CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 48Ethics and Social Impacts of AIPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionEthics in Business and Education

Balancing privacy rights and surveillance analytics: a decision process guide

Open access
Power, Daniel J., Heavin, Ciara, O’Connor, Yvonne·2021·Journal of Business Analytics
DOI 10.1080/2573234x.2021.1920856
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The right to privacy has been discussed by scholars in multiple disciplines, yet privacy issues are increasing due to technological advances and lower costs for organisations to adopt smart surveillance. Given the potential for misuse, it seems prudent for stakeholders to critically evaluate Surveillance Analytics (SA) innovations. To assist in balancing the issues arising from SA adoption and the implications for privacy, we review key terms and ethical frameworks. Further, we prescribe a two-by-two Surveillance, Privacy, and Ethical Decision (SPED) Process Guide. SPED recommends the use of one or more of three ethical frameworks, Consequence, Duty, and Virtue. The vertical axis in the SPED matrix is the sophistication of an organisation’s SA and the horizontal axis is an assessment of the current privacy level and the rights afforded to the target(s) of surveillance. The proposed decision process guide can assist senior managers and technologists in making decisions about adopting SA.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/2573234x.2021.1920856

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Data professionals are not trained as ethicists or attorneys, and yet they are asked to make ethical decisions about their use.

    “Data professionals are not trained as ethicists or attorneys, and yet they are asked to make ethical decisions about their use (Power et al., 2021).”

    From Teaching Case: No Place to Hide: Ethical and Legal Challenges in Geospatial Consumer Targeting (2026) · cites this paper as Power et al., 2021

    The Introduction says data professionals are trained in disciplines including business and data analytics and must make value judgments about surveillance analytics. The Conclusions say they should critically review proposed uses and recommend ethics training. Neither section establishes that data professionals are not trained as ethicists or attorneys. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 91

  1. Alge, B. J. (2001). Effects of computer surveillance on per- ceptions of privacy and procedural justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 797-804. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0021-9010.86.4.797 · DOI
  2. Alston, W. (1988). The Deontological Conception of Epistemic Justification. Philosophical Perspectives, 2, 257-299. https://doi.org/10.2307/2214077 · DOI
  3. Amoore, L. (2011). Data derivatives: On the emergence of a security risk calculus for our times. theory. Theory, Culture & Society, 28(6), 24-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0263276411417430 · DOI
  4. Andrejevic, M. (2019). Automating surveillance. Surveillance & Society, 17(1/2), 7-13. https://doi.org/10. 24908/ss.v17i1/2.12930 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Anhalt-Depies, C., Stenglein, J. L., Zuckerberg, B., Townsend, P. A., & Rissman, A. R. (2019). Tradeoffs and tools for data quality, privacy, transparency, and trust in citizen science. Biological Conservation, 238, 108195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108195 · DOI
  6. Arthur, K. N. A., & Owen, R. (2019). A Micro-ethnographic study of big Data-Based Innovation in the financial ser- vices sector: Governance, ethics and organisational practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(2), 363-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04203-x · DOI
  7. Baron, J. (1986). Tradeoffs among reasons for action. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 16(2), 173-195. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1986.tb00074.x · DOI
  8. Bélanger, F., Hiller, J., & Smith, W. J. (2002). Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: The role of privacy, security, and site attributes. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3/4), 245-270. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0963-8687(02)00018-5 · DOI
  9. Bilal, A., Wingreen, S., & Sharma, R. (2020). Virtue ethics as a solution to the privacy paradox and trust in emerging technologies. Proceedings of the 2020 the 3rd international conference on information science and system, 224-228. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3388176.3388196 · DOI
  10. Bonilla, D. N. (2014). Information management professionals working for intelligence organizations: Ethics and deontol- ogy implications. Security and Human Rights, 24(3-4), 264-279. https://doi.org/10.1163/18750230-02404005 · DOI
  11. Borton, D. A., Yin, M., Aceros, J., & Nurmikko, A. (2013). An implantable wireless neural interface for recording cortical circuit dynamics in moving primates. Journal of Neural Engineering, 10(2), 026010. https://doi.org/10. 1088/1741-2560/10/2/026010 · DOI
  12. Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662-679. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Breidbach, C. F., & Maglio, P. (2020). Accountable algo- rithms? The ethical implications of data-driven business models. Journal of Service Management, 31(2), 163-185. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-03-2019-0073 · DOI
