The Myth of the Privacy Paradox
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Even with time, people still struggle to make choices in their own interests.
“Even with time, people still struggle to make choices in their own interests [65, 66].”
From Null Compliance: NYC Local Law 144 and the challenges of algorithm accountability (2024) · cites this paper as [66]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhang, Z., Jia, M., Lee, H.-P. (., Yao, B., Das, S., Lerner, A., Wang, D., & Li, T. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642385 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
“…and the privacy paradox has demonstrated that not only cognitive biases (i.e., trust and dark patterns) but also the sheer scale, lack of transparency, and binary nature of privacy choices online leads people to quite rationally give up on attempting to engage in privacy self-management [27, 64].”
Bradley, F. (2022) · Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association · doi:10.1080/24750158.2022.2101911 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Null Compliance: NYC Local Law 144 and the challenges of algorithm accountability
Wright, L., Muenster, R. M., Vecchione, B., Qu, T., Cai, P. (., Smith, A., Comm 2450 Student Investigators, Metcalf, J., & Matias, J. N. (2024) · The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3630106.3658998 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
- Authors
- Solove, D. J.
- Affiliations
- George Washington University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Solove, Daniel J.
- ORCID
- Solove, Daniel J.
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3006221238
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 9
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
- Scholarly Commons - George Washington University Law School (George Washington University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Law, Rights, and Freedoms
- Keywords
- privacy paradox, privacy valuation, privacy regulation, personal data, risk-based decision making, privacy law, behavioral biases
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
