↓ Skip to main content

Respecting Context to Protect Privacy: Why Meaning Matters

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 Mendeley
Title
Respecting Context to Protect Privacy: Why Meaning Matters
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11948-015-9674-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Nissenbaum

Abstract

In February 2012, the Obama White House endorsed a Privacy Bill of Rights, comprising seven principles. The third, "Respect for Context," is explained as the expectation that "companies will collect, use, and disclose personal data in ways that are consistent with the context in which consumers provide the data." One can anticipate the contested interpretations of this principle as parties representing diverse interests vie to make theirs the authoritative one. In the paper I will discuss three possibilities and explain why each does not take us far beyond the status quo, which, regulators in the United States, Europe, and beyond have found problematic. I will argue that contextual integrity offers the best way forward for protecting privacy in a world where information increasingly mediates our significant activities and relationships. Although an important goal is to influence policy, this paper aims less to stipulate explicit rules than to present an underlying justificatory, or normative rationale. Along the way, it will review key ideas in the theory of contextual integrity, its differences from existing approaches, and its harmony with basic intuition about information sharing practices and norms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 173 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 21%
Student > Master 19 11%
Researcher 11 6%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Other 34 20%
Unknown 52 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 34 20%
Computer Science 28 16%
Arts and Humanities 12 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 6%
Philosophy 7 4%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 60 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2018.
All research outputs
#13,558,274
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#600
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,162
of 265,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#21
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,885 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.