skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Informational Friction as a Lens for Studying Algorithmic Aspects of Privacy

Published:15 October 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This paper addresses challenges in conceptualizing privacy posed by algorithmic systems that can infer sensitive information from seemingly innocuous data. This type of privacy is of imminent concern due to the rapid adoption of machine learning and artificial intelligence systems in virtually every industry. In this paper, we suggest informational friction, a concept from Floridi's ethics of information, as a valuable conceptual lens for studying algorithmic aspects of privacy. Informational friction describes the amount of work required for one agent to access or alter the information of another. By focusing on amount of work, rather than the type of information or manner in which it is collected, informational friction can help to explain why automated analyses should raise privacy concerns independently of, and in addition to, those associated with data collection. As a demonstration, this paper analyze law enforcement use of facial recognition, andFacebook's targeted advertising model using informational friction and demonstrate risks inherent to these systems which are not completely identified in another popular framework, Nissenbaum's Contextual Integrity.The paper concludes with a discussion of broader implications, both for privacy research and for privacy regulation.

References

  1. Alessandro Acquisti, Laura Brandimarte, and George Loewenstein. 2015. Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, Vol. 347, 6221 (1 2015), 509 -- 514. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1465Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Irwin Altman. 1975. The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, and Crowding. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Monterey, CA. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED131515Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Julia Angwin, Madeleine Varner, and Ariana Tobin. 2017. Facebook Enabled Advertisers to Reach `Jew Haters'. (9 2017). https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-enabled-advertisers-to-reach-jew-hatersGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Susan Barnes. 2006. A Privacy Paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, Vol. 11 (4 2006). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Adam Barth, Anupam Datta, John C. Mitchell, and Helen Nissenbaum. 2006. Privacy and contextual integrity: Framework and applications. Proceedings - IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Vol. 2006 (2006), 184--198. https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2006.32Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Lemi Baruh and Mihaela Popescu. 2017. Big data analytics and the limits of privacy self-management. New Media and Society, Vol. 19, 4 (2017), 579--596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815614001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Eric P. S. Baumer and M. Six Silberman. 2011. When the Implication Is Not to Design (Technology ). In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ). Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2271--2274. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979275Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Sarah Bird, Ben Hutchinson, Krishnaram Kenthapadi, Emre Kundefinedcundefinedman, and Margaret Mitchell. 2019. Fairness-Aware Machine Learning: Practical Challenges and Lessons Learned. In Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference (WWW '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1297--1298. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308560.3320086Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. JT Borodovsky, LA Marsch, and AJ Budney. 2018. Studying Cannabis Use Behaviors With Facebook and Web Surveys: Methods and Insights. JMIR Public Health Surveill, Vol. 4, 2 (2018), e48. https://doi.org/10.2196/publichealth.9408Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Finn Brunton and Helen Nissenbaum. 2011. Vernacular resistance to data collection and analysis: a political theory of obfuscation. First Monday, Vol. 16, 5 (2011). https://firstmonday.org/article/view/3493/2955Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Finn Brunton and Helen Nissenbaum. 2015. Obfuscation: A User's Guide for Privacy and Protest. The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Stevie Chancellor, Zhiyuan Lin, Erica L. Goodman, Stephanie Zerwas, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2016. Quantifying and Predicting Mental Illness Severity in Online Pro-Eating Disorder Communities. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - CSCW '16 (2016), 1169--1182. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819973Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. City of New York Police Department. 2020. Facial Recognition Technology. (2020). https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/nypd-facial-recognition-patrol-guide.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Kate Conger, Richard Fausset, and Serge F. Kovaleski. 2019. San Francisco Bans Facial Recognition Technology. (5 2019). https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/us/facial-recognition-ban-san-francisco.