Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
All Open source coders are average or do they just have a high opinion of closed source ones? I think it's more likely they fall into the showing off category. If you've got it, flaunt it.
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?
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.
Why? It's not like your friends can't see that you are fat.
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor?
American Weblog in London
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. :
I guess it's not the same for underweight.
It all depends on how bad this would be perceived
Obese people will less likely be understood by "normal" people whereas skeletic people will actually be overprotected as the ill people they represent.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
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
Carpe Diem
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.
Actually this is not that offtopic : I didn't reveal my identity in order not to be associated with the poor karma this post had gotten : so, we have a typical example of what the article describe... IMHO ;) :)
PS: Do not upmod the parent otherwise you'll prove me false
Trolling using another account since 2005.
The second bid auction, or in this case, the reverse second bid acution is a brillian idea. I wonder why it isn't used more in real life.
Everyone gets to leave a bid for something. The person giving the highest bid gets to buy for the second highest bid.
This forces the bidders to bid the highest price they would be willing to pay. It's impossible to cheat, as bidding 1 billion for a 100$ object would leave you in a lot of trouble is someone else had the same idea but bid 1 million!
Would people get this if it was an option on ebay?
The more we deviate from normality, the more value we place on privacy.
The more we deviate from normality, the more information value there exists within our deviation.
In other words, the greater our individual entropy, the more value we attach to it.
This is an interesting result; a first step towards quantification of something I had not really conceived of as quantifiable.
--Dan
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!
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
(c) Playschool, BBCTV, MCMLXXIV
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
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
...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.
Didn't somebody famous, like a couple hundred years ago, say that the quest for freedom is nothing but the fear of tyranny?
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
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
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.
That may be true, but I think it's only a one-way logic. I doubt you can reverse-deduce the weight of people by asking them how much they'd pay to reveal it. The best proof is that these guys aren't necessarily all obese, and these guys definitely aren't on the skinny side.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I suspect that privacy is an artifact of a mass-urbanized society. Prior to the 1800s, people did not have that much privacy because they did not have anonymity. In small village, everyone knows everyone's business for better or for worse. Its only after people moved to a big city that they really could have privacy and learn to value it. At the same time, mass-media culture creates a monotypic image of the norm -- every day we are bombarded with messages of how we should be young, thin, driving a hot car and have cool dry underarms.
Culture plays a big role too. I remember reading about the Netherlands and the tendency for the Dutch to leave their curtains open. Closing your curtains (seeking privacy) was actually frowned upon because it was seen as suspicious.
It would be interesting to repeat this privacy study among different people: people in other countries, in small villages, in tribal indigenous cultures, etc. That way we could assess if the desire for privacy is universal or only an artifact of the current mass-media, mass-urban civilization.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I have researched privacy quite heavily, mostly privacy and IKT (especially Internet). I even wrote a thesis that touched on this kind of thing, at least in one of the chapters, part of which I will share with you below. Some of the most important aspects of privacy is that it tends to be dependent on context and environment, and based on own activities and needs. People are also willing to give up privacy for some kind of (financial) gain, usually in the form of discounts, prizes, etc. And "convenience" of course.
(From Chapter 2 - "Privacy in the Internet age")
In order to discuss privacy protection on the Internet, I must first determine what privacy means. Privacy is a hotly debated issue on a very broad concept. Privacy can be thought of as among other things:
The above shows that the concept of privacy is non-singular, and that definitions vary widely according to context and environment. Privacy interests have several dimensions including privacy of the person or personality, privacy of personal behavior and personal associations, privacy of personal communications, and privacy of personal data (Clarke, 1999(a)). A common consensus, however, is that privacy is something every human needs at some level and in some degree (Bennett, 2001). Privacy protection is "a process of finding appropriate balances between privacy and multiple competing interests" (Clarke, 1999(a)). This balancing process is political in nature, involving the exercise of power deriving from authority, markets or any other available source (Clarke, 1998(b)).
Cynically, since privacy is such a vague and "stretchy" concept, people often apply it for their own purposes (Schartum, 2001(b)). One of the cynical attitudes is that privacy is only useful for creating "a level playing field," as in the case of privacy conflicts with business interests that see personal data as a resource (Bennett, 1996). The way individuals actually view privacy tends to be dependent on their own personal activities and needs - why do I need (or not need) privacy, and to what degree? Furthermore, while identity is a public and symbolic phenomenon, historical, cultural, and social structure factors also play a role in how far an individual goes in giving out whom he or she is (Agre, 1999). A common argument is "I have nothing to hide," yet Bacard (2000) points out "show me a human being who has no secrets from her family, her neighbors, or her colleagues, and I'll show you someone who is either an extraordinary exhibitionist or an incredible dullard. Show me a business that has no trade secrets or confidential records, and I'll show you a business that is not very successful."