  14. Broad, C. D. (2014). Five types of ethical theory. Routledge.
  15. Charles, V., Tavana, M., & Gherman, T. (2015). The right to be forgotten-is privacy sold out in the big data age? International Journal of Society Systems Science, 7(4), 283-298. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSS.2015.073225 · DOI
  16. Cheney, P. H., & Dickson, G. W. (1982). Organizational characteristics and information systems: An exploratory investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 25(1), 170-184. https://doi.org/10.2307/256032 · DOI
  17. Clarke, R. (1999). Internet privacy concerns confirm the case for intervention. Communications of the ACM, 42 (2), 60-67. https://doi.org/10.1145/293411.293475 · DOI
  18. Constantiou, I. D., & Kallinikos, J. (2015). New games, new rules: Big data and the changing context of strategy. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 44-57. https:// doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.170268-3962 · DOI
  19. Craft, J. L. (2013). A review of the empirical ethical Decision-Making literature: 2004-2011. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 221-259. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10551-012-1518-9 · DOI
  20. Crossan, M., Mazutis, D., & Seijts, G. (2013). In search of virtue: The role of virtues, values and character strengths in ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(4), 567-581. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10551-013-1680-8 · DOI
  21. Custers, B. H. M., & Ranchordas, S. (2019). In Reuse of data in smart cities: Legal and ethical frameworks for big data in the public arena. F. Feldberg et al.Eds., Appropriate use of data in public space: Essay collection NL Digitaal. SSRN Electronic Journal , Elsevier BV. pp.9-35
  22. Darmody, A., & Zwick, D. (2020). Manipulate to empower: Hyper-relevance and the contradictions of marketing in the age of surveillance capitalism. Big Data & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720904112 · DOI
  23. Delen, D., & Ram, S. (2018). Research challenges and oppor- tunities in business analytics. Journal of Business Analytics, 1 (1), 2-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/2573234X.2018.1507324 · DOI
  24. Derlega, V. J., & Chaikin, A. L. (1977). Privacy and Self- Disclosure in social relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 102-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977. tb01885.x · DOI
  25. Dienlin, T., & Metzger, M. J. (2016). An extended privacy calculus model for SNSs: Analyzing self-disclosure and self-withdrawal in a representative US sample. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(5), 368-383. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12163 · DOI
  26. Dinev, T., Hart, P., & Mullen, M. (2008). Internet privacy concerns and beliefs about government surveillance-An empirical investigation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(3), 214-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis. 2007.09.002 · DOI
  27. Doty, P. (2020). Oxymorons of privacy and surveillance in "smart homes". Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(1), e222. https:// doi.org/10.1002/pra2.222 · DOI
  28. Drašček, M., Rejc Buhovac, A., & Mesner Andolšek, D. (2020). Moral pragmatism as a bridge between duty, utility, and virtue in managers' ethical Decision-Making. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-020-04489-2 · DOI
  29. Driver, J. (2011). Consequentialism. ISBN 9780415772587. Routledge.
  30. Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative science quarterly 17(3): 313-327.
  31. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989, January). Agency theory: An assessment and review. The Academy of Management Review, 14 (1), 57-74. JSTOR 258191 https://doi.org/10. 5465/amr.1989.4279003 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (1994). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3), 205-221. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF02074820 · DOI
  33. Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Translated from the French by Alan Sheridan, translation copyright 1977, Second Vintage Books Edition.
