خصوصية

لقد تم استكشاف مفهوم الخصوصية ومناقشته من قبل العديد من الفلاسفة عبر التاريخ.

Privacy has historical roots in ancient Greek philosophical discussions. The most well-known of these was Aristotle's distinction between two spheres of life: the public sphere of the polis, associated with political life, and the private sphere of the oikos, associated with domestic life.^[5] Privacy is valued along with other basic necessities of life in the Jewish deutero-canonicalBook of Sirach.^[6]

Islam's holy text, the Qur'an, states the following regarding privacy: 'Do not spy on one another' (49:12); 'Do not enter any houses except your own homes unless you are sure of their occupants' consent' (24:27).^[7]

English philosopher John Locke's (1632-1704) writings on natural rights and the social contract laid the groundwork for modern conceptions of individual rights, including the right to privacy. In his Second Treatise of Civil Government (1689), Locke argued that a man is entitled to his own self through one's natural rights of life, liberty, and property.^[8] He believed that the government was responsible for protecting these rights so individuals were guaranteed private spaces to practice personal activities.^[9]

In the political sphere, philosophers hold differing views on the right of private judgment. German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) makes the distinction between moralität, which refers to an individual's private judgment, and sittlichkeit, pertaining to one's rights and obligations as defined by an existing corporate order. On the contrary, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), an English philosopher, interpreted law as an invasion of privacy. His theory of utilitarianism argued that legal actions should be judged by the extent of their contribution to human wellbeing, or necessary utility.^[10]

Hegel's notions were modified by prominent 19th century English philosopher John Stuart Mill. Mill's essay On Liberty (1859) argued for the importance of protecting individual liberty against the tyranny of the majority and the interference of the state. His views emphasized the right of privacy as essential for personal development and self-expression.^[11]

Discussions surrounding surveillance coincided with philosophical ideas on privacy. Jeremy Bentham developed the phenomenon known as the Panoptic effect through his 1791 architectural design of a prison called Panopticon. The phenomenon explored the possibility of surveillance as a general awareness of being watched that could never be proven at any particular moment.^[12] French philosopher Michel Foucault (1926-1984) concluded that the possibility of surveillance in the instance of the Panopticon meant a prisoner had no choice but to conform to the prison's rules.^[12]

More recently, the unequal effects of weak privacy protections have been debated. In Privacy at the Margins, law professor Scott Skinner-Thompson argues that marginalized and vulnerable groups are disproportionately affected both because they are more likely to be required to share personal information and because they experience more severe harm when their privacy is breached.^[13]

As technology has advanced, the way in which privacy is protected and violated has changed with it. In the case of some technologies, such as the printing press or the Internet, the increased ability to share information can lead to new ways in which privacy can be breached. It is generally agreed that the first publication advocating privacy in the United States was the 1890 article by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy",^[14] and that it was written mainly in response to the increase in newspapers and photographs made possible by printing technologies.^[15]

In 1948, 1984, written by George Orwell, was published. A classic dystopian novel, 1984 describes the life of Winston Smith in 1984, located in Oceania, a totalitarian state. The all-controlling Party, the party in power led by Big Brother, is able to control power through mass surveillance and limited freedom of speech and thought. George Orwell provides commentary on the negative effects of totalitarianism, particularly on privacy and censorship.^[16] Parallels have been drawn between 1984 and modern censorship and privacy, a notable example being that large social media companies, rather than the government, are able to monitor a user's data and decide what is allowed to be said online through their censorship policies, ultimately for monetary purposes.^[17]

In the 1960s, people began to consider how changes in technology were bringing changes in the concept of privacy.^[18]Vance Packard's The Naked Society was a popular book on privacy from that era and led US discourse on privacy at that time.^[18] In addition, Alan Westin's Privacy and Freedom shifted the debate regarding privacy from a physical sense, how the government controls a person's body (i.e. Roe v. Wade) and other activities such as wiretapping and photography. As important records became digitized, Westin argued that personal data was becoming too accessible and that a person should have complete jurisdiction over their data, laying the foundation for the modern discussion of privacy.^[19]

New technologies can also create new ways to gather private information. In 2001, the legal case Kyllo v. United States (533 U.S. 27) determined that the use of thermal imaging devices that can reveal previously unknown information without a warrant constitutes a violation of privacy. In 2019, after developing a corporate rivalry in competing voice-recognition software, Apple and Amazon required employees to listen to intimate moments and faithfully transcribe the contents.^[20]

