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

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

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. :)

Second Bid Auction

[axolotl_farmer]

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?

Interesting links to entropy

[Effugas]

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

Re:Do we need more or less privacy?

[Corpus_Callosum]

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.

There are thousands of years of history that show, without exception, that power breeds corruption and abuse. The right to privacy should be considered a counterbalance to power. If those in power obliterate privacy, they do not have to fear the repercussions of their abuse of that power, because they will know where and who may resist them and how they will go about it.

"... God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

-- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787

What would Thomas Jefferson say to your comment? We actually have a problem in America today; Many Americans have lately fallen victim to the idea that they should sacrifice their privacy and other essential human rights (primarily those that Jefferson was so proud of) so that the Government can more effectively protect them from terrorists and other such nonsense. The only real effect is that the Government constructs much stronger defenses against it's own people than it had previously.

History has shown that it is significantly more difficult to acquire basic human rights than it is to give them up. History also shows that regardless of the reason for sacrificing them, once sacrificed, they will be exploited for other reasons. These reasons may seem rational at the time, and each new exploitation may be just a small step from the last one. But over time, the civil liberties of a people are chipped away into oblivion with this mindset.

Not only do I disagree with your post, but I believe that because of the growth of information technology combined with our current privacy crisis, America is closing in on an inevitable, new type of rebellion; Today, corporations that manage data and services that are very private to individuals are regulated and controlled with many consequences. One of those consequences is that the Government may tap into the private information flow of it's citizens, be them voice communications, auto-theft gps services, financial records or whatnot. Eventually, ad-hoc, encrypted networks that contain no Government accessible back-doors will spring up. It is even likely that communities such as Slashdot will be where such movements start, and therfore may one day be considered an enemy of the State.. Interesting thought, huh?

Projects such as freenet represent a blow across the bow of this fight for basic privacy rights. I expect that it will eventually become messy, as frustration at not being able to penetrate these networks sweeps through agencies such as the FBI, NSA, IRS, etc.. The Government will probably even try to make such networks illegal at some point and it could take years or decades before the basic rights to privacy return to our lives. But equilibrium will eventually be restored and we will have the ability to be untrackabl