research-article

Virtue Ethics as a Solution to the Privacy Paradox and Trust in Emerging Technologies

Authors:

Stephen Wingreen,

Ravishankar SharmaAuthors Info & Claims

ICISS '20: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information Science and Systems

Pages 224 - 228

https://doi.org/10.1145/3388176.3388196

Published: 20 April 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Despite concerns over the collection of personal information by technologies, society's use of such has increased rapidly. This attitude is termed the privacy paradox. This research-in-progress explores the root causes of this privacy paradox, the role of personal information privacy threats on trust in emerging technologies, and the influence of unconscious decision-making (based on virtue ethics traditions) on conscious decision-making. To understand the duality and subjectivity embedded in the above issues, this study applies Q-methodology for data collection, analysis, and interpretation. The study proposes that virtue ethics is the best approach to solve such subjective issues. This study enhances our understanding, on the basis of prior literature, of the importance of virtue ethics as a solution to the privacy paradox.

References

[1]

Acquisti, A. and Grossklags, J. 2005. Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE security & privacy. 3, 1 (2005), 26--33.

[2]

Adams, M. 2017. Big Data and Individual Privacy in the Age of the Internet of Things. Technology Innovation Management Review. 7, 4 (2017), 13.

[3]

Ahituv, N., Bach, N., Birnhack, M., Soffer, T. and Luoto, L. 2014. New Challenges to Privacy due to Emerging Technologies and Different Privacy Perceptions of Younger Generations: The EU PRACTIS Project. (2014), 001--023.

[4]

Anscombe, G.E.M. 1958. Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy. 33, 124 (1958), 1--19.

[5]

Bandara, R., Fernando, M. and Akter, S. 2018. Is the Privacy Paradox a Matter of Psychological Distance? An Exploratory Study of the Privacy Paradox from a Construal Level Theory Perspective. (2018).

[6]

Barth, S. and De Jong, M.D. 2017. The privacy paradox--Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior--A systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics. 34, 7 (2017), 1038--1058.

Digital Library

[7]

Barth, S., de Jong, M.D., Junger, M., Hartel, P.H. and Roppelt, J.C. 2019. Putting the privacy paradox to the test: Online privacy and security behaviors among users with technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources. Telematics and Informatics. (2019).

[8]

Becker, M., Klausing, S. and Hess, T. 2019. Uncovering the Privacy Paradox: The Influence of Distraction on Data Disclosure Decisions. Research-in-Progress Papers. (May 2019).

[9]

Berberich, N. and Diepold, K. 2018. The Virtuous Machine-Old Ethics for New Technology? (2018).

[10]

Birnhack, M. and Ahituv, N. 2013. Privacy Implications of Emerging and Future Technologies. (2013), 49.

[11]

Blank, G., Bolsover, G. and Dubois, E. 2014. A New Privacy Paradox: Young People and Privacy on Social Network Sites. SSRN Electronic Journal. (2014). DOI=https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2479938.

[12]

Blasi, A. 1984. Moral Identity: Its Role in Moral Functioning, in edited by Kurtines, W. M. and Gewirtz, J. L. (Eds.), Morality, Moral Behavior and Moral Development (pp. 128--139). John Wiley & Sons, New York.

[13]

Buck, C., Horbel, C., Germelmann, C.C. and Eymann, T. 2014. The unconscious app consumer: Discovering and comparing the information-seeking patterns among mobile application consumers. (2014).

[14]

Cath, C., Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Taddeo, M. and Floridi, L. 2017. Artificial Intelligence and the 'Good Society': the US, EU, and UK approach. Science and Engineering Ethics. (Mar. 2017). DOI=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9901-7.

[15]

Conger, S., Pratt, J.H. and Loch, K.D. 2013. Personal information privacy and emerging technologies. Information Systems Journal. 23, 5 (2013), 401--417.

[16]

Culnan, M.J. and Armstrong, P.K. 1999. Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organization science. 10, 1 (1999), 104--115.

[17]

Cunha, M.P. e and Putnam, L.L. 2019. Paradox theory and the paradox of success. Strategic Organization. 17, 1 (Feb. 2019), 95--106. DOI=https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127017739536.

[18]

Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J.P., Horn, A.-K. and Hughes, B.N. 2009. Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of computer-mediated communication. 15, 1 (2009), 83--108.

[19]

Deuker, A. 2009. Addressing the privacy paradox by expanded privacy awareness--the example of context-aware services. IFIP PrimeLife International Summer School on Privacy and Identity Management for Life (2009), 275--283.

[20]

Dinev, T. and Hart, P. 2006. An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information systems research. 17, 1 (2006), 61--80.

[21]

Ess, C.M. 2010. Trust and New Communication Technologies: Vicious Circles, Virtuous Circles, Possible Futures. Knowledge, Technology & Policy. 23, 3 (Dec. 2010), 287--305. DOI=https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-010-9114-8.

[22]

Flender, C. and Müller, G. 2012. Type indeterminacy in privacy decisions: the privacy paradox revisited. International Symposium on Quantum Interaction (2012), 148--159.

Digital Library

[23]

Floridi, L. 2016. On Human Dignity as a Foundation for the Right to Privacy. Philosophy & Technology. 29, 4 (Dec. 2016), 307--312. DOI=https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0220-8.

[24]

Floridi, L. and Taddeo, M. 2016. What is data ethics? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 374, 2083 (Dec. 2016), 20160360. DOI=https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0360.

[25]

Frankl, V.E. 1992. By Viktor E. Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning. Beacon Press.

[26]

Galvez, R. and Gurses, S. 2018. The Odyssey: Modeling Privacy Threats in a Brave New World. 2018 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW) (London, Apr. 2018), 87--94.

[27]

Gambino, A., Kim, J., Sundar, S.S., Ge, J. and Rosson, M.B. 2016. User disbelief in privacy paradox: Heuristics that determine disclosure. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2016), 2837--2843.

Digital Library

[28]

Hoehle, H., Aloysius, J.A., Goodarzi, S. and Venkatesh, V. 2018. A nomological network of customers' privacy perceptions: linking artifact design to shopping efficiency. European Journal of Information Systems. (Jul. 2018), 1--23. DOI=https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1496882.

[29]

Kehr, F., Wentzel, D. and Kowatsch, T. 2014. Privacy paradox revised: Pre-existing attitudes, psychological ownership, and actual disclosure. (2014).

[30]

Kim, D.H., Sung, Y.H., Lee, S.Y., Choi, D. and Sung, Y. 2016. Are you on timeline or news feed? the roles of facebook pages and construal level in increasing ad effectiveness. Computers in Human Behavior. 57, (2016), 312--320.

[31]

Kokolakis, S. 2017. Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & security. 64, (2017), 122--134.

[32]

Lewan, M. 2018. The role of trust in emerging technologies. The Rise and Development of FinTech. Routledge. 111--129.

[33]

Lutz, C. and Strathoff, P. 2014. Privacy concerns and online behavior-Not so paradoxical after all? Viewing the privacy paradox through different theoretical lenses. Viewing the Privacy Paradox Through Different Theoretical Lenses (April 15, 2014). (2014).

[34]

Maple, C. 2017. Security and privacy in the internet of things. Journal of Cyber Policy. 2, 2 (May 2017), 155--184. DOI=https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2017.1366536.

[35]

Martin, K.E. 2015. Ethical issues in the big data industry. MIS Quarterly Executive. 14, (2015), 2.

[36]

Mazey, C.H.L. 2018. Initial Trust in Emerging Technologies and the effect of threats to Privacy. University of Canterbury.

[37]

Mcknight, D.H., Carter, M., Thatcher, J.B. and Clay, P.F. 2011. Trust in a Specific Technology: An Investigation of Its Components and Measures. ACM Trans. Manage. Inf. Syst. 2, 2 (Jul. 2011), 12:1--12:25. DOI=https://doi.org/10.1145/1985347.1985353.

Digital Library

[38]

Minkkinen, M., Auffermann, B. and Heinonen, S. 2017. Framing the future of privacy: citizens' metaphors for privacy in the coming digital society. European Journal of Futures Research. 5, 1 (Dec. 2017). DOI=https://doi.org/10.1007/s40309-017-0115-7.

[39]

Morris, T. 1998. If Aristotle Ran General Motors. Holt Paperbacks.

[40]

Oetzel, M.C. and Gonja, T. 2011. The Online Privacy Paradox: A Social Representations Perspective. CHI '11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2011), 2107--2112.

[41]

Orlikowski, W.J. 2006. Material knowing: the scaffolding of human knowledgeability. European Journal of Information Systems. 15, 5 (Oct. 2006), 460--466. DOI=https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000639.

[42]

Pentina, I., Zhang, L., Bata, H. and Chen, Y. 2016. Exploring privacy paradox in information-sensitive mobile app adoption: A cross-cultural comparison. Computers in Human Behavior. 65, (2016), 409--419.