Several online social network sites (OSNs) are among the top 10 most visited websites globally. Facebook for example, as of August 2015, was the largest social-networking site, with nearly 2.7 billion^[37] members, who upload over 4.75 billion pieces of content daily. While Twitter is significantly smaller with 316 million registered users, the US Library of Congress recently announced that it will be acquiring and permanently storing the entire archive of public Twitter posts since 2006.^[28]

A review and evaluation of scholarly work regarding the current state of the value of individuals' privacy of online social networking show the following results: "first, adults seem to be more concerned about potential privacy threats than younger users; second, policy makers should be alarmed by a large part of users who underestimate risks of their information privacy on OSNs; third, in the case of using OSNs and its services, traditional one-dimensional privacy approaches fall short".^[38] This is exacerbated by deanonymization research indicating that personal traits such as sexual orientation, race, religious and political views, personality, or intelligence can be inferred based on a wide variety of digital footprints, such as samples of text, browsing logs, or Facebook Likes.^[39]

Intrusions of social media privacy are known to affect employment in the United States. Microsoft reports that 75 percent of U.S. recruiters and human-resource professionals now do online research about candidates, often using information provided by search engines, social-networking sites, photo/video-sharing sites, personal web sites and blogs, and Twitter. They also report that 70 percent of U.S. recruiters have rejected candidates based on internet information. This has created a need by many candidates to control various online privacy settings in addition to controlling their online reputations, the conjunction of which has led to legal suits against both social media sites and US employers.^[28]

Increasingly, mobile devices facilitate location tracking. This creates user privacy problems. A user's location and preferences constitute personal information, and their improper use violates that user's privacy. A recent MIT study by de Montjoye et al. showed that four spatio-temporal points constituting approximate places and times are enough to uniquely identify 95% of 1.5M people in a mobility database. The study further shows that these constraints hold even when the resolution of the dataset is low. Therefore, even coarse or blurred datasets confer little privacy protection.^[50]

Several methods to protect user privacy in location-based services have been proposed, including the use of anonymizing servers and blurring of information. Methods to quantify privacy have also been proposed, to calculate the equilibrium between the benefit of obtaining accurate location information and the risks of breaching an individual's privacy.^[51]

The Internet has become a significant medium for advertising, with digital marketing making up approximately half of the global ad spending in 2019.^[58] While websites are still able to sell advertising space without tracking, including via contextual advertising, digital ad brokers such as Facebook and Google have instead encouraged the practice of behavioral advertising, providing code snippets used by website owners to track their users via HTTP cookies. This tracking data is also sold to other third parties as part of the mass surveillance industry. Since the introduction of mobile phones, data brokers have also been planted within apps, resulting in a $350 billion digital industry especially focused on mobile devices.^[59]

Digital privacy has become the main source of concern for many mobile users, especially with the rise of privacy scandals such as the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal.^[59]Apple has received some reactions for features that prohibit advertisers from tracking a user's data without their consent.^[60] Google attempted to introduce an alternative to cookies named FLoC which it claimed reduced the privacy harms, but it later retracted the proposal due to antitrust probes and analyses that contradicted their claims of privacy.^[61][62][63]

The ability to do online inquiries about individuals has expanded dramatically over the last decade. Importantly, directly observed behavior, such as browsing logs, search queries, or contents of a public Facebook profile, can be automatically processed to infer secondary information about an individual, such as sexual orientation, political and religious views, race, substance use, intelligence, and personality.^[64]

In Australia, the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015 made a distinction between collecting the contents of messages sent between users and the metadata surrounding those messages.

يمكن تقسيم مناهج الخصوصية، بشكل عام، إلى فئتين: السوق الحرة أو حماية المستهلك . ^{[ 67 ]}

من الأمثلة على نهج السوق الحرة المبادئ التوجيهية الطوعية لمنظمة التعاون الاقتصادي والتنمية بشأن حماية الخصوصية وتدفقات البيانات الشخصية عبر الحدود. ^{[ 68 ]} وتُحلل المبادئ الواردة في هذه المبادئ التوجيهية، بمعزل عن أي تدخل تشريعي، في مقال يضعها في سياق مفاهيم اللائحة العامة لحماية البيانات (GDPR) التي تم سنها لاحقًا في الاتحاد الأوروبي. ^{[ 69 ]}

In a consumer protection approach, in contrast, it is claimed that individuals may not have the time or knowledge to make informed choices, or may not have reasonable alternatives available. In support of this view, Jensen and Potts showed that most privacy policies are above the reading level of the average person.^[70]

The theory of contextual integrity,^[102] developed by Helen Nissenbaum, defines privacy as an appropriate information flow, where appropriateness, in turn, is defined as conformance with legitimate, informational norms specific to social contexts.

