Beware: Processing of Personal Data—Informed Consent Through Risk Communication

Lukas Seiling Weizenbaum Institute ; Rita Gsenger Weizenbaum Institute ; Filmona Mulugeta Mercedes-Benz (Germany) ; Marte Henningsen ; Lena Mischau Weizenbaum Institute ; Marie Schirmbeck Weizenbaum Institute

Abstract

<bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Background:</b> The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has been applicable since May 2018 and aims to further harmonize data protection law in the European Union. Processing personal data based on individuals’ consent is lawful under the GDPR only if such consent meets certain requirements and is “informed,” in particular. However, complex privacy notice design and individual cognitive limitations challenge data subjects’ ability to make elaborate consent decisions. Risk-based communication may address these issues. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Literature review:</b> Most research focuses on isolated aspects of risk in processing personal data, such as the actors involved, specific events leading to risk formation, or distinctive (context-dependent) consequences. We propose a model combining these approaches as the basis for context-independent risk communication. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Research questions:</b> 1. What are relevant information categories for risk communication in the processing of personal data online? 2. Which potentially adverse consequences can arise from specific events in the processing of personal data online? 3. How can consequences in the processing of personal data be avoided or mitigated? <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Research methodology:</b> The GDPR was examined through a systematic qualitative content analysis. The results inform the analysis of 32 interviews with privacy, data protection, and information security experts from academia, Non-Governmental Organizations, the public, and the private sector. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Results:</b> Risk-relevant information categories, specific consequences, and relations between them are identified, along with strategies for risk mitigation. The study concludes with a specified framework for perceived risk in processing personal data. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Conclusion:</b> The results provide controllers, regulatory bodies, data subjects, and experts in the field of professional communication with information on risk formation in personal data processing. Based on our analysis, we propose information categories for risk communication, which expand the current regulatory information requirements.

Journal
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Published
2024-03-01
DOI
10.1109/tpc.2024.3361328
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (1)

  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Also cites 51 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1145/3319535.3354212
  2. Do cookie banners respect my choice: Measuring legal compliance of banners from IAB Europ…
  3. 10.1145/3106426.3106427
  4. 10.1080/1369118x.2018.1486870
  5. 10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_472-2
  6. 10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697
  7. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.025
  8. 10.3390/soc4040770
  9. 10.1109/msp.2005.22
  10. 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00070.x
  11. 10.1007/978-3-319-20898-5_33
  12. 10.1145/3274371
  13. 10.1007/978-3-642-14282-6_23
  14. 10.1016/j.compind.2009.12.001
  15. 10.1145/1572532.1572538
  16. 10.21552/edpl/2019/3/9
  17. Whats in an icon Promises and pitfalls of data protection iconography
  18. 10.1201/9781482289688-50
  19. 10.1098/rsta.2016.0118
  20. 10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.010
  21. A comprehensive model of perceived risk of E-commerce transactions
    Int. J. Electron. Commerce  
  22. 10.1111/isj.12062
  23. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.03.003
  24. 10.1145/3281444
  25. 10.2139/ssrn.2411672
  26. 10.1515/9780804772891
  27. 10.1515/til-2019-0008
  28. 10.1057/s41303-017-0064-z
  29. 10.1201/9781482289688-16
  30. 10.1016/0022-4375(93)90004-7
  31. 10.1177/154193129003400801
  32. 10.2478/popets-2019-0047
  33. 10.1016/0925-7535(93)90025-9
  34. 10.1016/j.jrt.2022.100029
  35. 10.1057/9780230244276_2
  36. 10.1017/9781107295094.013
  37. 10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30150-4
  38. 10.1017/9781108555067.007
  39. 10.4135/9781412986229
  40. 10.30709/978-3-86113-806-8
  41. 10.14763/2019.2.1410
  42. 10.1017/CBO9781107590205.004
  43. 10.1186/s40537-019-0177-4
  44. 10.1257/jel.20171452
  45. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2019.02.001
  46. 10.1109/csf.2014.15
  47. 10.1017/CBO9781107590205.003
  48. 10.1007/978-3-642-23768-3_2
  49. 10.1201/9781482289688-90
  50. 10.1109/cedem.2017.23
  51. 10.1145/3411764.3445387