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Jill Cowan and Natasha Singer. 2019. How California's New Privacy Law Affects You. (1 2019). https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/us/ccpa-california-privacy-law.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Scott Davidson. 2013. Privacy Through Obscurity. IEEE Design & Test, Vol. 30, 5 (10 2013), 96--96. https://doi.org/10.1109/MDAT.2013.2283595Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Munmun De Choudhury, Michael Gamon, Scott Counts, and Eric Horvitz. 2013. Predicting Depression via Social Media. In Proceedings of the Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. 128--137. https://doi.org/10.3109/01460862.2013.798190Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Marco della Cava and Elizabeth Weise. 2018. Capital Gazette gunman was identified using facial recognition technology. (6 2018). https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/06/29/capital-gazette-gunman-identified-using-facial-recognition-technology/744344002/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Michael A DeVito, Ashley Marie Walker, and Jeremy Birnholtz. 2018. 'Too Gay for Facebook': Presenting LGBTQGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Identity Throughout the Personal Social Media Ecosystem. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 2, CSCW (11 2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3274313Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Joan Morris DiMicco and David R Millen. 2007. Identity Management: Multiple Presentations of Self in Facebook. In Proceedings of the 2007 International ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP '07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 383--386. https://doi.org/10.1145/1316624.1316682Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Charles Duhigg. 2009. What Does Your Credit-Card Company Know About You? (5 2009). https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/magazine/17credit-t.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Catherine Dwyer. 2009. Behavioral targeting: A case study of consumer tracking on Levis.com. 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems 2009, AMCIS 2009, Vol. 6 (2009), 3803--3812. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1508496Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Gilad Edelman. 2020. Why Don't We Just Ban Targeted Advertising? (3 2020). https://www.wired.com/story/why-dont-we-just-ban-targeted-advertising/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Emily Ekins. 2016. Policing in America: Understanding Public Attitudes Toward the Police. Results from a National Survey. Technical Report. CATO Institute, Washington, D.C. https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/policing-americaGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. European Commission. 2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation -- GDPR). Official Journal of the European Union, Vol. L 119, 1 (2016), 1--88. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845266190--974Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. European Data Protection Board. 2019. 1 year GDPR -- taking stock. (2019). https://edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2019/1-year-gdpr-taking-stock_enGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Facebook. 2017. Improving Enforcement and Promoting Diversity: Updates to Ads Policies and Tools. (2 2017). https://about.fb.com/news/2017/02/improving-enforcement-and-promoting-diversity-updates-to-ads-policies-and-tools/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Ayman Farahat and Michael Bailey. 2012. How Effective is Targeted Advertising?. In WWW 2012. Lyon, France, 111--120. https://www2012.universite-lyon.fr/proceedings/proceedings/p111.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Luciano Floridi. 2005. The ontological interpretation of informational privacy. Ethics and Information Technology, Vol. 7, 4 (2005), 185--200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-006-0001--7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Luciano Floridi. 2013. The Ethics of Information. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199641321.001.0001Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Luciano Floridi. 2014. The Fourth Revolution. How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford University Press UK, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Clare Garvie. 2019. Garbage In Garbage Out: Face Recognition on Flawed Data. Technical Report. Georgetown Law Center on Privacy and Technology, Washington, D.C. https://www.flawedfacedata.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Clare Garvie, Alvaro M. Bedoya, and Jonathan Frankle. 2016. The Perpetual Line-Up: Unregulated Police Face Recognition in America. Technical Report. Georgetown Law Center on Privacy and Technology, Washington D.C. https://www.perpetuallineup.org/sites/default/files/2016--12/ThePerpetualLine-Up-CenteronPrivacyandTechnologyatGeorgetownLaw-121616.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Geofeedia. 2015. Baltimore County Police Department and Geofeedia Partner to Protect the Public During Freddie Gray Riots. Technical Report. Baltimore, MD. https://www.aclunc.org/docs/20161011_geofeedia_baltimore_case_study.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Joseph Goldstein and Ali Watkins. 