Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article
Open access

Communicating the Privacy-Utility Trade-off: Supporting Informed Data Donation with Privacy Decision Interfaces for Differential Privacy

Published: 26 April 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Data collections, such as those from citizen science projects, can provide valuable scientific insights or help the public to make decisions based on real demand. At the same time, the collected data might cause privacy risks for their volunteers, for example, by revealing sensitive information. Similar but less apparent trade-offs exist for data collected while using social media or other internet-based services. One approach to addressing these privacy risks might be to anonymize the data, for example, by using Differential Privacy (DP). DP allows for tuning and, consequently, communicating the trade-off between the data contributors' privacy and the resulting data utility for insights. However, there is little research that explores how to communicate the existing trade-off to users. % We contribute to closing this research gap by designing interactive elements and visualizations that specifically support people's understanding of this privacy-utility trade-off. We evaluated our user interfaces in a user study (N=378). Our results show that a combination of graphical risk visualization and interactive risk exploration best supports the informed decision, \ie the privacy decision is consistent with users' privacy concerns. Additionally, we found that personal attributes, such as numeracy, and the need for cognition, significantly influence the decision behavior and the privacy usability of privacy decision interfaces. In our recommendations, we encourage data collectors, such as citizen science project coordinators, to communicate existing privacy risks to their volunteers since such communication does not impact donation rates. %Understanding such privacy risks can also be part of typical training efforts in citizen science projects. %DP allows volunteers to balance their privacy concerns with their wish to contribute to the project. From a design perspective, we emphasize the complexity of the decision situation and the resulting need to design with usability for all population groups in mind. % We hope that our study will inspire further research from the human-computer interaction community that will unlock the full potential of DP for a broad audience and ultimately contribute to a societal understanding of acceptable privacy losses in specific data contexts.