In 1890, the United States jurists Samuel D. Warren and Louis Brandeis wrote "The Right to Privacy", an article in which they argued for the "right to be let alone", using that phrase as a definition of privacy.^[103] This concept relies on the theory of natural rights and focuses on protecting individuals. The citation was a response to recent technological developments, such as photography, and sensationalist journalism, also known as yellow journalism.^[104]

There is extensive commentary over the meaning of being "let alone", and among other ways, it has been interpreted to mean the right of a person to choose seclusion from the attention of others if they wish to do so, and the right to be immune from scrutiny or being observed in private settings, such as one's own home.^[103] Although this early vague legal concept did not describe privacy in a way that made it easy to design broad legal protections of privacy, it strengthened the notion of privacy rights for individuals and began a legacy of discussion on those rights in the US.^[103]

Limited access refers to a person's ability to participate in society without having other individuals and organizations collect information about them.^[105]

Various theorists have imagined privacy as a system for limiting access to one's personal information.^[105]Edwin Lawrence Godkin wrote in the late 19th century that "nothing is better worthy of legal protection than private life, or, in other words, the right of every man to keep his affairs to himself, and to decide for himself to what extent they shall be the subject of public observation and discussion."^[105][106] Adopting an approach similar to the one presented by Ruth Gavison^[107] Nine years earlier,^[108]Sissela Bok said that privacy is "the condition of being protected from unwanted access by others—either physical access, personal information, or attention."^[105][109]

Control over one's personal information is the concept that "privacy is the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others." Generally, a person who has consensually formed an interpersonal relationship with another person is not considered "protected" by privacy rights with respect to the person they are in the relationship with.^[110][111]Charles Fried said that "Privacy is not simply an absence of information about us in the minds of others; rather it is the control we have over information about ourselves."^[112] Nevertheless, in the era of big data, control over information is under pressure.^[113][114]

Alan Westin defined four states—or experiences—of privacy: solitude, intimacy, anonymity, and reserve. Solitude is a physical separation from others;^[115] Intimacy is a "close, relaxed; and frank relationship between two or more individuals" that results from the seclusion of a pair or small group of individuals.^[115] Anonymity is the "desire of individuals for times of 'public privacy.'"^[115] Lastly, reserve is the "creation of a psychological barrier against unwanted intrusion"; this creation of a psychological barrier requires others to respect an individual's need or desire to restrict communication of information concerning themself.^[115]

In addition to the psychological barrier of reserve, Kirsty Hughes identified three more kinds of privacy barriers: physical, behavioral, and normative. Physical barriers, such as walls and doors, prevent others from accessing and experiencing the individual.^[116] (In this sense, "accessing" an individual includes accessing personal information about them.)^[116] Behavioral barriers communicate to others—verbally, through language, or non-verbally, through personal space, body language, or clothing—that an individual does not want the other person to access or experience them.^[116] Lastly, normative barriers, such as laws and social norms, restrain others from attempting to access or experience an individual.^[116]

حدد عالم النفس كارل أ. جونسون مفهوم "التحكم الشخصي" في علم النفس باعتباره وثيق الصلة بالخصوصية. وقد طُوّر هذا المفهوم كعملية تتضمن أربع مراحل وعلاقتين بين السلوك والنتائج، حيث تعتمد نتائج الفرد على عوامل ظرفية وشخصية. ^{[ 117 ]} وتُعرّف الخصوصية بأنها "السلوكيات التي تقع في مواقع محددة على هذين البُعدين". ^{[ 118 ]}