  34. Gal, U., Jensen, T. B., & Stein, M. K. (2020). Breaking the vicious cycle of algorithmic management: A virtue ethics approach to people analytics. Information and Organization, 30(2), 100301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. infoandorg.2020.100301 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Gandomi, A., & Haider, M. (2015). Beyond the hype: Big data concepts, methods, and analytics. International Journal of Information Management, 35(2), 137-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.10.007 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Garfinkel, S. L. (2015). De-identification of personal information. National Institute of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, NISTIR 8053, October http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8053 · DOI
  37. Gates, K. A. (2011). Our biometric future: Facial recognition technology and the culture of surveillance (Vol. 2). NYU Press.
  38. Gstrein, O. J. (2020). Mapping power and jurisdiction on the internet through the lens of government-led surveillance. Internet Policy Review, 9(3), 1-17. doi: 10.14763/ 2020.3.1497 · DOI
  39. Hagen, C. S., Bighash, L., Hollingshead, A. B., Shaikh, S. J., & Alexander, K. S. (2018). Why are you watching? Video surveillance in organizations. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 23(2), 274-291. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2017-0043 · DOI
  40. Hartman, L. P. (2001). Technology and ethics: Privacy in the workplace. Business and Society Review, 106(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/0045-3609.00099 · DOI
  41. Herschel, R., & Miori, V. M. (2017). Ethics & big data. Technology in Society, 49, 31-36. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.techsoc.2017.03.003 · DOI
  42. Howard-Snyder, F. (1996). A new argument for consequen- tialism? A reply to Sinnott-Armstrong. Analysis, 56(2), 111-115. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/56.2.111 · DOI
  43. Hu, L., & Ni, Q. (2017). IoT-driven automated object detec- tion algorithm for urban surveillance systems in smart cities. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 5(2), 747-754. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2017.2705560 · DOI
  44. Hursthouse, R. (1999). On virtue ethics. OUP Oxford.
  45. Hustinx, P. (2010). Privacy by design: Delivering the promises. Identity in the Information Society, 3(2), 253-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12394-010-0061-z International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) (2020). What does privacy mean?. The International Association of Privacy Professionals. https://iapp.org/ about/what-is-privacy/ Insights, F. (2018). Organizations are gearing up for more ethical and responsible use of artificial intelligence. SAS Institute Inc. SAS Press Release. (pp. 1-31). http://dssresources.com/news/5035.php . · DOI
  46. Koskela, H. (2006). The other side of surveillance: Webcams, power and agency. In Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond. Willan Publishing cop. (pp. 163-181).
  47. La Fors, K., Custers, B., & Keymolen, E. (2019). Reassessing values for emerging big data technologies: Integrating design-based and application-based approaches. Ethics and Information Technology, 21(3), 209-226. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10676-019-09503-4 · DOI
  48. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1-47. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2391211 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Lazar, S. (2017). Deontological decision theory and agent-centered options. Ethics, 127(3), 579-609. https:// doi.org/10.1086/690069 · DOI
  50. Lee, S., Shin, Y., Woo, S., Kim, K.,& Lee, H.N. (2013). Review of Wireless Brain-Computer Interface Systems, Brain-Computer Interface Systems -Recent Progress and Future Prospects, Reza Fazel-Rezai, IntechOpen, doi:10.5772/56436. Available from: https://www.intecho pen.com/books/brain-computer-interface-systems- recent-progress-and-future-prospects/review-of-wire less-brain-computer-interface-system s · DOI
  51. Lewis, P. V. (1985). Defining 'business ethics': Like nailing jello to a wall. Journal of Business ethics, 4(5), 377-383.
