84
5.2.2
Privacy as Justice
The power-responsibility equilibrium (PRE) model, developed by Davis
et al. (1980), states that power (which Laczniak and Murphy (1993)
define as ‘the ability to control’) should be in equilibrium, where the partner with more power also has the responsibility to ensure an environment
of trust and confidence. If an organization chooses a strategy of great
power and less responsibility, it might benefit in the short-term but will
lose control in the long-term e.g. from increased regulation (Caudill and
Murphy 2000). Organizations can re-balance the control-equilibrium by
returning a level of control to the consumer. For instance, in 2019, Apple
updated its privacy website with a revised declaration of the company’s
position on privacy.
1
This included a new section titled ‘Control’ with a
subsection titled ‘Take Charge of Your Data’ which outlines:
To give you more control over your personal information, we are rolling out
a set of dedicated privacy management tools.
This relinquishing of control by an organization is enshrined in the
concept of information stewardship. Information stewardship implies that
no matter what an organization does with stakeholders’ information (for
example, selling it to third parties) the organization always remains responsible and retains oversight of the processing of that information
(Rosenbaum 2010). Apple offer opportunities to their consumers that
return a level of transparency and control to the consumer—by providing
clear and simple explanations of what privacy options are available and
how to implement them—they provide opportunities to their consumers
that score highly on the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs)
scales. The principles of FIPPs are transparency, preference, purpose, minimization, limitation, quality, integrity, security, and accountability (DHS
2008, p. 4). Information privacy and FIPPs have been linked to procedural justice (Culnan and Bies 2003), where an organization’s control
over personal information is noted as ‘just’ when the information owner is
vested with the key principles of FIPPs (Culnan and Bies 2003; Greenaway
et al. 2015). Organizations demonstrating behaviors that exceed compliance obligations to protect information entrusted to them, view themselves as information stewards rather than information owners and
1
h t t p s : / / w w w. m a c s t o r i e s . n e t / n e w s / a p p l e - r e v e a l s - m a j o r- u p d a t e - t o - i t s -
privacy-webpage/
V. LYONS
5.2.2
Privacy as Justice
The power-responsibility equilibrium (PRE) model, developed by Davis
et al. (1980), states that power (which Laczniak and Murphy (1993)
define as ‘the ability to control’) should be in equilibrium, where the partner with more power also has the responsibility to ensure an environment
of trust and confidence. If an organization chooses a strategy of great
power and less responsibility, it might benefit in the short-term but will
lose control in the long-term e.g. from increased regulation (Caudill and
Murphy 2000). Organizations can re-balance the control-equilibrium by
returning a level of control to the consumer. For instance, in 2019, Apple
updated its privacy website with a revised declaration of the company’s
position on privacy.
1
This included a new section titled ‘Control’ with a
subsection titled ‘Take Charge of Your Data’ which outlines:
To give you more control over your personal information, we are rolling out
a set of dedicated privacy management tools.
This relinquishing of control by an organization is enshrined in the
concept of information stewardship. Information stewardship implies that
no matter what an organization does with stakeholders’ information (for
example, selling it to third parties) the organization always remains responsible and retains oversight of the processing of that information
(Rosenbaum 2010). Apple offer opportunities to their consumers that
return a level of transparency and control to the consumer—by providing
clear and simple explanations of what privacy options are available and
how to implement them—they provide opportunities to their consumers
that score highly on the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs)
scales. The principles of FIPPs are transparency, preference, purpose, minimization, limitation, quality, integrity, security, and accountability (DHS
2008, p. 4). Information privacy and FIPPs have been linked to procedural justice (Culnan and Bies 2003), where an organization’s control
over personal information is noted as ‘just’ when the information owner is
vested with the key principles of FIPPs (Culnan and Bies 2003; Greenaway
et al. 2015). Organizations demonstrating behaviors that exceed compliance obligations to protect information entrusted to them, view themselves as information stewards rather than information owners and
1
h t t p s : / / w w w. m a c s t o r i e s . n e t / n e w s / a p p l e - r e v e a l s - m a j o r- u p d a t e - t o - i t s -
privacy-webpage/
V. LYONS