درس جونسون المراحل الأربع التالية لتصنيف مواضع ممارسة الأفراد للتحكم الشخصي: التحكم في اختيار النتائج، وهو الاختيار بين نتائج متعددة. التحكم في اختيار السلوك، وهو الاختيار بين استراتيجيات سلوكية محددة لتحقيق نتائج معينة. فعالية النتائج، وهي إتمام السلوك المختار لتحقيق النتائج المرجوة. التحكم في تحقيق النتائج، وهو التفسير الشخصي للنتيجة التي حققها الفرد. تُعرَّف العلاقة بين عاملين - التحكم الأولي والتحكم الثانوي - بأنها ظاهرة ثنائية الأبعاد يصل فيها الفرد إلى التحكم الشخصي: فالتحكم الأولي يصف السلوك الذي يُسبب النتائج بشكل مباشر، بينما التحكم الثانوي يصف السلوك الذي يُسبب النتائج بشكل غير مباشر. ^{[ 119 ]} يستكشف جونسون مفهوم أن الخصوصية سلوكٌ له سيطرة ثانوية على النتائج.

يُوسّع لورينزو ماغناني هذا المفهوم مُسلطًا الضوء على أهمية الخصوصية في الحفاظ على السيطرة الشخصية على الهوية والوعي. ^{[ 120 ]} ويُجادل بأن الوعي يتشكل جزئيًا من خلال تمثيلات خارجية لأنفسنا، كالسرديات والبيانات، المُخزنة خارج الجسد. مع ذلك، يتألف جزء كبير من وعينا من تمثيلات داخلية تبقى خاصة ونادرًا ما تُشارك مع الآخرين. هذه الخصوصية الداخلية، التي يُشير إليها ماغناني بنوع من "ملكية المعلومات" أو "رأس المال الأخلاقي"، بالغة الأهمية للحفاظ على حرية الاختيار والفاعلية الشخصية. ووفقًا لماغناني، ^{[ 121 ]} عندما تُشارك الكثير من هويتنا وبياناتنا مع الآخرين وتُخضع للتدقيق، فقد يؤدي ذلك إلى فقدان السيطرة الشخصية والكرامة والمسؤولية. لذا، فإن حماية الخصوصية تُؤمّن قدرتنا على تطوير ومتابعة مشاريعنا الشخصية بطريقتنا الخاصة، بعيدًا عن أي تدخلات خارجية.

Acknowledging other conceptions of privacy while arguing that the fundamental concern of privacy is behavior selection control, Johnson converses with other interpretations including those of Maxine Wolfe and Robert S. Laufer, and Irwin Altman. He clarifies the continuous relationship between privacy and personal control, where outlined behaviours not only depend on privacy, but the conception of one's privacy also depends on his defined behavioural outcome relationships.^[122]

Privacy is sometimes defined as an option to have secrecy. Richard Posner said that privacy is the right of people to "conceal information about themselves that others might use to their disadvantage".^[123][124]

In various legal contexts, when privacy is described as secrecy, a conclusion is reached: if privacy is secrecy, then rights to privacy do not apply for any information which is already publicly disclosed.^[125] When privacy-as-secrecy is discussed, it is usually imagined to be a selective kind of secrecy in which individuals keep some information secret and private while they choose to make other information public and not private.^[125]

Privacy may be understood as a necessary precondition for the development and preservation of personhood. Jeffrey Reiman defined privacy in terms of a recognition of one's ownership of their physical and mental reality and a moral right to self-determination.^[126] Through the "social ritual" of privacy, or the social practice of respecting an individual's privacy barriers, the social group communicates to developing children that they have exclusive moral rights to their bodies—in other words, moral ownership of their body.^[126] This entails control over both active (physical) and cognitive appropriation, the former being control over one's movements and actions and the latter being control over who can experience one's physical existence and when.^[126]

Alternatively, Stanley Benn defined privacy in terms of a recognition of oneself as a subject with agency—as an individual with the capacity to choose.^[127] Privacy is required to exercise choice.^[127] Overt observation makes the individual aware of himself or herself as an object with a "determinate character" and "limited probabilities."^[127] Covert observation, on the other hand, changes the conditions in which the individual is exercising choice without their knowledge and consent.^[127]

In addition, privacy may be viewed as a state that enables autonomy, a concept closely connected to that of personhood. According to Joseph Kufer, an autonomous self-concept entails a conception of oneself as a "purposeful, self-determining, responsible agent" and an awareness of one's capacity to control the boundary between self and other—that is, to control who can access and experience him or her and to what extent.^[128] Furthermore, others must acknowledge and respect the self's boundaries—in other words, they must respect the individual's privacy.^[128]