References

[1]
Alessandro Acquisti, Idris Adjerid, Rebecca Balebako, Laura Brandimarte, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Saranga Komanduri, Pedro Giovanni Leon, Norman Sadeh, Florian Schaub, Manya Sleeper, Yang Wang, and Shomir Wilson. 2017. Nudges for Privacy and Security: Understanding and Assisting Users’ Choices Online. Comput. Surveys, Vol. 50, 3 (Aug. 2017), 44:1--44:41. https://doi.org/10.1145/3054926
[2]
A. Acquisti and J. Grossklags. 2005. Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Security Privacy, Vol. 3, 1 (Jan. 2005), 26--33. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2005.22 Conference Name: IEEE Security Privacy.
[3]
Susan B. Barnes. 2006. A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday (Sept. 2006). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394
[4]
Susanne Barth and Menno D. T. de Jong. 2017. The privacy paradox -- Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -- A systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34, 7 (Nov. 2017), 1038--1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013
[5]
Hilary Bekker, J. G. Thornton, C. M. Airey, JlBl Connelly, J. Hewison, M. B. Robinson, J. Lilleyman, M. MacIntosh, A. J. Maule, and S. Michie. 1999. Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technol Assess, Vol. 3, 1 (1999), 1--156.
[6]
Anne Bowser, Katie Shilton, Jenny Preece, and Elizabeth Warrick. 2017. Accounting for Privacy in Citizen Science: Ethical Research in a Context of Openness. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2124--2136. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998305
[7]
Anne Bowser, Andrea Wiggins, Lea Shanley, Jennifer Preece, and Sandra Henderson. 2014. Sharing data while protecting privacy in citizen science. Interactions, Vol. 21, 1 (Jan. 2014), 70--73. https://doi.org/10.1145/2540032
[8]
danah boyd and Kate Crawford. 2012. Critical Questions for Big Data. Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 15, 5 (June 2012), 662--679. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878.
[9]
R Brauneis and Ellen P. Goodman. 2018. Algorithmic transparency for the smart city. Yale Journal of Technology and Law, Vol. 20 (2018), 103. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/yjolt20§ion=4
[10]
Cameron Brick, Michelle McDowell, and Alexandra L. J. Freeman. 2020. Risk communication in tables versus text: a registered report randomized trial on ?fact boxes'. Royal Society Open Science, Vol. 7, 3 (March 2020), 190876. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190876 Publisher: Royal Society.
[11]
Brooke Bullek, Stephanie Garboski, Darakhshan J. Mir, and Evan M. Peck. 2017. Towards Understanding Differential Privacy: When Do People Trust Randomized Response Technique? In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3833--3837. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025698
[12]
Zana Buçinca, Maja Barbara Malaya, and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. 2021. To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 5, CSCW1 (April 2021), 188:1--188:21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449287
[13]
J. T. Cacioppo, R. E. Petty, and C. F. Kao. 1984. The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 48, 3 (June 1984), 306--307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
[14]
Edward Cokely, Mirta Galesic, Eric Schulz, Saima Ghazal, and Rocio Garcia-Retamero. 2012. Measuring Risk Literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test. Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 7 (Jan. 2012). https://doi.org/10.1037/t45862-000
[15]
Jessica Colnago, Lorrie Cranor, and Alessandro Acquisti. 2023. Is There a Reverse Privacy Paradox? An Exploratory Analysis of Gaps Between Privacy Perspectives and Privacy-Seeking Behaviors. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (2023). https://petsymposium.org/popets/2023/popets-2023-0027.php
[16]
Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2021. Informing California privacy regulations with evidence from research. Commun. ACM, Vol. 64, 3 (Feb. 2021), 29--32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447253
[17]
Mary J. Culnan and Robert J. Bies. 2003. Consumer Privacy: Balancing Economic and Justice Considerations. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 59, 2 (2003), 323--342. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540--4560.00067 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1540--4560.00067.
[18]
Rachel Cummings, Gabriel Kaptchuk, and Elissa M Redmiles. 2021. ?I need a better description": An Investigation Into User Expectations For Differential Privacy. In Proceeding of 28th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS). ACM, Seoul, South Korea, 16 pages. https://cs-people.bu.edu/kaptchuk/publications/ccs21_dp.pdf
[19]
Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye, César A. Hidalgo, Michel Verleysen, and Vincent D. Blondel. 2013. Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility. Scientific Reports, Vol. 3, 1 (March 2013), 1376. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01376
[20]
Karel Dhondt, Victor Le Pochat, Alexios Voulimeneas, Wouter Joosen, and Stijn Volckaert. 2022. A Run a Day Won't Keep the Hacker Away: Inference Attacks on Endpoint Privacy Zones in Fitness Tracking Social Networks. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 801--814. https://doi.org/10.1145/3548606.3560616
[21]
Daniel Diethei, Jasmin Niess, Carolin Stellmacher, Evropi Stefanidi, and Johannes Schöning. 2021. Sharing Heartbeats: Motivations of Citizen Scientists in Times of Crises. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445665
[22]
Josep Domingo-Ferrer, David Sánchez, and Alberto Blanco-Justicia. 2021. The limits of differential privacy (and its misuse in data release and machine learning). Commun. ACM, Vol. 64, 7 (July 2021), 33--35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3433638
[23]
Julie S. Downs, Mandy B. Holbrook, Steve Sheng, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2010. Are your participants gaming the system? screening mechanical turk workers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2399--2402. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753688
[24]
Cynthia Dwork. 2006. Differential Privacy. In Automata, Languages and Programming (Lecture Notes in Computer Science ), Michele Bugliesi, Bart Preneel, Vladimiro Sassone, and Ingo Wegener (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1--12. https://doi.org/10.1007/11787006_1
[25]
Cynthia Dwork, Nitin Kohli, and Deirdre Mulligan. 2019. Differential Privacy in Practice: Expose your Epsilons! Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality, Vol. 9, 2 (Oct. 2019). https://doi.org/10.29012/jpc.689 Number: 2.
[26]
Zohar Efroni, Jakob Metzger, Lena Mischau, and Marie Schirmbeck. 2019. Privacy Icons: A Risk-Based Approach to Visualisation of Data Processing. European Data Protection Law Review, Vol. 5, 3 (2019), 352--366. https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2019/3/9 Publisher: Lexxion Publisher.
[27]
Yuanyuan Feng, Yaxing Yao, and Norman Sadeh. 2021. A Design Space for Privacy Choices: Towards Meaningful Privacy Control in the Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1--16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445148
[28]
Daniel Franzen, Saskia Nuñez von Voigt, Peter Sörries, Florian Tschorsch, and Claudia Müller-Birn. 2022. "Am I Private and If So, how Many?" -- Using Risk Communication Formats for Making Differential Privacy Understandable. Technical Report arXiv:2204.04061. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.04061 arXiv:2204.04061 [cs] type: article.
[29]
Rocio Garcia-Retamero and Edward T. Cokely. 2017. Designing Visual Aids That Promote Risk Literacy: A Systematic Review of Health Research and Evidence-Based Design Heuristics. Human Factors, Vol. 59, 4 (June 2017), 582--627. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817690634 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.
[30]
Nina Gerber, Paul Gerber, and Melanie Volkamer. 2018. Explaining the privacy paradox: A systematic review of literature investigating privacy attitude and behavior. Computers & Security, Vol. 77 (Aug. 2018), 226--261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2018.04.002
[31]
Gerd Gigerenzer and Kai Kolpatzik. 2017. How new fact boxes are explaining medical risk to millions. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), Vol. 357 (May 2017), j2460. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j2460
[32]
Colin M. Gray, Cristiana Santos, Nataliia Bielova, Michael Toth, and Damian Clifford. 2021. Dark Patterns and the Legal Requirements of Consent Banners: An Interaction Criticism Perspective. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445779
[33]
David Gunning. 2019. DARPA's explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) program (the 24th International Conference ). SIGAI, ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence, New York, New York, USA, ii. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301275.3308446 Journal Abbreviation: IUI '19 Publication Title: IUI '19.
[34]
Hana Habib, Megan Li, Ellie Young, and Lorrie Cranor. 2022. Okay, whatever": An Evaluation of Cookie Consent Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501985
[35]
Hana Habib, Yixin Zou, Yaxing Yao, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Cranor, Joel Reidenberg, Norman Sadeh, and Florian Schaub. 2021. Toggles, Dollar Signs, and Triangles: How to (In)Effectively Convey Privacy Choices with Icons and Link Texts. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1--25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445387
[36]