  52. Luppicini, R., & So, A. (2016). A technoethical review of commercial drone use in the context of governance, ethics, and privacy. Technology in Society, 46, 109-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.03.003 · DOI
  53. Marx, G. T. (1998). An ethics for the new surveillance. The Information Society, 14 (3), 171-185. https://doi.org/10. 1080/019722498128809 . · DOI
  54. Marx, G. T. (2005b). Seeing Hazily (But Not Darkly) through the lens: Some recent empirical studies of sur- veillance technologies. Law & Social Inquiry, 30(2), 339-399. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10. 1111/j.1747-4469.2005.tb01016.x? . · DOI
  55. Mason, R. O. (1986). Four ethical issues of the information age. MIS Quarterly, 10(1), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 248873 · DOI
  56. McKee, R. (2013). Ethical issues in using social media for health and health care research. Health Policy, 110(2-3), 298-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.02.006 · DOI
  57. McParland, C., & Connolly, R. (2020). Dataveillance in the workplace: Managing the Impact of Innovation. Business Systems Research Journal, 11(1), 106-124. https://doi.org/ 10.2478/bsrj-2020-0008 · DOI
  58. Moor, J. H. (2005). Why we need better ethics for emerging technologies. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(3), 111-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-006-0008-0 · DOI
  59. Moosavian, R. (2016). A just balance or just imbalance? The role of metaphor in misuse of private information. Journal of Media Law, 7(2), 196-224. https://doi.org/10. 1080/17577632.2015.1108587 · DOI
  60. Mourey, J. A., & Waldman, A. E. (2020). Past the privacy paradox: The importance of privacy changes as a function of control and complexity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 5(2), 162-180. https://doi.org/10. 1086/708034 · DOI
  61. Nemitz, P. (2018). Constitutional democracy and technol- ogy in the age of artificial intelligence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2133). http://doi. org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0089 · DOI · Paper page
  62. O'Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical Decision-Making literature: 1996-2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375-413. OHCHR 1996-2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-2929-7 · DOI
  63. Pal, R., Li, J., Crowcroft, J., Li, Y., Liu, M., & Sastry, N. (2020). Privacy Risk is a Function of Information Type: Learnings for the Surveillance Capitalism Age. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management.
  64. Palayoor, A. J., & Mavoothu, D. (2017). Ethical orientation: a solution for workplace monitoring and privacy issues. Seventeenth AIMS international conference on management.
  65. Palm, E., & Ove Hansson, S. The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA). (2006). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(5), 543-558. 0040-1625. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.06.002 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Pearce, K. E., & Rice, R. E. (2017). Somewhat separate and unequal: Digital divides, social networking sites, and capital-enhancing activities. Social Media+ Society, 3(2), 2 0 5 6 3 0 5 1 1 7 7 1 6 2 7 2
  67. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 2056305117733224 · DOI
  68. Petronio, S., & Child, J. T. (2020). Conceptualization and operationalization: Utility of communication privacy management theory. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31, 76-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.009 · DOI
  69. Plangger, K., & Montecchi, M. (2020). Thinking beyond privacy calculus: Investigating reactions to customer surveillance. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 50, 32-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2019.10.004 · DOI
  70. Power, D. J. (2016). "Big Brother" can watch us. Journal of Decision Systems, 25(2), 578-588. https://doi.org/10. 1080/12460125.2016.1187420 · DOI
  71. Power, D. J., & Heavin, C. (2017). Decision support, analy- tics, and business intelligence (Third Edition ed.). Business Expert Press.
  72. Power, D. J., & Heavin, C. (2018). Data-based decision making and digital transformation. Business Expert Press.
  73. Power, D. J., Heavin, C., McDermott, J., & Daly, M. (2018). Defining business analytics: An empirical approach. Journal of Business Analytics, 1(1), 40-53. https://doi. org/10.1080/2573234X.2018.1507605 · DOI
  74. Ragnedda, M. (2011). Social control and surveillance in the society of consumers. International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 3(6), 80-188. https://academicjour nals.org/article/article1379500884_Regnedda.pdf
  75. Ranjan, P., Li, J., Crowcroft, J., Li, Y., Liu, M., & Sastry, N. (2020). Privacy risk is a function of information type: learnings for the surveillance capitalism age, in IEEE transactions on network and service management. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSM.2020.3046704 · DOI
  76. Raymond, L., & Pare, G. (1992, July). Measurement of IT sophistication in small manufacturing businesses. Information Resources Management Journal, 5(2): 4-16. https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.1992040101 · DOI
  77. Reijers, W., & Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). Praxis and Contemporary Philosophy of Technology. In Narrative and Technology Ethics (pp. 25-48). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
  78. Richards, N. (2013). The dangers of surveillance. Harvard Law Review. May 20, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1934, https:// harvardlawreview.org/2013/05/the-dangers-of- surveillance
  79. Rowe, F. (2020). Contact tracing apps and values dilemmas: A privacy paradox in a neo-liberal world. International Journal of Information Management, 55, 102178. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102178 · DOI · Paper page
  80. Schwartz, M. S. (2016). Ethical decision-making theory: An integrated approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(4), 755-776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2886-8 · DOI
  81. Schwartz, P. M. (1994). Privacy and participation: Personal information and public sector regulation in the United States. Iowa L. Rev, 80, 553. https://heinonline.org/HOL/ Page?handle=hein.journals/ilr80&div=29&g_sent=1&casa_ token=1YVamnYvZCAAAAAA:KpeEudQyz6gBF2d_ x k f H Q I 8 d P K f r j l R 0 I Q y 6 X x Y b j G Y _ dV88PAL9uXlMITPyuV1AmZWFgpE&collection= journals Sewell, G., & Barker, J. R. (2006). Coercion versus care: Using irony to make sense of organizational surveillance. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 934-961. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22527466 · DOI
  82. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019). In Consequentialism, the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (summer edition).
