance Rates

dg.o '06 Paper Acceptance Rate 20 of 58 submissions, 34%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 150 of 271 submissions, 55%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

6
Total Citations
View Citations
288
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)4
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 30 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Paunov YVogel TIngendahl MWänke M(2022)Transparent by choice: Proactive disclosures increase compliance with digital defaultsFrontiers in Psychology10.3389/fpsyg.2022.98149713Online publication date: 6-Oct-2022
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.981497
Nguyen FQiao XHeer JHullman J(2020)Exploring the Effects of Aggregation Choices on Untrained Visualization Users' Generalizations From DataComputer Graphics Forum10.1111/cgf.1390239:6(33-48)Online publication date: 29-Feb-2020
https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13902
Kroll TStieglitz S(2019)Digital nudging and privacy: improving decisions about self-disclosure in social networksBehaviour & Information Technology10.1080/0144929X.2019.158464440:1(1-19)Online publication date: 27-Feb-2019
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1584644
Tschersich M(2015)Comparing the Configuration of Privacy Settings on Social Network Sites Based on Different Default OptionsProceedings of the 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences10.1109/HICSS.2015.416(3453-3462)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2015.416
Tschersich MNiekamp M(2015)Pros and Cons of Privacy by DefaultProceedings of the 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences10.1109/HICSS.2015.211(1750-1756)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2015.211
Tschersich M(2015)Configuration Behavior of Restrictive Default Privacy Settings on Social Network SitesData Privacy Management, Autonomous Spontaneous Security, and Security Assurance10.1007/978-3-319-17016-9_6(77-94)Online publication date: 28-Mar-2015
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17016-9_6

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents