Weighing the Value of Privacy

An anonymous reader writes "A new study from HP Labs shows that the reluctance of individuals to reveal private information (or how much money they would demand to do so), depends on how far they perceive themselves to be from the norm. For example, those who think they are overweight ask a higher price to step on a scale in front of their peers, than those of average weight. From the article: 'How and why people decide to transition their information from the private to the public sphere is poorly understood. To address this puzzle, we conducted a reverse second-price auction to identify the monetary value of private information to individuals and how that value is set. Our results demonstrate that deviance, whether perceived or actual, from the group's average asymmetrically impacts the price demanded to reveal private information.'"

Comments

Translation:

[Alranor]

People are conditioned by society to feel that they need to be "normal" (read: exactly the same as everyone else) to such an extent that they're embarassed to reveal anything about themselves that shows how far from this false ideal they are.

And this is news now?

Re:Translation:

[CaptainAlbert]

Not only is this news, but it would appear that people get paid to write papers about it.

This is possible some of the most useless research I've ever seen. The headline was quite promising and I even downloaded the PDF and skimmed through it, and it turns out that the "example" of weight given in the submission accounts for the whole paper! Oh no wait, they also mention... height. Woohoo. Add some pseudo-statistics and some almost-economic analysis, and wrap up with... absolutely no conclusions whatsoever. For heaven's sake, tell me your theory why this situation should arise! Tell me what implications it has!

I'm actually going to stop now because I can tell be reading what I've written already that I'm far to worked up to be objective about this. But for the love of God, why can't you do research into something that isn't blindingly obvious?

I need to sit down. :)

Re:Translation:

[greppling]

This is possible some of the most useless research I've ever seen.

That is a little harsh. See, psychological research tends to go in small steps. First, someone develops an IQ test. Then, someone finds out that people with higher IQ tend to be more successful in their career later. Suprise? News? Of course not. But then this phenomenon is investigated in more and more detail, and it turns out that an IQ test is the singe most successful criterion to predict career success. And so it makes sense for companies to do IQ tests when selecting new employees. Then you can start optimizing IQ tests for specific job profiles. Etc.

Of course, this is not a very revolutionary paper. But it probably does contain a new idea, namely to measure the value of privacy in monetary terms. And the message of this paper is mainly that this method works. Now they can gradually start trying more sophisticated tests. That will lead to more surprising results.

Re:Translation:

[4of12]

value of privacy in monetary terms.

Good point.

It motivates a few follow-on questions:

1. How much is "private" information on individuals worth in the marketplace?
2. How much did I receive in the transaction?
3. Are most "sellers" of their own private information even aware of their transaction?
4. How much value did U.S. citizens transfer to their government in the interests of stopping terrorists?

Re:Translation:

[griann]

It is news to those who have not considered this. For example, people who do exist well within the "normal" part of the statistical curve.

For this reason, if no other, broadcast of such findings may be at least educational and may provide some small measure of understanding. Not necessarily a bad thing.

As to the conditioning aspect, my experience is that, although social conditioning does genuinely occur, it will only take where there is already a predisposition to that set of judgements, on a broad social level. Conditioning reinforces beliefs and fears but tends not to be able to create new ones. Unless you are very good at it and can conflate the new belief with one which is already held. Piggy-backing it on the emotional force of the old one.

This is also becoming less uncommon with increased sophistication in manipulating communication coupled with an increased capacity to reach larger audiences.

Humans are social animals and tend to cluster into groups. The formation of groups involves the creation of memes which define the nature of that group. Norms and margins are then set around the degree of closeness to or divergence from those memes.

Slashdot subscribers hold certain patterns as central to our presence here. These may be very different to those of three year olds in a kindergarten (although maybe not - you tell me).

The degree to which we conform to the norms is a direct measure of our conformance with the memes of that social group and by extension a reflection of to what degree we belong to that structure, are accepted by it or even our acceptance of it.

To diverge by more than, say, two standard deviations from the mean, begins to put us into the marginal area.

A desire to be a member of the group, under those circumstances, can bring with it a tension regarding that association. If I interpret my membership as some sort of moral imperative, and if I am predisposed to self criticism, then, yes, I may feel embarrassed by my lack of conformity.

On the other hand, if I am aware of the necessary diversity of a statistical distribution, I may, instead, revel in my individual differences, realising that I am representing a boundary on that group.

All conditions across the spectrum of a distribution will have psychological baggage associated with it. However, the further we move into the margins, the less we experience support from the group - as a part of it rather than as, say compassion, sympathy or even, to take the other end of things, adoration as the other.

I don't see these things as representing a false ideal. Rather an accepted ideal but limited to the context of a given group.

So...

[KDan]

Does this mean that based on this study anti-privacy activists (how else to call them) will start saying that "as shown by studies, if you don't want to share your private information, thoughts, etc, it IS because you have something that you think you should hide"? I can totally see this study being used to hassle people who just want some privacy. Whether true or not, this study is damaging to individuals and their privacy.

Daniel

Do we need more or less privacy?

[E.S Taog]

To achieve valuable personal integration, people typically need a significant measure of security from invasions of their private space as well as their private records and information. In fact, they need more than immunity from invasion: they need time for reflection, time when they are not in co-operation with others or distracted by other commitments. In this sense, the right to privacy really is concerned with valuable (i.e. morally upright) individual self-development.

Whenever I visit a tourist attraction that has a guest register, I always sign it. After all, you never know when you'll need an alibi.

I've been doing this since I was a kid, but these days you don't have to take any positive action to leave a trail behind. Almost everything we do is recorded. Closed-circuit cameras watch us in most public places. Our credit-card purchases, japanese schoolgirl tentacle porn, telephone calls and Web surfing are all tracked these days.

Editorialists have decried these losses of privacy, as if it were the most sacred of human rights. But just what is the value of privacy? Do we really need it? And, indeed, can we afford it? After all, everything from your son's shoplifting to the destruction of the towers at the World Trade Center could have been prevented if we had less of an ability to do things in secret.

Re:Do we need more or less privacy?

[mdemeny]

After all, everything from your son's shoplifting to the destruction of the towers at the World Trade Center could have been prevented if we had less of an ability to do things in secret.

And conversely, those pesky 'founding fathers' and their dreams of a free country could have been prevented if they had less of an ability to do things in secret.

It amazes me to see how quickly people will abandon the very values and principles that America was founded on in order to gain a little extra security. It's here that I would trot out the old 'those who would sacrific freedom for security' yada-yada-yada... but why bother - most of you are so far down the slippry slope already.

Re:Do we need more or less privacy?

[mdwh2]

Whenever I visit a tourist attraction that has a guest register, I always sign it. After all, you never know when you'll need an alibi.

I'm happy to sign such things too, but the important thing is it's my choice. In particular, this means that if I visit somewhere that I'm less open about, I can skip signing the book for that one time. Tracked credit card purchases on the other hand don't ignore that japanese schoolgirl tentacle porn.

After all, everything from your son's shoplifting to the destruction of the towers at the World Trade Center could have been prevented if we had less of an ability to do things in secret.

But everything from being mugged whilst carrying an expensive item, to millions of people who are "different" being sent away to concentration camps and gas chambers could happen if we had less of an ability to keep things private.

Interresting, but sad

[Max von H.]

I find it sad that such things like privacy, love and even life itself are being compared to money. It tells a long way about a society's values.

Some things will never have a "replacement value" (that's what it is), but some believe they can change that. How much more materialistic can you get?

Decadence, here we come!

"blindingly obvious" Still needs to be proved.

[paragon_au]

At one point in time it was "blindingly obvious" that the world was flat. At one point it was "blindingly obvious" that white skinned people were better than all other skin colours.

Just because something is "blindingly obvious" doesn't mean there shouldn't be proof to back it up.

This report may be crap, but just because something is "obvious" doesn't mean it shouldn't be researched and proofed

Once Again...

[Jameth]

...Science Tells Us What We Already Know.

I just read the article (skimmed bits). They managed to determine that people don't like to release embarrasing information or break societal taboos.

No Shit.

And in other news

[Yo Grark]

Researchers should get out more.

a 5 minute observation of real world is apparently worth 10 research papers on obvious conclusions.

Seriously, from a sales perspective, information that people ask for is ALWAYS WORTH MORE than useless information.

Hence, at some point, some person asked for this study, and the researches said, sure I'll take the contract. Why? Because it was WORTH something to somebody.

When people who are disadvanged are asked for something they actually have dear to them, they value it more.

Ask how many programers would take as much money as they can get for a program like:

10 Print "Sucker"
20 Goto 10

Yo Grark

Dangerous study

[Krapangor]

it leads to the conclusion that everybody who fights for privacy rights is a pervert.
If this goes to a border public then it will be blow for the privacy movement.

God Study but not ready for Prime Time

[leoaugust]

It is a well conducted experiment by academic standards, but I believe its conclusions cannot be extrapolated to real life just yet.

The subjects were paid a nominal fee ($25) for their attendance plus auction earnings.

The first problem here is of anchoring with the $25 figure. An example is generally given in literature that first you ask a person when did Genghis Khan live. Say someone says 1275 AD. Next if you ask them how many movie theatres are there in Russia - you will find their answer strongly affected by the number 1275. This is called "anchoring." Anchoring may have reflected why people asked between $4 and $19. They were looking at a 20% to 80 percent increase in that session's earnings and so looks "big" to the $25 anchor.

The experiment was fully explained to the subjects and a consent form was signed. Subjects were free to leave or not participate.

This is even more problematic. Once you have committed to coming would you just walk out of the whole situation ? Has the time that you spent thinking about this before you came played a role in whether you stay or leave?

In all auctions prices were limited to a range of $0 - $100 as well as "infinity" to indicate that $100 would not be enough for the individual to reveal information to others.

The problem here is of "framing." You have made it clear that till $ 100 is the maximum "reasonable" price for private info, other wise you get nothing. This framing of the issue is problematic because it definitely had an influence on what people thought was a fair price for the info. Some people chose "infinity" but that is less than 3 %. If this is extrapolated then there is only 3 % of the popluation that wants to avoid Big Brother and Animal Farm - and that is scary.

Recent debates on privacy issues ranging from financial information [23] to genetic and medical data[24,25] to surveillance[26] require a careful consideration of how individuals choose to reveal their private information

.

I can pick up medical data, and point out to the fact that there are many healthy people who enroll themselves in clinical trials for $500-1500. In exchange they are monitored for days and weeks, blood samples drawn upteen times - why ? Because at that time that $1000 is a lot of money in their life. Some friends of mine went thru this procedure and I don't think their decision to give "all medical data" was based on any of the hypotheses of the current study. (As an aside, based on those clinical trial stories I later developed the concept for a comic strip Test Pharm - Cultivating a treatment for everyone)

This distance from a perceived ideal is far more important than privacy attitudes, how well one knows the group, or actual deviance from an objective mean.

The problem is that real life is not uni-dimensional. Cause and Effect is not singular. There can be single cause - multiple effects, multiple causes - single effect, multiple causes - multiple effects.

I can't just say that disclosure of salary is connected to a group average. There are a host of other issues related to the salary information. The salary information has multiple repercussions. In some of these "repercussions" I am average, in others deviant. In some groups I am average in others I am deviant.

This deviance concept is generally used in the Police State defense. "It shouldn't bother you because you got nothing to hide - right ?" I think it is misplaced as it does not consider the various shades of deviances in multiple dimensions - and exaggerates a singular cause rather than a bundle of causes. For example, if tomorrow carrying an almanac becomes a crime by some interpretation of the Patriot Act, then I would be against random roadblocks to "fish" out