2019. She Was Arrested at 14. Then Her Photo Went to a Facial Recognition Database. (8 2019). https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/nyregion/nypd-facial-recognition-children-teenagers.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Hillary K. Grigonis. 2019. I Turned Off Facebook Ad Trackers, and Ads Only Got More Personalized. (9 2019). https://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/turned-off-facebook-ad-tracking-personalized-privacy/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Patrick Grother, Mei Ngan, and Kayee Hanaoka. 2019. Face recognition vendor test part 3:. Technical Report. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8280Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Shion Guha. 2012. Trust and Ethics in Algorithmic Crime Analysis. Information, Communication and Society, Vol. 15 (2012), 662--679.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Foad Hamidi, Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, and Stacy M. Branham. 2018. Gender Recognition or Gender Reductionism ? The Social Implications of Embedded Gender Recognition Systems. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ) (CHI '18). ACM, Montréal, QC, Canada, 1--13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173582Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Karen Hao. 2019. AI is sending people to jail - and getting it wrong. (2019). https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612775/algorithms-criminal-justice-ai/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Eszter Hargittai and Alice Marwick. 2016. "What can i really do?" Explaining the privacy paradox with online apathy. International Journal of Communication, Vol. 10 (2016), 3737--3757. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-148157Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Kim Hart. 2019. Privacy policies are read by an aging few. (2019). https://www.axios.com/few-people-read-privacy-policies-survey-fec3a29e-2e3a-4767-a05c-2cacdcbaecc8.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Kashmir Hill. 2012. Facebook Says It Didn't 'Destroy The Life of A Young Man'. (1 2012). https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/01/11/facebook-says-it-didnt-destroy-the-life-of-a-young-man/#351f01c2286cGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Joanne Hinds and Adam N. Joinson. 2018. What demographic attributes do our digital footprints reveal? A systematic review. Vol. 13. e0207112 pages. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207112Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Daniel C. Howe and Helen Nissenbaum. 2009. TrackMeNot: Resisting Surveillance in Web Search. Lessons from the Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy and Identity in a Networked Society (2009), 417--436.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Steven J. Jackson, Tarleton Gillespie, and Sandy Payette. 2014. The policy knot: Re-integrating policy, practice and design in CSCW studies of social computing. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW (2014), 588--602. https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531674Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Rebecca Jennings. 2018. Why targeted Facebook ads are so weirdly personal. (9 2018). https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/9/25/17887796/facebook-ad-targeted-algorithmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Carter Jernigan and Behram F.T. Mistree. 2009. Gaydar: Facebook friendships expose sexual orientation. First Monday, Vol. 14, 10 (9 2009). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v14i10.2611Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Yunhan Jack Jia, Qi Alfred Chen, Shiqi Wang, Amir Rahmati, Earlence Fernandes, Zhuoqing Morley Mao, Atul Prakash, and S J Unviersity. 2017. ContexloT: towards providing contextual integrity to appified IoT platforms.. In NDSS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Naveena Karusala, Jennifer Wilson, Phebe Vayanos, and Eric Rice. 2019. Street-Level Realities of Data Practices in Homeless Services Provision. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 3, CSCW (11 2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3359286Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Michael Kebede. 2020. An Open Letter to Portland City Council on Facial Recognition. (1 2020). https://www.aclumaine.org/en/news/open-letter-portland-city-council-facial-recognitionGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Os Keyes. 2018. The Misgendering Machines. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 2, CSCW (2018), 1--22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274357Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Anthony Kimery. 2020. NYPD's new facial recognition policy sparks immediate calls for a ban. (3 2020). https://www.biometricupdate.com/202003/nypds-new-facial-recognition-policy-sparks-immediate-calls-for-a-banGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Bertel King. 2019. Why Targeted Ads Are a Serious Threat to Your Privacy. (4 2019). https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/targeted-ads-threat-privacy/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. M. Kosinski, D. Stillwell, and T. Graepel. 2013. Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 110, 15 (2013), 5802--5805. n0027--8424 (Linking) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218772110Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Han Li, Xin (Robert) Luo, Jie Zhang, and Heng Xu. 2017. Resolving the privacy paradox: Toward a cognitive appraisal and emotion approach to online privacy behaviors. Information & Management, Vol. 54, 8 (2017), 1012--1022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.02.005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Yuezun Li and Siwei Lyu. 2019. De-identification without losing faces. (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Jennifer Lynch. 2020. EFF Testifies Today on Law Enforcement Use of Face Recognition Before Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. (4 2020). https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/eff-testifies-law-enforcement-use-face-recognition-presidential-commission-lawGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Craig McCarthy. 2020. Rogue NYPD cops using facial recognition app Clearview. (1 2020). https://nypost.com/2020/01/23/rogue-nypd-cops-are-using-sketchy-facial-recognition-app-clearview/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Aleecia M McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2008. The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies 2008 Privacy Year in Review. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society Privacy Year in Review (2008), 543--568. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/isjlpsoc4&i=563https://heinonline.org/HOL/PrintRequest?handle=hein.journals/isjlpsoc4&collection=journals&div=27&id=563&print=section&sction=27Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Ojmarrh Mitchell and Michael S Caudy. 2015. Examining Racial Disparities in Drug Arrests. Justice Quarterly, Vol. 32, 2 (3 2015), 288--313. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.761721Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Brent Mittelstadt. 2017. From Individual to Group Privacy in Big Data Analytics. Philosophy & Technology, Vol. 30 (2017), 475--494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0253--7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. National Data Protection Commission (CNIL). 2019. The CNIL's restricted committee imposes a financial penalty of 50 Million euros against GOOGLE LLC. (2019). https://www.cnil.fr/en/cnils-restricted-committee-imposes-financial-penalty-50-million-euros-against-google-llcGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Helen Nissenbaum. 2004. Privacy as Contextual Integrity. Washington Law Review, Vol. 79, 119 (2004), 119--158. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845699789.5.663Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Helen Nissenbaum. 2010. Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Helen Nissenbaum. 2011. A contextual approach to privacy online. Daedalus, Vol. 140, 4 (2011), 32--48. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00113Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Helen Nissenbaum. 2019. Contextual Integrity Up and Down the Data Food Chain. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, Vol. 20, 1 (2019), 221--256. http://www7.tau.ac.il/ojs/index.php/til/article/view/1614/1715Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Erik Ortiz. 2016. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram Block Geofeedia Tool Used for Police Surveillance. (10 2016). https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/facebook-twitter-instagram-block-geofeedia-tool-used-police-surveillance-n664706Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Leysia Palen and Paul Dourish. 2003. Unpacking "privacy" for a networked world. In Proceedings of the conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '03. https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642635Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Jiyong Park and Min-Seok Pang. 2019. Information Technology on the Beat: The Impacts of Body-Worn Camera and Facial Recognition Technology on Public Safety. Available at SSRN 3426427 (2019). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3426427Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Sai Teja Peddinti and Nitesh Saxena. 2010. On the Privacy of Web Search Based on Query Obfuscation: A Case Study of TrackMeNot BT - Privacy Enhancing Technologies. In International Symposium on Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium,, Mikhail J Atallah and Nicholas J Hopper (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 19--37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Stephen Rushin. 2011. The judicial response to mass police surveillance. U. Ill. JL Tech. & Pol'y (2011), 281.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Adam Satariano. 2019. Google Is Fined $57 Million Under Europe's Data Privacy Law. (1 2019). https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/technology/google-europe-gdpr-fine.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, Jacob M. Paul, and Jed R. Brubaker. 2019. How Computers See Gender : An Evaluation of Gender Classification in Commercial Facial Analysis Services. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 144:1--144:33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359246Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Bruce Schneier. 2006. TrackMeNot. (2006). https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/trackmenot_1.