Peter Kairouz, Sewoong Oh, and Pramod Viswanath. 2015. Extremal Mechanisms for Local Differential Privacy. Technical Report arXiv:1407.1338. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1407.1338 arXiv:1407.1338 [cs, math] type: article.
[37]
Shiva Prasad Kasiviswanathan, Homin K. Lee, Kobbi Nissim, Sofya Raskhodnikova, and Adam Smith. 2008. What Can We Learn Privately?. In 2008 49th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 531--540. https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2008.27 ISSN: 0272--5428.
[38]
Mark J. Keith, Samuel C. Thompson, Joanne Hale, Paul Benjamin Lowry, and Chapman Greer. 2013. Information disclosure on mobile devices: Re-examining privacy calculus with actual user behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 71, 12 (2013), 1163--1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.08.016
[39]
Carmen Keller, Michael Siegrist, and Vivianne Visschers. 2009. Effect of risk ladder format on risk perception in high- and low-numerate individuals. Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, Vol. 29, 9 (Sept. 2009), 1255--1264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539--6924.2009.01261.x
[40]
Christopher T. Kenny, Shiro Kuriwaki, Cory McCartan, Evan T. R. Rosenman, Tyler Simko, and Kosuke Imai. 2021. The use of differential privacy for census data and its impact on redistricting: The case of the 2020 U. S. Census. Science Advances, Vol. 7, 41 (Oct. 2021), eabk3283. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abk3283 Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
[41]
Carsten Keßler and Grant McKenzie. 2018. A geoprivacy manifesto. Transactions in GIS, Vol. 22, 1 (2018), 3--19. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12305 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/tgis.12305.
[42]
Sunyoung Kim, Jennifer Mankoff, and Eric Paulos. 2013. Sensr: evaluating a flexible framework for authoring mobile data-collection tools for citizen science. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW '13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1453--1462. https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441940
[43]
Aniket Kittur, Ed H. Chi, and Bongwon Suh. 2008. Crowdsourcing user studies with Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 453--456. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357127
[44]
Nitin Kohli and Paul Laskowski. 2018. Epsilon Voting: Mechanism Design for Parameter Selection in Differential Privacy. In 2018 IEEE Symposium on Privacy-Aware Computing (PAC). IEEE, Washington, DC, 19--30. https://doi.org/10.1109/PAC.2018.00009
[45]
Patrick Kühtreiber, Viktoriya Pak, and Delphine Reinhardt. 2022. Replication: The Effect of Differential Privacy Communication on German Users' Comprehension and Data Sharing Attitudes. 117--134. https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2022/presentation/kuhtreiber
[46]
Anne Land-Zandstra, Gaia Agnello, and Ya?ar Selman Gültekin. 2021. Participants in Citizen Science. In The Science of Citizen Science, Katrin Vohland, Anne Land-Zandstra, Luigi Ceccaroni, Rob Lemmens, Josep Perelló, Marisa Ponti, Roeland Samson, and Katherin Wagenknecht (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 243--259. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3-030--58278--4_13
[47]
Gabriel Lins de Holanda Coelho, Paul H. P. Hanel, and Lukas J. Wolf. 2020. The Very Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition: Developing a Six-Item Version. Assessment, Vol. 27, 8 (Dec. 2020), 1870--1885. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118793208 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.
[48]
John Maeda. 2006. The laws of simplicity. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. http://www.books24x7.com/marc.asp?bookid=18546 OCLC: 65205172.
[49]
Naresh K. Malhotra, Sung S. Kim, and James Agarwal. 2004. Internet Users' Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model. Information Systems Research, Vol. 15, 4 (Dec. 2004), 336--355. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1040.0032 Publisher: INFORMS.
[50]
Helia Marreiros, Mirco Tonin, Michael Vlassopoulos, and M. C. Schraefel. 2017. ?Now that you mention it": A survey experiment on information, inattention and online privacy. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 140 (Aug. 2017), 1--17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.03.024
[51]
Luise Mehner, Florian Tschorsch, and Saskia Nunez von Voigt. 2021. Towards Explaining Epsilon: A Worst-Case Study of Differential Privacy Risks. In 2021 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS PW). 328--331. https://doi.org/10.1109/EuroSPW54576.2021.00041 ISSN: 2768-0657.
[52]
Josh Aaron Miller, Britton Horn, Matthew Guthrie, Jonathan Romano, Guy Geva, Celia David, Amy Robinson Sterling, and Seth Cooper. 2021. How do Players and Developers of Citizen Science Games Conceptualize Skill Chains? Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 5, CHI PLAY (2021), 244:1--244:29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3474671
