Measuring Lay Reactions to Personal Data Markets

Aileen Nielsen
{"title":"Measuring Lay Reactions to Personal Data Markets","authors":"Aileen Nielsen","doi":"10.1145/3461702.3462582","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The recording, aggregation, and exchange of personal data is necessary to the development of socially-relevant machine learning applications. However, anecdotal and survey evidence show that ordinary people feel discontent and even anger regarding data collection practices that are currently typical and legal. This suggests that personal data markets in their current form do not adhere to the norms applied by ordinary people. The present study experimentally probes whether market transactions in a typical online scenario are accepted when evaluated by lay people. The results show that a high percentage of study participants refused to participate in a data pricing exercise, even in a commercial context where market rules would typically be expected to apply. For those participants who did price the data, the median price was an order of magnitude higher than the market price. These results call into question the notice and consent market paradigm that is used by technology firms and government regulators when evaluating data flows. The results also point to a conceptual mismatch between cultural and legal expectations regarding the use of personal data.","PeriodicalId":197336,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"337 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462582","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The recording, aggregation, and exchange of personal data is necessary to the development of socially-relevant machine learning applications. However, anecdotal and survey evidence show that ordinary people feel discontent and even anger regarding data collection practices that are currently typical and legal. This suggests that personal data markets in their current form do not adhere to the norms applied by ordinary people. The present study experimentally probes whether market transactions in a typical online scenario are accepted when evaluated by lay people. The results show that a high percentage of study participants refused to participate in a data pricing exercise, even in a commercial context where market rules would typically be expected to apply. For those participants who did price the data, the median price was an order of magnitude higher than the market price. These results call into question the notice and consent market paradigm that is used by technology firms and government regulators when evaluating data flows. The results also point to a conceptual mismatch between cultural and legal expectations regarding the use of personal data.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
衡量普通人对个人数据市场的反应
个人数据的记录、聚合和交换对于开发与社会相关的机器学习应用程序是必要的。然而,轶事和调查证据表明,普通人对目前典型和合法的数据收集做法感到不满甚至愤怒。这表明,目前形式的个人数据市场并不遵守普通人适用的规范。本研究通过实验探讨了一个典型的网络场景中的市场交易在被外行人评估时是否被接受。结果表明,很高比例的研究参与者拒绝参与数据定价活动,即使是在市场规则通常适用的商业环境中。对于那些为数据定价的参与者来说,中位数价格比市场价格高出一个数量级。这些结果对技术公司和政府监管机构在评估数据流时使用的通知和同意市场范式提出了质疑。调查结果还指出,在个人数据使用方面,文化和法律期望之间存在概念上的不匹配。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Improving Fairness in Budget-Constrained Decision Making using Confidence Thresholds Measuring Automated Influence: Between Empirical Evidence and Ethical Values Artificial Intelligence and the Purpose of Social Systems Ethically Compliant Planning within Moral Communities Co-design and Ethical Artificial Intelligence for Health: Myths and Misconceptions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1