The studies of psychologists such as Jean Piaget and Victor Tausk show that, as children learn that they can control who can access and experience them and to what extent, they develop an autonomous self-concept.^[128] In addition, studies of adults in particular institutions, such as Erving Goffman's study of "total institutions" such as prisons and mental institutions,^[129] suggest that systemic and routinized deprivations or violations of privacy deteriorate one's sense of autonomy over time.^[128]

Privacy may be understood as a prerequisite for the development of a sense of self-identity. Privacy barriers, in particular, are instrumental in this process. According to Irwin Altman, such barriers "define and limit the boundaries of the self" and thus "serve to help define [the self]."^[130] This control primarily entails the ability to regulate contact with others.^[130] Control over the "permeability" of the self's boundaries enables one to control what constitutes the self and thus to define what is the self.^[130]

In addition, privacy may be seen as a state that fosters personal growth, a process integral to the development of self-identity. Hyman Gross suggested that, without privacy—solitude, anonymity, and temporary releases from social roles—individuals would be unable to freely express themselves and to engage in self-discovery and self-criticism.^[128] Such self-discovery and self-criticism contributes to one's understanding of oneself and shapes one's sense of identity.^[128]

In a way analogous to how the personhood theory imagines privacy as some essential part of being an individual, the intimacy theory imagines privacy to be an essential part of the way that humans have strengthened or intimate relationships with other humans.^[131] Because part of human relationships includes individuals volunteering to self-disclose most if not all personal information, this is one area in which privacy does not apply.^[131]

James Rachels advanced this notion by writing that privacy matters because "there is a close connection between our ability to control who has access to us and to information about us, and our ability to create and maintain different sorts of social relationships with different people."^[131][132] Protecting intimacy is at the core of the concept of sexual privacy, which law professor Danielle Citron argues should be protected as a unique form of privacy.^[133]

Physical privacy could be defined as preventing "intrusions into one's physical space or solitude."^[134] An example of the legal basis for the right to physical privacy is the U.S. Fourth Amendment, which guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures".^[135]

Physical privacy may be a matter of cultural sensitivity, personal dignity, and/or shyness. There may also be concerns about safety, if, for example one is wary of becoming the victim of crime or stalking.^[136] There are different things that can be prevented to protect one's physical privacy, including people watching (even through recorded images) one's intimate behaviours or intimate parts and unauthorized access to one's personal possessions or places. Examples of possible efforts used to avoid the former, especially for modesty reasons, are clothes, walls, fences, privacy screens, cathedral glass, window coverings, etc.

Government agencies, corporations, groups/societies and other organizations may desire to keep their activities or secrets from being revealed to other organizations or individuals, adopting various security practices and controls in order to keep private information confidential. Organizations may seek legal protection for their secrets. For example, a government administration may be able to invoke executive privilege^[137] or declare certain information to be classified, or a corporation might attempt to protect valuable proprietary information as trade secrets.^[135]

David Flaherty believes networked computer databases pose threats to privacy. He develops 'data protection' as an aspect of privacy, which involves "the collection, use, and dissemination of personal information". This concept forms the foundation for fair information practices used by governments globally. Flaherty forwards an idea of privacy as information control, "[i]ndividuals want to be left alone and to exercise some control over how information about them is used".^[139]

يركز ريتشارد بوسنر ولورانس ليسيغ على الجوانب الاقتصادية للتحكم في المعلومات الشخصية. ينتقد بوسنر الخصوصية لإخفاء المعلومات، مما يقلل من كفاءة السوق. ويرى بوسنر أن العمل هو بمثابة بيع الذات في سوق العمل، وهو ما يشبه بيع منتج. وأي "عيب" في "المنتج" لا يتم الإبلاغ عنه يُعد احتيالاً. ^{[ 140 ]} أما ليسيغ، فيرى أن انتهاكات الخصوصية على الإنترنت يمكن تنظيمها من خلال القوانين والأنظمة. ويؤكد ليسيغ أن "حماية الخصوصية ستكون أقوى لو اعتبر الناس هذا الحق حقًا من حقوق الملكية"، ^{[ 141 ]} وأن "للأفراد الحق في التحكم في المعلومات المتعلقة بهم". ^{[ 142 ]}