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Nathan Sheard. 2019. About Face: Ending Government Use of Face Surveillance. (11 2019). https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/11/about-face-ending-government-use-face-surveillanceGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Irina Shklovski, Scott D. Mainwaring, Halla Hrund Skú ladó ttir, and Höskuldur Borgthorsson. 2014. Leakiness and creepiness in app space. Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '14 (2014), 2347--2356. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557421Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Richard H. Sloan and Richard Warner. 2014. Beyond Notice and Choice: Privacy, Norms, and Consent. Journal of High Technology, Vol. 14, 2 (2014), 370--414. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/jhtl14&i=371Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Aaron Smith. 2019. More than half of U.S. adults trust law enforcement to use facial recognition responsibly. Pew Research Center September (2019). https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/09/05/more-than-half-of-u-s-adults-trust-law-enforcement-to-use-facial-recognition-responsibly/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Till Speicher, Muhammad Ali, Giridhari Venkatadri, Filipe Nunes Ribeiro, George Arvanitakis, Fabrício Benevenuto, Krishna P Gummadi, Patrick Loiseau, Alan Mislove, Sorelle A Friedler, and Christo Wilson. 2018. Potential for Discrimination in Online Targeted Advertising. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 81, iii (2018), 1--15. https://business.linkedin.com/marketing-Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Alice Speri. 2019. Police Make 10 Million Arrests a Year, but That Doesn't Mean They're Solving Crimes. (1 2019). https://theintercept.com/2019/01/31/arrests-policing-vera-institute-of-justice/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Luke Stark. 2019. Facial Recognition Is the Plutonium of AI. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, Vol. 25, 3 (April 2019), 50--55. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313129Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. S.T.O.P. - Surveillance Technology Oversight Project. 2020. S.T.O.P. Condemns NYPD Coverup of "Clearview AI" Facial Recognition Program, New Documents Show Extensive Partnership. (2 2020). https://www.stopspying.org/latest-news/2020/2/27/stop-condemns-nypd-coverup-of-clearview-ai-facial-recognition-program-new-documents-show-extensive-partnershipGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Sherry Turkle. 1994. Constructions and reconstructions of self in virtual reality: Playing in the MUDs. Mind, Culture, and Activity, Vol. 1, 3 (6 1994), 158--167. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039409524667Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Janet Vertesi. 2014. Internet Privacy and What Happens When You Try to Opt Out. Time (2014). https://time.com/83200/privacy-internet-big-data-opt-out/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. Fernanda B Vié gas. 2005. Bloggers' Expectations of Privacy and Accountability:'An Initial Survey. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 10, 3 (4 2005), 0. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083--6101.2005.tb00260.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  88. Chi Wang, Rajat Raina, David Fong, Ding Zhou, Jiawei Han, and Greg Badros. 2011. Learning Relevance from a Heterogeneous Social Network and Its Application in Online Targeting General Terms. In SIGIR '11. Beijing, China. https://research.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/learning-relevance-from-a-heterogeneous-social-network-and-its-application-in-online-targeting.pdf?Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  89. Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis. 1890. The Right to Privacy. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 4, 5 ( 1890), 193--220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  90. Jeffrey Warshaw, Tara Matthews, Steve Whittaker, Chris Kau, Mateo Bengualid, and Barton A. Smith. 2015. Can an Algorithm Know the "Real You"? Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '15 (2015), 797--806. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702274Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  91. WBUR. 2019. Made You Look : How Folks Are Fooling Facial Recognition. https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2019/08/18/facial-recognition-trick-technology-hong-kong. (Aug. 2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. Kenneth C. Werbin, Mark Lipton, and Matthew J. Bowman. 2017. The contextual integrity of the closet: Privacy, data mining and outing Facebook's algorithmic logics. Queer Studies in Media & Popular Culture, Vol. 2, 1 (2017), 29--47. https://doi.org/10.1386/qsmpc.2.1.29_1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  93. Alan F. Westin. 1967. Privacy and Freedom. Atheneum, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. WordStream. 2019. All of Facebook's Ad Targeting Options. (2019). https://wordstream-files-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/documents/Facebook-Targeting-Infographic-WordStream.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Informational Friction as a Lens for Studying Algorithmic Aspects of Privacy

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!