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
In my perception, one of the differences between the US (where I have now been almost 10 times for 2-4 weeks) and German society (where I live) is that the pressure to conform is noticeably higher in the American society. Of course, you can always find niches where pretty much anything is accepted. And yes, intolerance does exist in Germany, too :) But as a small tendency, I would say this difference clearly exists. So my prediction would be that the correlation would be considerable smaller among German participants.
Btw, I am not sure whether I should find this study interesting or distasteful. The idea of someone trying to find out how much I value my privacy in monetary terms makes me feel pretty uneasy, to say the least.
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.
What if someone's embarassing private information was that they were broke?
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.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
Ah this reminds me of a company I used to work for which paid a consulting group for an online study (survey and analysis) to gauge what our audience was. This gave us a nice set of statistics and pretty report which really just told us the demographics of people with the time and inclination to fill out long online survey forms and devulge personal information for the chance to win a small prize. No telling marketing that ofcourse.
Well, if you assume people bid rationally, then 2nd bid auction is the same as a standard auction with small increments, as explained in another post. The only advantage is that it leads to the same result faster.
But part of the point of auctions is that people don't act completely rationally. Let's say there is a really cool _____ that you would like to get. You think it's so great that you would pay 500$ for it. You bid that. Now someone else bids 510$. Don't you think you would go on? And maybe still go on over 530$? And there you are, the seller getting 10% more than in the 2nd bid auction.
The second auction was for age, not height. (See page 3, paragraph 2.)
When you get the simple facts wrong, people will tend to doubt that you've made valid conclusions.
My privacy protection is a matter of principle and it thus not affected by money. I don't give a whup if someone offers me money for certain, key private information tidbits, I wont give it. Is it because I am "deviant"? No. I am pretty frickin' average, all told, but on PRINCIPLE my privacy is MINE, absolutely, and I will not give it out or sell it off to a government or a corporation or a group of busybodies.
Just wait. This research will no doubt lead to more privacy erosion on the principle that if you do not want to give up the information, then you must be hiding something bad (the result that the perception or fact that one is deviant from the norm making one more reluctant to release private information). This CAN and will be used as a means of eroding privacy. "You MUST be hiding something if you wont give it up freely. Take him away!". Patriot Act v3.0 would be about right to explicitly work from this angle.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Beyond Concern: Understanding Net Users' Attitudes About Online Privacy
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
The participants had to reveal their personal information to people who were present, and some of whom were known to the participants. Also, the nature of the information (age, weight, and finances) is potentially stigmatic in our culture.
These results should not be generalized to, for example, online data mining attempts for such practices as direct marketing. In nearly all requests for personal information, confidentiality is maintained, the information is anonymous, and some of the information requested (zip code, subscribed magazines, etc...) is not culturally stigmatic.
I question the applicability and usefulness of this study. Its specific results could have been predicted by existing social psychological research. A study measuring willingness to divulge non-stigmatic and anonymous information would be more useful.
InstantCrisis
It is a well conducted experiment by academic standards, but I believe its conclusions cannot be extrapolated to real life just yet.
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.
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?
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.
.
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)
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
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
While I agree with your general point, your example of IQ testing is unfortunate. As explained to some length in Steven J Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" IQ tests were actually calibrated from the start the other way: people in "high" professions score high on the test because the test was calibrated such that they are scored highly. While I am certainly no anti-intellectual (and have benefitted greatly from such testing), I still feel that holding forth the example of the inception of IQ testing as good science is flat-out wrong.
Some people are no doubt concerned that their deviancy, if revealed, might lead to some unpleasant consequences.
For instance, my neighbor might like studded leather and ball-gags, but as long as he's not kidnapping people to participate, and it's all according to Hoyle, then fine... who cares? (truthfully, I'd rather not know about it at all). Being a bit too deviant (or deviant in the wrong way) could lead to unpleasant personal, professional, or financial consequences.
I'd say it's pure self-interest and/or self-defense, rather than embarassment.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
that is used in mission and life critical situations.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
That old fascist saw about "not having anything to worry about as long as you don't have anything to hide" is true?
If that's the case, our Founding Fathers must have been absolute perverted freaks.
One more reason to idolize them!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I didn't read the article, but it sounds like an awful lot of people have concluded, e.g. based on the "weight" example, that the study suggests we are conditioned by society not to deviate from the norm. While this may be true, I think there is a simpler explanation for why people are more likely to part with "average" data vs. unusual or unique data.
This conclusion has been touched upon already (see the comment "Interesting links to entropy"). One big reason people protect their private information is because it has value--in many cases, its value (to, say, a marketer working to collect that information) is that it serves to more uniquely identify a particular person or group, allowing that group to be singled out for e.g. targeted mailings. A piece of average data, shared by a large number of people, lacks this value.
Suppose you are in a situation where you are publishing a controversial paper, but must attach your real name to it. Would you be more likely to publish the paper (knowing that friends, relatives or people you come in contact with may read it) with a name like John Smith, vs. a name that is quite unique or uncommon?
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.