This article looks at how the logic of big data analytics, which promotes an aura of unchallenged objectivity to the algorithmic analysis of quantitative data, preempts individuals’ ability to self-define and closes off any opportunity for those inferences to be challenged or resisted. We argue that the predominant privacy protection regimes based on the privacy self-management framework of “notice and choice” not only fail to protect individual privacy, but also underplay privacy as a collective good. To illustrate this claim, we discuss how two possible individual strategies—withdrawal from the market (avoidance) and complete reliance on market-provided privacy protections (assimilation)—may result in less privacy options available to the society at large. We conclude by discussing how acknowledging the collective dimension of privacy could provide more meaningful alternatives for privacy protection.
AdomaviciusGBockstedtJCurleyS. (2011) Recommender systems, consumer preferences, and anchoring effects. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on recommender systems, Chicago, IL, 27 October, pp. 35–42. New York: ACM.
4.
AndrejevicM (2007) iSpy: Surveillance and Power in the Interactive Era. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
5.
AndrejevicM (2013) Infoglut: How Too Much Information Is Changing the Way We Think and Know. New York: Routledge.
6.
BanksLWuS (2010) Toward a behavioral approach to privacy for online social networks. In: BolcLMakowskiMWierzbickiA (eds) Social Informatics. Berlin: Springer, pp. 19–34.
7.
BarnesSB (2006) A privacy paradox: social networking in the United States. First Monday11: 11–15.
8.
BaruhLCemalcılarZ (2014) It is more than personal: development and validation of a multidimensional privacy orientation scale. Personality and Individual Differences70: 165–170.
9.
BaumerEPSAdamsPKhovanskayaVD. (2013) Limiting, leaving, and (re) lapsing: an exploration of Facebook non-use practices and experiences. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference, Paris, 27 April–2 May, pp. 3257–3266. New York: ACM.
10.
BennettCJ (2008) The Privacy Advocates: Resisting the Spread of Surveillance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
11.
BetheaJMurtaghBWallaceSE (2015) “I don’t mind damaging my own body” A qualitative study of the factors that motivate smokers to quit. BMC Public Health15(4): 1–9.
12.
BigwoodGAbdesslemFBHendersonT (2012) Predicting location-sharing privacy preferences in social network applications. In: Workshop on recent advances in behavior prediction and pro-active pervasive computing, Newcastle, 19 June.
13.
boyddCrawfordK (2012) Critical questions for Big data. Information, Communication and Society15(5): 662–679.
14.
BrightLFKleiserSBGrauSL (2015) Too much Facebook? An exploratory examination of social media fatigue. Computers in Human Behavior44: 148–155.
15.
BrooksD (2013) What you’ll do next. The New York Times, 16April, p. 27.
16.
CirellaD (2012) Beyond traditional literacy instruction: toward an account-based literacy training curriculum in libraries. Computers in Libraries32(10): 5–9.
17.
CohenJE (2013) What privacy is for. Harvard Law Review126(7): 1904–1933.
18.
CorapiDRayORussoA (2009) Learning rules from user behaviour. In: IliadisLVlahavasIBramerM (eds) Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations III. Berlin: Springer, pp. 459–468.
19.
CremonesiPGarzottoFTurrinR (2012) Investigating the persuasion potential of recommender systems from a quality perspective. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligence Systems2(2): 1–41.
20.
De LandaM (1991) War in the Age of Intelligent Machines. New York: Zone.
21.
DeSJPalAK (2013) Cloud-based privacy aware preference aggregation. In: CuzzocreaAKittlCSimosDE. (eds) Availability, Reliability, and Security in Information Systems and HCI. Berlin: Springer, pp. 208–223.
22.
De WolfRWillaertKPiersonJ (2014) Managing privacy boundaries together: Exploring individual and group privacy management strategies in Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior35: 444–454.
23.
DeleuzeG (1992) Postscript on the societies of control. October59: 3–7.
EricsonRVHaggertyKD (2006) The new politics of surveillance and visibility. In: EricsonRVHaggertyKD (eds) The New Politics of Surveillance and Visibility. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press, pp. 3–25.
FootK (2014) The online emergence of pushback on social media in the united states: a historical discourse analysis. International Journal of Communication8: 1313–1342.
31.
FriedmanSRPougetERSandovalM. (2015) Measuring altruistic and solidaristic orientations towards others among people who inject drugs. Journal of Addictive Diseases34(2–3): 248–254.
32.
GandyOH (2009) Coming to Terms with Chance: Engaging Rational Discrimination and Cumulative Disadvantage. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
33.
GavisonR (1980) Privacy and the limits of law. Yale Law Journal89(3): 421–471.
KosinskiMStillwellDGraepelT (2013) Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America110(1): 2–5.
42.
LiQLiJWangH. (2011) Semantics-enhanced privacy recommendation for social networking sites. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on trust, security and privacy in computing and communications, Changsha, China, pp. 226–233. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.
NissenbaumH (2010) Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
50.
PalmåsK (2011) Predicting what you’ll do tomorrow: panspectric surveillance and the contemporary corporation. Surveillance & Society8: 338–354.
51.
PasqualeF (2015) The Black Box Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
52.
PetronioSS (2002) Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
53.
PopescuMBaruhL (2013) Captive but mobile: Privacy concerns and remedies for the mobile environment. The Information Society29 (5): 272–286.
54.
Portwood-StacerL (2012) Media refusal and conspicuous non-consumption: The performative and political dimensions of Facebook abstention. New Media and Society15(7): 1041–1057.
55.
ReganP (1995) Legislating Privacy: Technology, Social Values and Public Policy. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
56.
ReganP (2015) Privacy and the common good: revisited. In: RoesslerBMokrosinskaD (eds) Social Dimensions of Privacy: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 50–70.
57.
SackmannSStrükerJAccorsiR (2006) Personalization in privacy-aware highly dynamic systems. Communications of the ACM49: 32–38.
58.
SarigolEGarciaDSchweitzerF (2014) Online privacy as a collective phenomenon. In: Proceedings of the second edition of the ACM conference on online social networks, Boston, MA, 7–8 October, pp. 95–106. New York: ACM.
StiegerSBurgerCBohnM. (2013) Who commits virtual identity suicide? Differences in privacy concerns, Internet addiction, and personality between Facebook users and quitters. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking16(9): 629–634.
66.
ThriftN (2008) Pass it on: Towards a political economy of propensity. Emotion, Space and Society1(2): 83–96.
67.
TianYSongBHuhE (2011) A flexible cost-based privacy-aware data integration system in cloud. In: ParkJJYangLTLeeC (eds) Future Information Technology. Berlin: Springer, pp. 387–396.
68.
TochE (2014) Crowdsourcing privacy preferences in context-aware applications. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing18(1): 129–141.
YeeNBailensonJNDucheneautN (2009) The proteus effect: Implications of transformed digital self-representation on online and offline behavior. Communication Research36(2): 285–312.
