What Should Matter in Privacy

For decades, social psychologists have understood that the link between attitudes and conduct is convoluted, if not weak. Both online and offline, this is true. Retargeting advertising, for example, may annoy you, but they probably haven’t affected your online shopping habits.

There is a lot of information in the privacy policy or the terms of service that is relevant to the context in which they are used. As a result of the Creative Commons initiative, sharing has been simplified to a minimal number of licenses among which you may select. That’s not going to work in this scenario since there are far too many nuances and exceptions to account for. There is no one-size-fits-all boilerplate in the world. We’ve already lost, it seems. There’s another way to do this.

This is where we’re at: Companies need to develop their unique privacy policies or terms of services that are tailored to their own unique needs. Why? So many licenses aren’t sufficient for the amount of complexity that is needed. The issue is that it takes a long time and is nearly difficult for the average person to study and comprehend these specialized privacy regulations.

If you’re reading this, it’s safe to assume you’re concerned about your online security. However, it is unlikely that you take actions such as restricting the mails that people are sending you, eliminating cookies on your web browser, frequently scanning for spyware, and wiping your browser history. Even when consumers aren’t certain that their social networking data is secure, new research shows that they have no intentions to safeguard it or opt out. But intentions are often poor indicators of future behavior. For example, most people would say they may take a wage reduction to work less and therefore perform a more interesting job, but only a small percentage of them really follow through. It’s not what individuals say they’ll do regarding privacy, and yet what they really do.

Third-person bias is one possible explanation for the privacy paradox, which shows that even when people are aware of the potential dangers of social media, they assume that those dangers only apply to others and not to themselves. Taking risks isn’t a result of a lack of knowledge about the risks, but rather an illusion that the risks only apply to others and not to themselves.

This privacy dilemma can also be explained by a straightforward evaluation of risk and return. We all want to feel safe and secure when we’re online, but the apparent benefits of utilizing free websites and revealing personal information exceed the perceived hazards. Most people utilize social networks to satisfy basic psychological requirements, such as the urge to get along, develop and showcase their beliefs and identities, and be stimulated. If customers were given the option of paying for the free apps and web products they use in exchange for their personal information, they would most likely reject them.

You can’t hide your private life from the world or from people who shouldn’t know about it, so you give it up grudgingly. Lastly, there is our private life, which is currently exclusively accessible offline. In fact, it’s possible to wonder if the concept of a “hidden” life even exists anymore.