Is pay-or-consent for privacy justifiable? Evidence from different users' privacy attitudes toward behavioral data collection in South Korea

IF 5.9 2区 管理学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Telecommunications Policy Pub Date : 2024-05-30 DOI:10.1016/j.telpol.2024.102794
Sangjun Nam , Youngsun Kwon
{"title":"Is pay-or-consent for privacy justifiable? Evidence from different users' privacy attitudes toward behavioral data collection in South Korea","authors":"Sangjun Nam ,&nbsp;Youngsun Kwon","doi":"10.1016/j.telpol.2024.102794","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>As regulators began prohibiting online platforms from collecting personal data based on the “take-it-or-leave-it” basis, platform firms must adopt more refined user consent rules such as the pay-or-consent approach. Ensuring sufficient user options could increase the welfare of privacy-sensitive users but reduce the efficiency of data-driven business models. To balance the benefits and costs of enhanced privacy protection, regulators should understand the diversity in users' attitudes toward behavioral data collection in free online platforms. Tradeoffs among privacy, conveniences, and free services based on users' heterogeneous preferences are considered to investigate the user's different privacy attitudes in free online platforms. Three distinct user groups were found: the first one reluctantly accepts the “take-it-or-leave-it” condition because of the lack of alternatives, the second one accepts it for free services, and the third one accepts it because it does not matter. These three user segments constituted 32.9%, 47.0%, and 20.1% of all the respondents, respectively. The pay-or-consent approach can be justifiable in terms of balancing the benefits and costs of the privacy regulations if it properly reflects privacy-sensitive users' willingness to pay for privacy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":22290,"journal":{"name":"Telecommunications Policy","volume":"48 7","pages":"Article 102794"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596124000910/pdfft?md5=33c17ebb89f3398885030e2d5213189e&pid=1-s2.0-S0308596124000910-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Telecommunications Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596124000910","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As regulators began prohibiting online platforms from collecting personal data based on the “take-it-or-leave-it” basis, platform firms must adopt more refined user consent rules such as the pay-or-consent approach. Ensuring sufficient user options could increase the welfare of privacy-sensitive users but reduce the efficiency of data-driven business models. To balance the benefits and costs of enhanced privacy protection, regulators should understand the diversity in users' attitudes toward behavioral data collection in free online platforms. Tradeoffs among privacy, conveniences, and free services based on users' heterogeneous preferences are considered to investigate the user's different privacy attitudes in free online platforms. Three distinct user groups were found: the first one reluctantly accepts the “take-it-or-leave-it” condition because of the lack of alternatives, the second one accepts it for free services, and the third one accepts it because it does not matter. These three user segments constituted 32.9%, 47.0%, and 20.1% of all the respondents, respectively. The pay-or-consent approach can be justifiable in terms of balancing the benefits and costs of the privacy regulations if it properly reflects privacy-sensitive users' willingness to pay for privacy.

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
为隐私付费或同意是否合理?韩国不同用户对行为数据收集的隐私态度提供的证据
随着监管机构开始禁止网络平台在 "要么接受要么放弃 "的基础上收集个人数据,平台公司必须采用更完善的用户同意规则,如付费或同意方式。确保足够的用户选择可以提高对隐私敏感的用户的福利,但会降低数据驱动型商业模式的效率。为平衡加强隐私保护的收益和成本,监管者应了解用户对免费在线平台行为数据收集的不同态度。本文基于用户的异质性偏好,考虑了隐私、便利性和免费服务之间的权衡,研究了用户在免费在线平台中的不同隐私态度。研究发现了三个截然不同的用户群体:第一类用户因为缺乏替代品而勉强接受 "要么接受要么放弃 "的条件,第二类用户因为免费服务而接受这种条件,第三类用户因为无所谓而接受这种条件。这三类用户分别占所有受访者的 32.9%、47.0% 和 20.1%。如果能正确反映对隐私敏感的用户为隐私付费的意愿,付费或同意的方法在平衡隐私法规的收益和成本方面是合理的。
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
Telecommunications Policy
Telecommunications Policy 工程技术-电信学
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
122
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Telecommunications Policy is concerned with the impact of digitalization in the economy and society. The journal is multidisciplinary, encompassing conceptual, theoretical and empirical studies, quantitative as well as qualitative. The scope includes policy, regulation, and governance; big data, artificial intelligence and data science; new and traditional sectors encompassing new media and the platform economy; management, entrepreneurship, innovation and use. Contributions may explore these topics at national, regional and international levels, including issues confronting both developed and developing countries. The papers accepted by the journal meet high standards of analytical rigor and policy relevance.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Does affordable Internet promote maternal and child healthcare access? Evidence from a post-telecommunication market disruption period in India Digital discrimination under disparate impact: A legal and economic analysis Willingness to pay for broadband: A case study of Wisconsin Why do users perceive digital platforms as indispensable to their lives?: A study on KakaoTalk in Korea
×
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