解读GDPR-2018监管环境中的隐私与个性化悖论:消费者脆弱性和个性化诅咒

Fatema Kawaf, Annaleis Montgomery, Marius Thuemmler
{"title":"解读GDPR-2018监管环境中的隐私与个性化悖论:消费者脆弱性和个性化诅咒","authors":"Fatema Kawaf, Annaleis Montgomery, Marius Thuemmler","doi":"10.1108/itp-04-2022-0275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe paper addresses the privacy–personalisation paradox in the post-GDPR-2018 era. As the regulation came in a bid to regulate the collection and use of personal data, its implications remain underexplored. The research question is: How do consumers perceive the matter of personal data collection for the use of highly targeted and personalised ads post-GDPR-2018? The invasion of privacy vs the benefits of highly personalised digital marketing.Design/methodology/approachTo address the research question, this qualitative study conducts semi-structured interviews with 14 individuals, consisting of average users and digital experts.FindingsThis paper reports on increasing consumer vulnerability post-GDPR-2018 due to increased awareness of personal data collection yet incessant lack of control, particularly regarding the repercussions of the digital footprint. The privacy paradox remains an issue except among experts, and personalisation remains necessary, yet critical challenges arise (e.g. filter bubbles and intrusion).Practical implicationsPolicy implications include education, regulating consent platforms and encouraging consensual sharing of personal data.Originality/valueWhile the privacy–personalisation paradox has been widely studied, the impact of GDPR-2018 has rarely been addressed in the literature. GDPR-2018 has seemingly had little impact on instilling a sense of security for consumers; if anything, this paper highlights greater concerns for privacy as users sign away their rights on consent forms to access websites, thus contributing novel insights to this area of research.","PeriodicalId":168000,"journal":{"name":"Information Technology & People","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unpacking the privacy–personalisation paradox in GDPR-2018 regulated environments: consumer vulnerability and the curse of personalisation\",\"authors\":\"Fatema Kawaf, Annaleis Montgomery, Marius Thuemmler\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/itp-04-2022-0275\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThe paper addresses the privacy–personalisation paradox in the post-GDPR-2018 era. As the regulation came in a bid to regulate the collection and use of personal data, its implications remain underexplored. The research question is: How do consumers perceive the matter of personal data collection for the use of highly targeted and personalised ads post-GDPR-2018? The invasion of privacy vs the benefits of highly personalised digital marketing.Design/methodology/approachTo address the research question, this qualitative study conducts semi-structured interviews with 14 individuals, consisting of average users and digital experts.FindingsThis paper reports on increasing consumer vulnerability post-GDPR-2018 due to increased awareness of personal data collection yet incessant lack of control, particularly regarding the repercussions of the digital footprint. The privacy paradox remains an issue except among experts, and personalisation remains necessary, yet critical challenges arise (e.g. filter bubbles and intrusion).Practical implicationsPolicy implications include education, regulating consent platforms and encouraging consensual sharing of personal data.Originality/valueWhile the privacy–personalisation paradox has been widely studied, the impact of GDPR-2018 has rarely been addressed in the literature. GDPR-2018 has seemingly had little impact on instilling a sense of security for consumers; if anything, this paper highlights greater concerns for privacy as users sign away their rights on consent forms to access websites, thus contributing novel insights to this area of research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":168000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Information Technology & People\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Information Technology & People\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/itp-04-2022-0275\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information Technology & People","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/itp-04-2022-0275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文旨在探讨后gdp -2018时代的隐私与个性化悖论。由于该规定旨在规范个人数据的收集和使用,其影响仍未得到充分探讨。研究的问题是:消费者如何看待2018年gdp之后为使用高度定向和个性化广告而收集个人数据的问题?侵犯隐私vs高度个性化数字营销的好处。设计/方法/方法为了解决研究问题,本定性研究对14个人进行了半结构化访谈,包括普通用户和数字专家。本文报告称,由于对个人数据收集的意识增强,但持续缺乏控制,特别是在数字足迹的影响方面,2018年gdp之后消费者的脆弱性日益增加。除了专家之外,隐私悖论仍然是一个问题,个性化仍然是必要的,但也出现了关键的挑战(例如过滤气泡和入侵)。实际影响政策影响包括教育、规范同意平台和鼓励双方同意共享个人数据。虽然隐私-个性化悖论已经被广泛研究,但文献中很少涉及gdp -2018的影响。《2018年gdp报告》似乎没有给消费者灌输安全感;如果有什么不同的话,这篇论文强调了用户在同意表格上放弃访问网站的权利时对隐私的更大关注,从而为这一研究领域提供了新的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Unpacking the privacy–personalisation paradox in GDPR-2018 regulated environments: consumer vulnerability and the curse of personalisation
PurposeThe paper addresses the privacy–personalisation paradox in the post-GDPR-2018 era. As the regulation came in a bid to regulate the collection and use of personal data, its implications remain underexplored. The research question is: How do consumers perceive the matter of personal data collection for the use of highly targeted and personalised ads post-GDPR-2018? The invasion of privacy vs the benefits of highly personalised digital marketing.Design/methodology/approachTo address the research question, this qualitative study conducts semi-structured interviews with 14 individuals, consisting of average users and digital experts.FindingsThis paper reports on increasing consumer vulnerability post-GDPR-2018 due to increased awareness of personal data collection yet incessant lack of control, particularly regarding the repercussions of the digital footprint. The privacy paradox remains an issue except among experts, and personalisation remains necessary, yet critical challenges arise (e.g. filter bubbles and intrusion).Practical implicationsPolicy implications include education, regulating consent platforms and encouraging consensual sharing of personal data.Originality/valueWhile the privacy–personalisation paradox has been widely studied, the impact of GDPR-2018 has rarely been addressed in the literature. GDPR-2018 has seemingly had little impact on instilling a sense of security for consumers; if anything, this paper highlights greater concerns for privacy as users sign away their rights on consent forms to access websites, thus contributing novel insights to this area of research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Unraveling the factors that influence connectedness and relationship performance with augmented reality apps Audience analytics and tensions in digital news work: evidence from Swiss news media Unraveling the dark side of ChatGPT: a moderated mediation model of technology anxiety and technostress See it, share it: what makes social media content viral in the higher education context? The power of positive affective content Behavioral dedication, constraint or obligation? A tripartite model of active participation in multiplayer online battle arena game community
×
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