[53]
Trung Tin Nguyen, Michael Backes, and Ben Stock. 2022. Freely Given Consent? Studying Consent Notice of Third-Party Tracking and Its Violations of GDPR in Android Apps. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2369--2383. https://doi.org/10.1145/3548606.3560564
[54]
Giovanna Nunes Vilaza, Raju Maharjan, David Coyle, and Jakob Bardram. 2020. Futures for Health Research Data Platforms From the Participants' Perspectives. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society (NordiCHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3420110
[55]
Frank Pasquale. 2015. The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
[56]
Ellen Peters, Judith Hibbard, Paul Slovic, and Nathan Dieckmann. 2007. Numeracy Skill And The Communication, Comprehension, And Use Of Risk-Benefit Information. Health Affairs, Vol. 26, 3 (May 2007), 741--748. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.26.3.741 Publisher: Health Affairs.
[57]
Jennifer Preece and Anne Bowser. 2014. What HCI can do for citizen science. In CHI '14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1059--1060. https://doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2590805
[58]
Aare Puussaar, Kyle Montague, Sean Peacock, Thomas Nappey, Robert Anderson, Jennine Jonczyk, Peter Wright, and Philip James. 2022. SenseMyStreet: Sensor Commissioning Toolkit for Communities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 324:1--324:26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555215
[59]
Emilee Rader, Kelley Cotter, and Janghee Cho. 2018. Explanations as Mechanisms for Supporting Algorithmic Transparency. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173677
[60]
Arianna Rossi and Monica Palmirani. 2019. DaPIS: A data protection icon set to improve information transparency under the GDPR. Knowledge of the Law in the Big Data Age, Vol. 252, 181--195 (2019), 5--5.
[61]
Dana Rotman, Jenny Preece, Jen Hammock, Kezee Procita, Derek Hansen, Cynthia Parr, Darcy Lewis, and David Jacobs. 2012. Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 217--226. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145238
[62]
Anna Rudnicka, Anna L. Cox, and Sandy J. J. Gould. 2019. Why Do You Need This? Selective Disclosure of Data Among Citizen Scientists. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300622
[63]
Sven Schade and Chrysi Tsinaraki. 2016. Survey report: data management in Citizen Science projects. https://doi.org/10.2788/539115 ISBN: 9789279583872 9789279639258 ISSN: 1831--9424.
[64]
Florian Schaub, Rebecca Balebako, Adam L. Durity, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2015. A Design Space for Effective Privacy Notices. 1--17. https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2015/proceedings/presentation/schaub
[65]
Martin Schrepp, Jörg Thomaschewski, and Andreas Hinderks. 2017. Design and Evaluation of a Short Version of the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ-S). International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 4, Regular Issue (2017). https://www.ijimai.org/journal/bibcite/reference/2634
[66]
Susanne G. Scott and Reginald A. Bruce. 1995. Decision-Making Style: The Development and Assessment of a New Measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 55, 5 (1995), 818--831. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164495055005017 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.
[67]
Patrick Skeba and Eric P S Baumer. 2020. Informational Friction as a Lens for Studying Algorithmic Aspects of Privacy. In Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact., Vol. 4. 1--22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415172
[68]
Daniel J. Solove. 2021. The Myth of the Privacy Paradox. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3536265. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3536265
[69]
Alina Stöver, Nina Gerber, Sushma Kaushik, Max Mühlhäuser, and Karola Marky. 2021. Investigating Simple Privacy Indicators for Supporting Users when Installing New Mobile Apps. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Number 366. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451791
[70]
Brian L. Sullivan, Jocelyn L. Aycrigg, Jessie H. Barry, Rick E. Bonney, Nicholas Bruns, Caren B. Cooper, Theo Damoulas, André A. Dhondt, Tom Dietterich, Andrew Farnsworth, Daniel Fink, John W. Fitzpatrick, Thomas Fredericks, Jeff Gerbracht, Carla Gomes, Wesley M. Hochachka, Marshall J. Iliff, Carl Lagoze, Frank A. La Sorte, Matthew Merrifield, Will Morris, Tina B. Phillips, Mark Reynolds, Amanda D. Rodewald, Kenneth V. Rosenberg, Nancy M. Trautmann, Andrea Wiggins, David W. Winkler, Weng-Keen Wong, Christopher L. Wood, Jun Yu, and Steve Kelling. 2014. The eBird enterprise: An integrated approach to development and application of citizen science. Biological Conservation, Vol. 169 (Jan. 2014), 31--40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.003
