Skip to main content
Presented to you through Paradigm Publishing Services

Manchester University Press

Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Level 4

Preferences

Abstract

The fourth level of privacy discourse is cognitive psychology, people’s preferences and related topics such as utility and choice. The nature of preferences is discussed, including their (lack of) rationality, consistency and constancy. They can be influenced externally, and they can themselves be subject to preferences – one can have second-order preferences about one’s first-order preferences. A mismatch between these can lead to an intention-behaviour gap that has been termed the privacy paradox, that people express concern with privacy while behaving in such a way as to expose themselves to privacy breaches. Many influential theories of privacy assert that it is a type of control (e.g. over the flow of information about oneself), but it is shown that such theories conflate the nature of privacy itself with the achievement of one’s privacy preferences. Control only pertains to the latter. Control theories ignore the possibility of paternalism about privacy, assume a kind of voluntarism and see it as necessarily empowering. However, they also gloss over exhibitionism, and the desire for celebrity and notoriety. The example is given of Jennifer Ringley’s candid webcam Jennicam, which broadcast her everyday life for several years. Clearly, Ringley had control, and no privacy. The theory of privacy-as-control has too many paradoxes to be taken seriously as a conceptual analysis of privacy.

Abstract

The fourth level of privacy discourse is cognitive psychology, people’s preferences and related topics such as utility and choice. The nature of preferences is discussed, including their (lack of) rationality, consistency and constancy. They can be influenced externally, and they can themselves be subject to preferences – one can have second-order preferences about one’s first-order preferences. A mismatch between these can lead to an intention-behaviour gap that has been termed the privacy paradox, that people express concern with privacy while behaving in such a way as to expose themselves to privacy breaches. Many influential theories of privacy assert that it is a type of control (e.g. over the flow of information about oneself), but it is shown that such theories conflate the nature of privacy itself with the achievement of one’s privacy preferences. Control only pertains to the latter. Control theories ignore the possibility of paternalism about privacy, assume a kind of voluntarism and see it as necessarily empowering. However, they also gloss over exhibitionism, and the desire for celebrity and notoriety. The example is given of Jennifer Ringley’s candid webcam Jennicam, which broadcast her everyday life for several years. Clearly, Ringley had control, and no privacy. The theory of privacy-as-control has too many paradoxes to be taken seriously as a conceptual analysis of privacy.

Downloaded on 21.4.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.7765/9781526163042.00021/html
Scroll to top button