لقد كانت هناك محاولات لتأسيس الخصوصية كأحد الحقوق الأساسية للإنسان ، والتي تعتبر قيمتها الاجتماعية عنصراً أساسياً في عمل المجتمعات الديمقراطية. ^{[ 143 ]}

ترى بريسيلا ريغان أن المفاهيم الفردية للخصوصية قد فشلت فلسفيًا وسياسيًا. وهي تدعم القيمة الاجتماعية للخصوصية بثلاثة أبعاد: التصورات المشتركة، والقيم العامة، والمكونات الجماعية . فالأفكار المشتركة حول الخصوصية تتيح حرية الضمير وتنوع الأفكار. وتضمن القيم العامة المشاركة الديمقراطية، بما في ذلك حرية التعبير والتجمع، وتحد من سلطة الحكومة. أما المكونات الجماعية فتصف الخصوصية بأنها منفعة جماعية لا يمكن تقسيمها. وتهدف ريغان إلى تعزيز المطالبات المتعلقة بالخصوصية في صنع السياسات: "لو أدركنا القيمة الجماعية أو قيمة المنفعة العامة للخصوصية، فضلًا عن قيمتها المشتركة والعامة، لكان لدى دعاة حماية الخصوصية أساس أقوى للدفاع عنها". ^{[ 144 ]}

تُجادل ليزلي ريغان شيد بأن حق الإنسان في الخصوصية ضروري للمشاركة الديمقراطية الفعّالة، ويضمن كرامة الإنسان واستقلاليته. وتعتمد الخصوصية على معايير توزيع المعلومات، ومدى ملاءمة ذلك. وتختلف انتهاكات الخصوصية باختلاف السياق. وقد ورد حق الإنسان في الخصوصية في إعلان الأمم المتحدة لحقوق الإنسان : "لكل شخص الحق في حرية الرأي والتعبير؛ ويشمل هذا الحق حرية اعتناق الآراء دون تدخل، واستقاء المعلومات والأفكار وتلقيها ونقلها بأي وسيلة كانت، ودون التقيد بالحدود." ^{[ 145 ]} وتعتقد شيد أن الخصوصية يجب أن تُعالج من منظور يركز على الإنسان، لا من منظور السوق. ^{[ 146 ]}

Dr. Eliza Watt, Westminster Law School, University of Westminster in London, UK, proposes application of the International Human Right Law (IHRL) concept of "virtual control" as an approach to deal with extraterritorial mass surveillance by state intelligence agencies. Dr. Watt envisions the "virtual control" test, understood as a remote control over the individual's right to privacy of communications, where privacy is recognized under the ICCPR, Article 17. This, she contends, may help to close the normative gap that is being exploited by nation states.^[147]

The privacy paradox is a phenomenon in which online users state that they are concerned about their privacy but behave as if they were not.^[148] While this term was coined as early as 1998,^[149] it was not used in its current popular sense until the year 2000.^[150][148]

Susan B. Barnes similarly used the term privacy paradox to refer to the ambiguous boundary between private and public space on social media.^[151] When compared to adults, young people tend to disclose more information on social media. However, this does not mean that they are not concerned about their privacy. Susan B. Barnes gave a case in her article: in a television interview about Facebook, a student addressed her concerns about disclosing personal information online. However, when the reporter asked to see her Facebook page, she put her home address, phone numbers, and pictures of her young son on the page.

The privacy paradox has been studied and scripted in different research settings. Several studies have shown this inconsistency between privacy attitudes and behavior among online users.^[152] However, by now an increasing number of studies have also shown that there are significant and at times large correlations between privacy concerns and information sharing behavior,^[153] which speaks against the privacy paradox. A meta-analysis of 166 studies published on the topic reported an overall small but significant relation between privacy concerns and informations sharing or use of privacy protection measures.^[154] So although there are several individual instances or anecdotes where behavior appear paradoxical, on average privacy concerns and privacy behaviors seem to be related, and several findings question the general existence of the privacy paradox.^[155]

However, the relationship between concerns and behavior is likely only small, and there are several arguments that can explain why that is the case. According to the attitude-behavior gap, attitudes and behaviors are in general and in most cases not closely related.^[156] A main explanation for the partial mismatch in the context of privacy specifically is that users lack awareness of the risks and the degree of protection.^[157] Users may underestimate the harm of disclosing information online.^[29] On the other hand, some researchers argue that the mismatch comes from lack of technology literacy and from the design of sites.^[158] For example, users may not know how to change their default settings even though they care about their privacy. Psychologists Sonja Utz and Nicole C. Krämer particularly pointed out that the privacy paradox can occur when users must trade-off between their privacy concerns and impression management.^[159]