[71]
Latanya Sweeney. 2000. Simple demographics often identify people uniquely. Health (San Francisco), Vol. 671, 2000 (2000), 1--34.
[72]
Latanya Sweeney. 2002. k-ANONYMITY: A MODEL FOR PROTECTING PRIVACY. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 10, 05 (Oct. 2002), 557--570. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488502001648 Publisher: World Scientific Publishing Co.
[73]
Kyle A. Thomas and Scott Clifford. 2017. Validity and Mechanical Turk: An assessment of exclusion methods and interactive experiments. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 77 (Dec. 2017), 184--197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.038
[74]
Sabine Trepte, Doris Teutsch, P. K. Masur, C. Eicher, Mona Fischer, Alisa Hennhöfer, and Fabienne Lind. 2015. Do People Know About Privacy and Data Protection Strategies? Towards the Online Privacy Literacy Scale" (OPLIS). In Reforming European Data Protection Law, Serge Gutwirth, Ronald Leenes, and Paul de Hert (Eds.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 333--365. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--94-017--9385--8_14
[75]
Janice Y Tsai, Patrick Gage Kelley, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Norman Sadeh. 2010. Location-Sharing Technologies: Privacy Risks and Controls. Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, Vol. 6, 2 (2010), 1--26.
[76]
Yue Wang, Xintao Wu, and Donghui Hu. 2016. Using Randomized Response for Differential Privacy Preserving Data Collection. In EDBT/ICDT Workshops. CEUR-WS.org, Bordeaux, France, 1--8.
[77]
Logan Warberg, Alessandro Acquisti, and Douglas Sicker. 2019. Can Privacy Nudges be Tailored to Individuals' Decision Making and Personality Traits?. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES'19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 175--197. https://doi.org/10.1145/3338498.3358656
[78]
Odette Wegwarth and Gerd Gigerenzer. 2018. The Barrier to Informed Choice in Cancer Screening: Statistical Illiteracy in Physicians and Patients. Recent Results in Cancer Research. Fortschritte Der Krebsforschung. Progres Dans Les Recherches Sur Le Cancer, Vol. 210 (2018), 207--221. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--319--64310--6_13
[79]
Alexandra Wood, Micah Altman, Aaron Bembenek, Mark Bun, Marco Gaboardi, James Honaker, Kobbi Nissim, David O'Brien, Thomas Steinke, and Salil Vadhan. 2018. Differential Privacy: A Primer for a Non-Technical Audience. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment, Technology & Law, Vol. 21, 17 (2018), 209--275. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3338027
[80]
Aiping Xiong, Tianhao Wang, Ninghui Li, and Somesh Jha. 2020. Towards Effective Differential Privacy Communication for Users' Data Sharing Decision and Comprehension. arXiv:2003.13922 [cs] (March 2020). http://arxiv.org/abs/2003.13922 arXiv: 2003.13922.
[81]
Aiping Xiong, Chuhao Wu, Tianhao Wang, Robert W. Proctor, Jeremiah Blocki, Ninghui Li, and Somesh Jha. 2022. Using Illustrations to Communicate Differential Privacy Trust Models: An Investigation of Users' Comprehension, Perception, and Data Sharing Decision. arXiv:2202.10014 [cs] (Feb. 2022). http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.10014 arXiv: 2202.10014.
[82]
Verena Zimmermann and Karen Renaud. 2021. The Nudge Puzzle: Matching Nudge Interventions to Cybersecurity Decisions. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 28, 1 (Jan. 2021), 7:1--7:45. https://doi.org/10.1145/3429888

Index Terms

  1. Communicating the Privacy-Utility Trade-off: Supporting Informed Data Donation with Privacy Decision Interfaces for Differential Privacy

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
      Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 8, Issue CSCW1
      CSCW
      April 2024
      6294 pages
      EISSN:2573-0142
      DOI:10.1145/3661497
      • Editor:
      • Jeff Nichols
      Issue’s Table of Contents
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike International 4.0 License.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 26 April 2024
      Published in PACMHCI Volume 8, Issue CSCW1

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. citizen science
      2. differential privacy
      3. informed choice
      4. risk communication

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Funding Sources

      • Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • 0
        Total Citations
      • 447
        Total Downloads
      • Downloads (Last 12 months)447
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)84
      Reflects downloads up to 25 Dec 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      View Options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Login options

      Full Access

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media