[43]

Poikela, M., Schmidt, R., Wechsung, I. and Möller, S. 2015. FlashPolling privacy: The discrepancy of intention and action in location-based poll participation. Adjunct Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers (2015), 813--818.

Digital Library

[44]

Pötzsch, S. 2008. Privacy awareness: A means to solve the privacy paradox? IFIP Summer School on the Future of Identity in the Information Society (2008), 226--236.

[45]

Puaschunder, J.M. 2017. Towards a Utility Theory of Privacy and Information Sharing and the Introduction of Hyper-Hyperbolic Discounting in the Digital Big Data Age. SSRN Electronic Journal. (2017). DOI=https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3082060.

[46]

Quinn, K. 2016. Why we share: A uses and gratifications approach to privacy regulation in social media use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 60, 1 (2016), 61--86.

[47]

Rosenfeld, A. and Kraus, S. 2018. Predicting Human Decision-Making: From Prediction to Action. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. 12, 1 (Jan. 2018), 1--150. DOI=https://doi.org/10.2200/S00820ED1V01Y201712AIM036.

[48]

Sjåstad, H. and Baumeister, R.F. 2019. Moral self-judgment is stronger for future than past actions. Motivation and Emotion. (Apr. 2019). DOI=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09768-8.

[49]

Smith, W.K. and Lewis, M.W. 2011. Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic equilibrium Model of Organizing. Academy of Management Review. 36, 2 (Apr. 2011), 381--403. DOI=https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223.

[50]

Stephenson, W. 1978. Concourse theory of communication. Communication. 3, 1 (1978), 21--40.

[51]

Stets, J.E. and Carter, M. J. 2011. The Moral Self: Applying Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly. 74, 2 (Jun. 2011), 192--215. DOI=https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272511407621.

[52]

Stutzman, F., Vitak, J., Ellison, N.B., Gray, R. and Lampe, C. 2012. Privacy in interaction: Exploring disclosure and social capital in Facebook. Sixth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (2012).

[53]

Sundar, S.S., Kang, H., Wu, M., Go, E. and Zhang, B. 2013. Unlocking the privacy paradox: do cognitive heuristics hold the key? CHI'13 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (2013), 811--816.

Digital Library

[54]

Taddeo, M. and Floridi, L. 2016. The Debate on the Moral Responsibilities of Online Service Providers. Science and Engineering Ethics. 22, 6 (Dec. 2016), 1575--1603. DOI=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9734-1.

[55]

Vallor, S. 2016. Technology and the Virtues: A Philosophical Guide to a Future Worth Wanting. Oxford University Press.

[56]

Watts, S. and Stenner, P. 2012. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method & Interpretation. SAGE Publications Ltd.

[57]

Wilson, D. and Valacich, J.S. 2012. Unpacking the privacy paradox: Irrational decision-making within the privacy calculus. (2012).

[58]

Wu, D., Huang, H., Liu, N. and Miao, D. 2019. Information processing under high and low distractions using eye tracking. Cognitive processing. 20, 1 (2019), 11--18.

[59]

Yan, Z. and Holtmanns, S. 2008. Trust modeling and management: from social trust to digital trust. Computer security, privacy and politics: current issues, challenges and solutions. IGI Global. 290--323.

[60]

Zafeiropoulou, A.M., Millard, D.E., Webber, C. and O'Hara, K. 2013. Unpicking the privacy paradox: can structuration theory help to explain location-based privacy decisions? Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference (2013), 463--472.

Digital Library

[61]

Zhou, W., Zhang, Y. and Liu, P. 2018. The Effect of IoT New Features on Security and Privacy: New Threats, Existing Solutions, and Challenges Yet to Be Solved. (Jan. 2018), 11.

[62]

Ziegeldorf, J.H., Morchon, O.G. and Wehrle, K. 2014. Privacy in the Internet of Things: threats and challenges, Security and Communication Networks. 7, 12 (Dec. 2014), 2728--2742. DOI=https://doi.org/10.1002/sec.795.

