Author
Listed:
- Christopher Jon Sprigman
- Stephan Tontrup
Abstract
The current notice and choice privacy framework fails to empower individuals in effectively making their own privacy choices. In this Article we offer evidence from three novel experiments showing that at the core of this failure is a cognitive error. Notice and choice caters to a heuristic that people employ to make privacy decisions. This heuristic is meant to distinguish between a party's good or bad intent in face‐to‐face‐situations. In the online context, it distorts privacy decision‐making and leaves potential disclosers vulnerable to exploitation. From our experimental evidence exploring the heuristic's effect, we conclude that privacy law must become more behaviorally aware. Specifically, privacy law must be redesigned to intervene in the cognitive mechanisms that keep individuals from making better privacy decisions. A behaviorally‐aware privacy regime must centralize, standardize and simplify the framework for making privacy choices. To achieve these goals, we propose a master privacy template which requires consumers to define their privacy preferences in advance—doing so avoids presenting the consumer with a concrete counterparty, and this, in turn, prevents them from applying the intent heuristic and reduces many other biases that affect privacy decision‐making. Our data show that blocking the heuristic enables consumers to consider relevant privacy cues and be considerate of externalities their privacy decisions cause. The master privacy template provides a much more effective platform for regulation. Through the master template the regulator can set the standard for automated communication between user clients and website interfaces, a facility which we expect to enhance enforcement and competition about privacy terms.
Suggested Citation
Christopher Jon Sprigman & Stephan Tontrup, 2024.
"Privacy decision‐making and the effects of privacy choice architecture: Experiments toward the design of behaviorally‐aware privacy regulation,"
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 577-631, September.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:empleg:v:21:y:2024:i:3:p:577-631
DOI: 10.1111/jels.12391
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:21:y:2024:i:3:p:577-631. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.