In the context of harming privacy, information collection means gathering whatever information can be obtained by doing something to obtain it.^[174] Examples include surveillance and interrogation.^[174] Another example is how consumers and marketers also collect information in the business context through facial recognition which has recently caused a concern for things such as privacy. There is currently research being done related to this topic.^[175]

Companies like Google and Meta collect vast amounts of personal data from their users through various services and platforms. This data includes browsing habits, search history, location information, and even personal communications. These companies then analyze and aggregate this data to create detailed user profiles, which are sold to advertisers and other third parties. This practice is often done without explicit user consent, leading to an invasion of privacy as individuals have little control over how their information is used. The sale of personal data can result in targeted advertising, manipulation, and even potential security risks, as sensitive information can be exploited by malicious actors. This commercial exploitation of personal data undermines user trust and raises significant ethical and legal concerns regarding data protection and privacy rights.^[176]

قد لا تُنتهك الخصوصية عند توفر المعلومات، ولكن قد يحدث الضرر عند جمع هذه المعلومات كمجموعة، ثم معالجتها معًا بطريقة تجعل الإبلاغ الجماعي عن أجزاء من المعلومات ينتهك الخصوصية. ^{[ 177 ]} تشمل الإجراءات في هذه الفئة التي يمكن أن تقلل من الخصوصية ما يلي: ^{[ 177 ]}

• تجميع البيانات ، وهو ربط العديد من المعلومات ذات الصلة ولكن غير المتصلة ^{[ 177 ]}
• التعريف، والذي يمكن أن يعني كسر إخفاء هوية عناصر البيانات من خلال إخضاعها لعملية إزالة إخفاء الهوية ، وبالتالي جعل الحقائق التي كان من المفترض ألا تذكر أسماء أشخاص معينين مرتبطة بهؤلاء الأشخاص ^{[ 177 ].}
• انعدام الأمن، مثل نقص أمن البيانات ، والذي يشمل عندما يكون من المفترض أن تكون المنظمة مسؤولة عن حماية البيانات، فإنها بدلاً من ذلك تتعرض لاختراق للبيانات يضر بالأشخاص الذين كانت بياناتهم محفوظة ^{[ 177 ].}
• الاستخدام الثانوي، وهو عندما يوافق الأشخاص على مشاركة بياناتهم لغرض معين، ولكن بعد ذلك يتم استخدام البيانات بطرق دون موافقة مستنيرة من مانحي البيانات ^{[ 177 ].}
• الاستبعاد هو استخدام بيانات شخص ما دون أي محاولة لمنح الشخص فرصة لإدارة البيانات أو المشاركة في استخدامها ^{[ 177 ].}

لا تعتبره من بين أصدقائك الذين سينشرون خصوصياتك للعالم أجمع.

يُعدّ نشر المعلومات انتهاكاً للخصوصية عندما يتم نشر معلومات تم تبادلها بسرية أو التهديد بنشرها بطريقة تضرّ بصاحب المعلومات. ^{[ 177 ]}

There are various examples of this.^[177] Breach of confidentiality is when one entity promises to keep a person's information private, then breaks that promise.^[177] Disclosure is making information about a person more accessible in a way that harms the subject of the information, regardless of how the information was collected or the intent of making it available.^[177] Exposure is a special type of disclosure in which the information disclosed is emotional to the subject or taboo to share, such as revealing their private life experiences, their nudity, or perhaps private body functions.^[177] Increased accessibility means advertising the availability of information without actually distributing it, as in the case of doxing.^[177] Blackmail is making a threat to share information, perhaps as part of an effort to coerce someone.^[177] Appropriation is an attack on the personhood of someone, and can include using the value of someone's reputation or likeness to advance interests which are not those of the person being appropriated.^[177] Distortion is the creation of misleading information or lies about a person.^[177]

Invasion of privacy, a subset of expectation of privacy, is a different concept from the collecting, aggregating, and disseminating information because those three are a misuse of available data, whereas invasion is an attack on the right of individuals to keep personal secrets.^[177] An invasion is an attack in which information, whether intended to be public or not, is captured in a way that insults the personal dignity and right to private space of the person whose data is taken.^[177]