[63]

2017. Mitigating Risks in the Innovation Economy. World Economic Forum.

Cited By

Akhtar-Danesh NWingreen S(2023)qpair: A command for analyzing paired Q-sorts in Q-methodologyThe Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata10.1177/1536867X22114100222:4(884-907)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2023
https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X221141002
Wiesmüller SWiesmüller S(2023)Conceptualisation of the Relational Governance of Artificial IntelligenceThe Relational Governance of Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-031-25023-1_3(91-163)Online publication date: 4-Feb-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25023-1_3
Silva FHirata N(2022)Inteligência ÉticaComputação Brasil10.5753/compbr.2022.47.4401(15-18)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2022
https://doi.org/10.5753/compbr.2022.47.4401
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Virtue Ethics as a Solution to the Privacy Paradox and Trust in Emerging Technologies
1. Security and privacy
  1. Human and societal aspects of security and privacy
    1. Social aspects of security and privacy

Recommendations

Narrative technologies meets virtue ethics in alternate reality: investigating the possibility of a narrative virtue ethics of technology, using the example of pokémon go

Virtue ethics offers a promising starting point for thinking about ethics of technology. Usually, virtue ethics of technology focuses on explaining how we can cultivate our technomoral virtues to cope with technological change. However, it is not clear ...
Computer Ethics and Neoplatonic Virtue: A Reconsideration of Cyberethics in the Light of Plotinus' Ethical Theory

In normative ethical theory, computer ethics belongs to the area of applied ethics dealing with practical and everyday moral problems arising from the use of computers and computer networks in the information society. Modern scholarship usually approves ...
Moral luck and computer ethics: Gauguin in cyberspace

I argue that the problem of `moral luck' is an unjustly neglected topic within Computer Ethics. This is unfortunate given that the very nature of computer technology, its `logical malleability', leads to ever greater levels of complexity, unreliability ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

ICISS '20: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information Science and Systems

March 2020

238 pages

ISBN:9781450377256

DOI:10.1145/3388176

Copyright © 2020 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

In-Cooperation

University of Salford: University of Salford
Cardiff University: Cardiff University
Kingston University: Kingston University

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 20 April 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

ICISS 2020

ICISS 2020: 2020 The 3rd International Conference on Information Science and System

March 19 - 22, 2020

Cambridge, United Kingdom

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

10
Total Citations
View Citations
654
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)148
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9

Reflects downloads up to 20 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Akhtar-Danesh NWingreen S(2023)qpair: A command for analyzing paired Q-sorts in Q-methodologyThe Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata10.1177/1536867X22114100222:4(884-907)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2023
https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X221141002
Wiesmüller SWiesmüller S(2023)Conceptualisation of the Relational Governance of Artificial IntelligenceThe Relational Governance of Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-031-25023-1_3(91-163)Online publication date: 4-Feb-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25023-1_3
Silva FHirata N(2022)Inteligência ÉticaComputação Brasil10.5753/compbr.2022.47.4401(15-18)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2022
https://doi.org/10.5753/compbr.2022.47.4401
Hirschprung RKlein MMaimon O(2022)Harnessing Soft Logic to Represent the Privacy ParadoxInformatics10.3390/informatics90300549:3(54)Online publication date: 18-Jul-2022
https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics9030054
Fleischhauer DEngelstätter BTafreschi O(2022)The Privacy Paradox in Smartphone UsersProceedings of the 21st International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia10.1145/3568444.3568467(62-70)Online publication date: 27-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3568444.3568467
Almahmoud ADamiani EOtrok H(2022)Hash-Comb: A Hierarchical Distance-Preserving Multi-Hash Data Representation for Collaborative AnalyticsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2022.315893410(34393-34403)Online publication date: 2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3158934
KAYA ÖZBAĞ G(2021)THE CHALLANGE OF INCORPORATING ETHICS INTO MACHINESJournal of Business in The Digital Age10.46238/jobda.1019798Online publication date: 29-Dec-2021
https://doi.org/10.46238/jobda.1019798
Zoshak JDew KKitamura YQuigley AIsbister KIgarashi TBjørn PDrucker S(2021)Beyond Kant and Bentham: How Ethical Theories are being used in Artificial Moral AgentsProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3411764.3445102(1-15)Online publication date: 6-May-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3411764.3445102
Power DHeavin CO’Connor Y(2021)Balancing privacy rights and surveillance analytics: a decision process guideJournal of Business Analytics10.1080/2573234X.2021.19208564:2(155-170)Online publication date: 6-May-2021
https://doi.org/10.1080/2573234X.2021.1920856
Constantinescu MVoinea CUszkai RVică C(2021)Understanding responsibility in Responsible AI. Dianoetic virtues and the hard problem of contextEthics and Information Technology10.1007/s10676-021-09616-923:4(803-814)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10676-021-09616-9

View Options

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