How should personal information be safeguarded? What are its optimal applications? In our interconnected environment, inquiries regarding data confidentiality are pervasive and significant for businesses, legislators, and the general populace.
A recent investigation by MIT scholars enriches the discourse by indicating that individuals’ perceptions of privacy are not set in stone and can vary considerably, influenced by distinct conditions and diverse applications of data.
“There is no absolute worth in privacy,” states Fabio Duarte, lead research scientist at MIT’s Senseable City Lab and co-author of a new study detailing the findings. “Depending on the context, individuals may perceive the utilization of their data as more or less invasive.”
The investigation is founded on an experiment carried out by the researchers across several nations, employing an innovative game designed to elicit public assessments of data privacy concerning various subjects and spheres of life.
“We demonstrate that the values assigned to data are combinatorial, situational, transactional, and contextual,” the researchers express.
The open-access publication, “Data Slots: tradeoffs between privacy concerns and benefits of data-driven solutions,” was released today in Nature: Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. The contributors include Martina Mazzarello, a postdoctoral researcher in the Senseable City Lab; Duarte; Simone Mora, a research scientist at Senseable City Lab; Cate Heine PhD ’24 from University College London; and Carlo Ratti, director of the Senseable City Lab.
The study revolves around a card game with poker-type tokens created by the researchers to explore the topic, known as Data Slots. In this game, participants hold hands of cards featuring 12 categories of data — including personal profiles, health information, vehicle location data, and more — that pertain to three categories of domains where data is gathered: household life, professional environments, and public areas. After swapping cards, the players brainstorm possible data applications, then evaluate and invest in some of those ideas. The game has been played in person across 18 different countries, with individuals from an additional 74 countries participating online; over 2,000 unique player rounds were included in the research.
The game’s purpose is to investigate the valuations that members of the public generate regarding data privacy. Some investigations on the topic use surveys with predetermined choices for respondents. However, in Data Slots, players themselves create valuations for a broad spectrum of data use scenarios, allowing researchers to gauge the relative importance people place on privacy in varying situations.
The intention is “to enable individuals to generate their own ideas and to appraise the advantages and privacy implications of their peers’ suggestions, in an interactive manner,” Ratti clarifies.
The game strongly indicates that individuals’ perspectives on data privacy are flexible, yet the findings reveal certain trends. The data privacy card that players highly valued pertained to personal mobility; given the choice in the game to retain or exchange it, players kept it in their hands 43 percent of the time, signaling its significance. Following closely were personal health data and utility usage. (With apologies to pet enthusiasts, the type of data privacy card players preserved the least, about 10 percent of the time, involved animal health.)
Nonetheless, the game clearly indicates that the worth of privacy is heavily dependent on specific use cases. It illustrates that people care about health data significantly, but also appreciate the utilization of environmental data in workplace settings, for example. Additionally, Data Slots players tend to be less apprehensive about data privacy when its use is paired with evident benefits. Collectively, this suggests a potential compromise: Utilizing health data can aid individuals in understanding how the workplace impacts their well-being.
“Even concerning health data in work environments, if employed in an aggregated manner to enhance the workspace, for certain individuals, merging personal health data with environmental data is worthwhile,” Mora states.
Mazzarello adds: “Now perhaps the organization could implement changes to enhance overall health. It might feel invasive, but there may be advantages returned.”
In the broader context, the researchers propose that adopting a more adaptable, user-focused approach to deciphering public perceptions on data privacy can guide the development of improved data policies. Urban areas — which form the primary focus of the Senseable City Lab — frequently encounter such situations. City authorities can collect substantial aggregate traffic information, for example, yet public feedback could help determine the level of anonymization needed for such data. Grasping public sentiment alongside the benefits of data utilization can yield practical policies for local officials to pursue.
“The key takeaway is that if cities articulate their intentions with data, and if they engage resident stakeholders to brainstorm ideas regarding what could be achieved, it would be advantageous for society,” Duarte states. “In such scenarios, individuals’ privacy concerns diminish significantly.”