IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2022 - 57

Although facets of privacy might vary substantially
in terms when, where, and how interpersonal
monitoring can or should occur [48] evidence from
numerous cultures suggests that it remains a universally
important value. For instance, Schwartz and
Bardi [46] in a multinational survey of values found
that benevolence, self-direction, universalism,4
security, and conformity were assigned the highest
importance. Arguably, values such as equality, social
justice, and self-direction are both antecedents and
consequences of privacy. However, Schwartz and
Bardi [46] note that cultures, might place less emphasis
on certain values (e.g., self-direction) and more
on others (e.g., conformity) given features of the
social and physical environment.
Privacy in context
The potential for cross-cultural differences speaks
to the issue of conceiving of privacy in terms of a
single, abstract definition that is independent of its
sociocultural context. Instead, mental models of
privacy can be understood as a family resemblance
structure, sharing some, but not all, features. For
instance, Post [18] provides three representations of
privacy norms: privacy in the creation of knowledge,
loss of privacy as a violation dignity, and privacy
as a freedom. Privacy in the creation of knowledge
assumes that an individual should be able to control
information that might lead to cognitive errors if provided
to other individuals thereby protecting them
from being misrepresented. For instance, the selective
presentation of information can induce bias
in the perception of others, thereby compromising
the data subject's ability to create knowledge about
themselves. Lynskey [49] goes further by claiming
that the right to control information makes data
agency distinct from privacy.
By introducing the concept of dignity into privacy,
this brings with it a need to understand the
nature of respect within a group setting. As Post
notes, this conception of privacy is based on
assumptions about a given social structure and
social context. These mental models must then
be defined in terms of social exchange schemata
adopted by the group members [6]. For instance,
East Asian cultural traditions value " face " (mian 面
or lian 臉 in Chinese; 체면 in Korean), an interpersonal
reputational process [50]. Thus, while Tang
4Universalism is
further subdivided into equality and social
benevolence includes honesty, loyalty, and responsibility.
justice whereas
might be correct in asserting that certain forms of
privacy might not be a concern, this leaves open
the possibility that other forms remain important.
Finally, Post's notion of privacy as freedom
reflects the need to consider personal autonomy.
Here, he points out that privacy as dignity and privacy
as freedom are in opposition to one another:
the former is focused on social embeddedness
and conformity to social norms, whereas the latter
focuses on social distinctiveness and self-determination.
Similar observations have been made by De
Hert and Gutwirth [51], noting that privacy " does
not imply secrecy, it implies the possibility of being
oneself openly without interference " (p. 134). This
underscores the importance of valid consent, that is,
fully understanding what data surveillance entails.
When viewed along with Schwartz and Bardi [46]
cross-cultural value analysis, it suggests the need to
accommodate an increasing pluralistic view of privacy
norms relative to the respect norms and conventions
within a group.
Interdependent privacy
Instead of construing privacy as a value based on
independence, an alternative formulation of privacy
can be created by considering privacy in terms of
interdependence. Interdependent privacy requires
shifting the level of analysis from the individual to
the group. For instance, using the introduction of
Korean National Identification Card as a case study,
Kim [20] has also considered an alternative formulation
of privacy based on social embeddedness. Here,
Kim's emphasis is on mutual beneficial arrangements,
such that the individual is actively engaged in
developing the surveillance system (what Kim refers
to as coactive privacy) and recognizes the individual
and collective utility in having one's behavior monitored.
Such an approach also conforms to van de
Poel's view of privacy and security as complimentary
values in cybersecurity.
Kim's notion of coactive privacy is also supported
by the literature on employee surveillance.
For instance, Alge [52] found that when employees
can participate in the creation of policies and procedures
for workplace surveillance, there is greater
acceptance. Like Post's notion of privacy as dignity,
the kind of privacy embodied here is socially
embedded. This reflects a notion of privacy as interdependency
wherein norms of respect determine
what and when information can be used from a
March 2022
57
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2022

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2022
