82
research from Greenaway et al. (2015) to posit a new dimension to privacy
orientations, which we call the Philanthropic Privacy dimension, where
organizations undertake privacy activities with the aim of resolving privacy
as a social issue. This privacy dimension is important, as organizations taking actions beyond their corporate obligations have been found to experience less privacy incidents (Accenture and Ponemon 2015).
The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows: in the next section we discuss the tensions arising from privacy, through the lens of control and justice. Following that section, we provide a brief overview of
privacy risks in the CSP environment and outline the boundaries of privacy
responsibilities within cloud computing models. We subsequently describe
the development of our privacy orientation framework. We conclude this
chapter with proposals for application of the framework and suggestions
for further research.
5.2 PrIvacy as a control or JustIce BehavIor
Dinev (2014) suggests that societal discourse has come to equate privacy
and information privacy, so the terms are used here interchangeably.
Information privacy is frequently described as a multidimensional concept
that is dependent on context (Culnan and Williams 2009; Xu et al. 2012).
The multiple dimensions affecting privacy being harm, protection, provision, and scope (Mulligan et al. 2016) and the facets shaping context
being information sensitivity, industry sector, political sector and technological applications (Smith et al. 2011).
For over two decades, theories of control or theories of justice have
been used to explore privacy challenges. Control theories, such as social
contract theory, have frequently been applied to explore privacy challenges
between organizations and consumers (Martin 2012, 2016; Wright and
Xie 2019) as too have justice theories e.g. procedural and distributive justice (Ashworth and Free 2006; Culnan and Armstrong 1999). However,
with the exception of Greenaway et al. (2015) no other study has combined these theoretical concepts to provide a balanced view of the privacy
tensions arising between CSPs and CSCs.
5.2.1
Privacy as Control
While there is no single concept of information privacy that crosses all
disciplines (Smith et al. 2011) ‘control over personal information’ is a
V. LYONS
research from Greenaway et al. (2015) to posit a new dimension to privacy
orientations, which we call the Philanthropic Privacy dimension, where
organizations undertake privacy activities with the aim of resolving privacy
as a social issue. This privacy dimension is important, as organizations taking actions beyond their corporate obligations have been found to experience less privacy incidents (Accenture and Ponemon 2015).
The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows: in the next section we discuss the tensions arising from privacy, through the lens of control and justice. Following that section, we provide a brief overview of
privacy risks in the CSP environment and outline the boundaries of privacy
responsibilities within cloud computing models. We subsequently describe
the development of our privacy orientation framework. We conclude this
chapter with proposals for application of the framework and suggestions
for further research.
5.2 PrIvacy as a control or JustIce BehavIor
Dinev (2014) suggests that societal discourse has come to equate privacy
and information privacy, so the terms are used here interchangeably.
Information privacy is frequently described as a multidimensional concept
that is dependent on context (Culnan and Williams 2009; Xu et al. 2012).
The multiple dimensions affecting privacy being harm, protection, provision, and scope (Mulligan et al. 2016) and the facets shaping context
being information sensitivity, industry sector, political sector and technological applications (Smith et al. 2011).
For over two decades, theories of control or theories of justice have
been used to explore privacy challenges. Control theories, such as social
contract theory, have frequently been applied to explore privacy challenges
between organizations and consumers (Martin 2012, 2016; Wright and
Xie 2019) as too have justice theories e.g. procedural and distributive justice (Ashworth and Free 2006; Culnan and Armstrong 1999). However,
with the exception of Greenaway et al. (2015) no other study has combined these theoretical concepts to provide a balanced view of the privacy
tensions arising between CSPs and CSCs.
5.2.1
Privacy as Control
While there is no single concept of information privacy that crosses all
disciplines (Smith et al. 2011) ‘control over personal information’ is a
V. LYONS