Individuals can encrypt e-mails via enabling either two encryption protocols, S/MIME, which is built into companies like Apple or Outlook and thus most common, or PGP.^[178] The Signal messaging app, which encrypts messages so that only the recipient can read the message, is notable for being available on many mobile devices and implementing a form of perfect forward secrecy.^[179] Signal has received praise from whistleblower Edward Snowden.^[180] Encryption and other privacy-based security measures are also used in some cryptocurrencies such as Monero and ZCash.^[181][182]

Anonymizing proxies or anonymizing networks like I2P and Tor can be used to prevent Internet service providers (ISP) from knowing which sites one visits and with whom one communicates, by hiding IP addresses and location, but does not necessarily protect a user from third party data mining. Anonymizing proxies are built into a user's device, in comparison to a Virtual Private Network (VPN), where users must download software.^[183] Using a VPN hides all data and connections that are exchanged between servers and a user's computer, resulting in the online data of the user being unshared and secure, providing a barrier between the user and their ISP, and is especially important to use when a user is connected to public Wi-Fi. However, users should understand that all their data does flow through the VPN's servers rather than the ISP. Users should decide for themselves if they wish to use either an anonymizing proxy or a VPN.

بمعنى أبسط، يمنع استخدام وضع التصفح المتخفي أو وضع التصفح الخاص جهاز المستخدم من حفظ سجل التصفح وملفات الإنترنت وملفات تعريف الارتباط، لكن مزود خدمة الإنترنت سيظل بإمكانه الوصول إلى سجل بحث المستخدم. أما استخدام محركات البحث المجهولة فلا يشارك سجل المستخدم ونقراته، كما أنه يعيق عمل برامج حجب الإعلانات. ^{[ 184 ]}

لا تزال الحلول الملموسة لمعالجة السلوك المتناقض غير متوفرة. تُركز جهودٌ كثيرة على عمليات اتخاذ القرار، مثل تقييد أذونات الوصول إلى البيانات أثناء تثبيت التطبيقات، لكن هذا لا يُسد الفجوة تمامًا بين نية المستخدم وسلوكه. ترى سوزان بارث ومينو دي تي دي يونغ أنه لكي يتخذ المستخدمون قراراتٍ أكثر وعيًا بشأن مسائل الخصوصية، يجب أن يكون التصميم أكثر تركيزًا على المستخدم. ^{[ 160 ]} ومع ذلك، فإن توفير حماية الخصوصية أمرٌ صعبٌ نظرًا لتعقيد عمليات الموافقة عبر الإنترنت، على سبيل المثال. ^{[ 185 ]}

من الناحية الاجتماعية، يُمكن أن يُساهم الحدّ من كمية المعلومات الشخصية التي ينشرها المستخدمون على وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي في تعزيز أمانهم، مما يُصعّب على المجرمين سرقة هويتهم. ^{[ 184 ]} علاوة على ذلك، يُمكن أن يُقلّل إنشاء كلمات مرور معقدة واستخدام المصادقة الثنائية من احتمالية اختراق حسابات المستخدمين عند حدوث تسريبات بيانات مختلفة. كما يُمكن للمستخدمين حماية خصوصيتهم الرقمية باستخدام برامج مكافحة الفيروسات، التي يُمكنها حظر الفيروسات الضارة مثل النوافذ المنبثقة التي تفحص المعلومات الشخصية على أجهزة الكمبيوتر. ^{[ 186 ]}

على الرغم من وجود قوانين تُعنى بحماية المستخدمين، إلا أنه في بعض الدول، كالولايات المتحدة، لا يوجد قانون اتحادي لحماية الخصوصية الرقمية، وتخضع إعدادات الخصوصية بشكل أساسي لقوانين الخصوصية السارية. ولتعزيز خصوصيتهم، يمكن للمستخدمين التواصل مع ممثليهم، وإبلاغهم بأن الخصوصية تُمثل هاجسًا رئيسيًا لديهم، مما يزيد بدوره من احتمالية سنّ قوانين إضافية لحماية الخصوصية. ^{[ 187 ]}

• Lessig, Lawrence (2006). "ELEVEN: Privacy". Code (2.0 ed.). Lawrence Lessig. ISBN 978-0-465-03914-2. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
• Solove, Daniel J. (2010). Understanding Privacy. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-03507-2.