“Strongly recommended” revisiting decisional privacy to judge hypernudging in self-tracking technologies

M. Lanzing (Corresponding author)

Onderzoeksoutput: Bijdrage aan tijdschriftTijdschriftartikelAcademicpeer review

3 Citaties (Scopus)

Uittreksel

This paper explores and rehabilitates the value of decisional privacy as a conceptual tool, complementary to informational privacy, for critiquing personalized choice architectures employed by self-tracking technologies. Self-tracking technologies are promoted and used as a means to self-improvement. Based on large aggregates of personal data and the data of other users, self-tracking technologies offer personalized feedback that nudges the user into behavioral change. The real-time personalization of choice architectures requires continuous surveillance and is a very powerful technology, recently coined as “hypernudging.” While users celebrate the increased personalization of their coaching devices, “hypernudging” technologies raise concerns about manipulation. This paper addresses that intuition by claiming that decisional privacy is at stake. It thus counters the trend to solely focus on informational privacy when evaluating information and communication technologies. It proposes that decisional privacy and informational privacy are often part of a mutually reinforcing dynamic. Hypernudging is used as a key example to illustrate that the two dimensions should not be treated separately. Hypernudging self-tracking technologies compromise autonomy because they violate informational and decisional privacy. In order to effectively judge whether technologies that use hypernudges empower users, we need both privacy dimensions as conceptual tools.
TaalEngels
Pagina's549-568
TijdschriftPhilosophy & Technology
Volume32
Vroegere onlinedatum7 jun 2018
DOI's
StatusGepubliceerd - 1 sep 2019

Vingerafdruk

Data privacy
Feedback
Communication

Trefwoorden

    Citeer dit

    @article{6ae0ec063b0849cfa06097f8de5c84c5,
    title = "“Strongly recommended” revisiting decisional privacy to judge hypernudging in self-tracking technologies",
    abstract = "This paper explores and rehabilitates the value of decisional privacy as a conceptual tool, complementary to informational privacy, for critiquing personalized choice architectures employed by self-tracking technologies. Self-tracking technologies are promoted and used as a means to self-improvement. Based on large aggregates of personal data and the data of other users, self-tracking technologies offer personalized feedback that nudges the user into behavioral change. The real-time personalization of choice architectures requires continuous surveillance and is a very powerful technology, recently coined as “hypernudging.” While users celebrate the increased personalization of their coaching devices, “hypernudging” technologies raise concerns about manipulation. This paper addresses that intuition by claiming that decisional privacy is at stake. It thus counters the trend to solely focus on informational privacy when evaluating information and communication technologies. It proposes that decisional privacy and informational privacy are often part of a mutually reinforcing dynamic. Hypernudging is used as a key example to illustrate that the two dimensions should not be treated separately. Hypernudging self-tracking technologies compromise autonomy because they violate informational and decisional privacy. In order to effectively judge whether technologies that use hypernudges empower users, we need both privacy dimensions as conceptual tools.",
    keywords = "Ethics of Privacy, Autonomy, Manipulation, Hypernudging, Nudging, Big Data, Personalisation, Decisional Privacy, Informational Privacy, Self-Tracking",
    author = "M. Lanzing",
    year = "2019",
    month = "9",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1007/s13347-018-0316-4",
    language = "English",
    volume = "32",
    pages = "549--568",
    journal = "Philosophy & Technology",
    issn = "2210-5433",
    publisher = "Springer",

    }

    “Strongly recommended” revisiting decisional privacy to judge hypernudging in self-tracking technologies. / Lanzing, M. (Corresponding author).

    In: Philosophy & Technology, Vol. 32, 01.09.2019, blz. 549-568.

    Onderzoeksoutput: Bijdrage aan tijdschriftTijdschriftartikelAcademicpeer review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - “Strongly recommended” revisiting decisional privacy to judge hypernudging in self-tracking technologies

    AU - Lanzing,M.

    PY - 2019/9/1

    Y1 - 2019/9/1

    N2 - This paper explores and rehabilitates the value of decisional privacy as a conceptual tool, complementary to informational privacy, for critiquing personalized choice architectures employed by self-tracking technologies. Self-tracking technologies are promoted and used as a means to self-improvement. Based on large aggregates of personal data and the data of other users, self-tracking technologies offer personalized feedback that nudges the user into behavioral change. The real-time personalization of choice architectures requires continuous surveillance and is a very powerful technology, recently coined as “hypernudging.” While users celebrate the increased personalization of their coaching devices, “hypernudging” technologies raise concerns about manipulation. This paper addresses that intuition by claiming that decisional privacy is at stake. It thus counters the trend to solely focus on informational privacy when evaluating information and communication technologies. It proposes that decisional privacy and informational privacy are often part of a mutually reinforcing dynamic. Hypernudging is used as a key example to illustrate that the two dimensions should not be treated separately. Hypernudging self-tracking technologies compromise autonomy because they violate informational and decisional privacy. In order to effectively judge whether technologies that use hypernudges empower users, we need both privacy dimensions as conceptual tools.

    AB - This paper explores and rehabilitates the value of decisional privacy as a conceptual tool, complementary to informational privacy, for critiquing personalized choice architectures employed by self-tracking technologies. Self-tracking technologies are promoted and used as a means to self-improvement. Based on large aggregates of personal data and the data of other users, self-tracking technologies offer personalized feedback that nudges the user into behavioral change. The real-time personalization of choice architectures requires continuous surveillance and is a very powerful technology, recently coined as “hypernudging.” While users celebrate the increased personalization of their coaching devices, “hypernudging” technologies raise concerns about manipulation. This paper addresses that intuition by claiming that decisional privacy is at stake. It thus counters the trend to solely focus on informational privacy when evaluating information and communication technologies. It proposes that decisional privacy and informational privacy are often part of a mutually reinforcing dynamic. Hypernudging is used as a key example to illustrate that the two dimensions should not be treated separately. Hypernudging self-tracking technologies compromise autonomy because they violate informational and decisional privacy. In order to effectively judge whether technologies that use hypernudges empower users, we need both privacy dimensions as conceptual tools.

    KW - Ethics of Privacy

    KW - Autonomy

    KW - Manipulation

    KW - Hypernudging

    KW - Nudging

    KW - Big Data

    KW - Personalisation

    KW - Decisional Privacy

    KW - Informational Privacy

    KW - Self-Tracking

    U2 - 10.1007/s13347-018-0316-4

    DO - 10.1007/s13347-018-0316-4

    M3 - Article

    VL - 32

    SP - 549

    EP - 568

    JO - Philosophy & Technology

    T2 - Philosophy & Technology

    JF - Philosophy & Technology

    SN - 2210-5433

    ER -