  83. Smith, H., Milberg, S., & Burke, S. (1996). Information privacy: Measuring individuals' concerns about organiza- tional practices. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), 167-196. https:// doi.org/10.2307/249477 · DOI · Paper page
  84. Sumner, S. (2016). You: For sale: Protecting your personal data and privacy online. ISBN 978-0-12-803405-7. Elsevier Inc.
  85. Syed, A., Gillela, K., & Venugopal, C. (2013). The future revolu- tion on big data. Future, 2(6), 2446-2451. https://www.ics.uci. edu/~ddenenbe/248/Selected%20readings/Networking% 20Part%20I/TheFutureRevolutionOnBigData.pdf
  86. Taddicken, M. (2014). The 'privacy paradox' in the social web: The impact of privacy concerns, individual charac- teristics, and the perceived social relevance on different forms of self-disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(2), 248-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jcc4.12052 · DOI
  87. Tarkkanen, K., & Harkke, V. (2016). Manifestations of users' privacy concerns in a formative usability test of social networking site. In D. Kreps, G. Fletcher, & M. Griffiths (Eds.), Technology and intimacy: Choice or Coercion. HCC 2016. IFIP advances in information and communication technology (Vol. 474), pp.215-228. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007 .
  88. Tene, O., & Polonetsky, J. (2013). "Big data for all: Privacy and user control in the age of analytics," 11 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 239. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, Northwestern University . https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/ vol11/iss5/1 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Article 12, Universal declaration of human rights. United Nations . https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights
  89. Vagle, J. (2016). Surveillance is still about power. JustSecurity blog, February 9. https://www.justsecurity. o r g / 2 9 2 / s - basedresourceJustsecurity Valera, M., & Velastin, S. A. (2005). Intelligent distributed surveillance systems: A review, in IEE Proceedings - Vision. IEE Proceedings -Vision, Image, and Signal Processing, 152(2), 192-204. https://doi.org/10.1049/ip- vis:20041147 · DOI
  90. Wigan, M. (2020). Rethinking IT professional ethics. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 24. https:// doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v24i0.2851 · DOI
  91. Xu, Z., Mei, L., Hu, C., & Liu, Y. (2016). The big data analytics and applications of the surveillance system using video structured description technology. Cluster Computing, 19. Kluwer Academic Publishers. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10586-016-0581-x . · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Power, D. J., Heavin, C., & O’Connor, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Northern Iowa (US)
  • University College Cork (IE)
Corresponding author
Heavin, Ciara
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Business Analytics
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2021-05-06
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
155-170
ISSN
  • 2573-234X (ISSN-L)
  • 2573-2358
DOI
10.1080/2573234x.2021.1920856
OpenAlex
W3158961397
Cited by
48
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1
FWCI
4.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Business Analytics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UNI ScholarWorks (University of Northern Iowa) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
Keywords
right to privacy, ethical decision-making, ethical frameworks, deontology, virtue ethics, intelligent surveillance, privacy analysis, technology adoption decision

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review