Privacy and Cookies: The Choices We Make

-- By ManuelLujan - 04 Dec 2024

Introduction

Anyone who browses the Internet regularly has heard about cookies. Many people mindlessly accept them without hesitation. Others may be vaguely aware of the privacy concerns associated with them, but still dismiss those as insignificant. To some, fear of surveillance sounds like paranoid delusions stemming from conspiracy theories. And, in any case, most of us “have nothing to hide,” so why bother? But no one has nothing to hide. The basic human aspiration to a sphere of individuality that is concealed from the rest of society is reflected in most of the actions that we take all the time. For example, when we walk into a store, we do it with the reasonable expectation that nobody will request that we disclose our personal information in order to be let in. It is safe to assume that a security guard asking us to allow him to go over our browsing history would be met with fierce resistance. And yet, when we go online, all such resistance suddenly vanishes. So, what’s the difference?

What We Disclose

Internet cookies are text files placed by websites which can collect all sorts of information about users, such as our unique ID, browsing and download history, and user preferences. However, a greater concern as regards privacy is that posed by another kind of cookies, known as third-party cookies, which are actually placed from domains other than the one being visited by the user. These can be generated by marketers and social media platforms, for example, and they can track users to get access to their behavior, hobbies, past purchases, political affiliation, and more. This information is then used to present us with customized content, such as targeted ads and political propaganda (1). The question that naturally ensues is why we are so willing to submit to them.

The Psychology of Choice

In 2015, the organ donation consent rate in Wales was below 50%, and the donation rate was about 12 organ donors per million population (pmp). Four years later, the consent rate had gone up to 77%, while the donation rate faced a 50% increase, to 18 organ donors pmp. Similar positive changes were seen in Argentina and Austria, among others. All of these countries share something in common: they shifted from an opt-in system, where consent to post-mortem organ donation has to be given explicitly, to an opt-out system in which consent is presumed and can only be withdrawn through an express statement to this effect (2). These changes did not just have an impact on the figures themselves but also altered the social perception of the moral implications of organ donation. In countries with opt-in systems, registering as a donor is seen as an act of great altruism and sacrifice, almost equivalent to going on a hunger strike in support of a cause. In contrast, where opt-out systems are in place, organ donation comes closer to letting others ahead of one in line (3).

The example of organ donation sheds light on the subconscious factors affecting choice, which can be extrapolated to the case of cookies. Website owners are not oblivious to this fact. Some legislations require websites to apply an opt-in consent system, such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. Others, such as the California Privacy Rights Act, do not contain this requirement. However, even when mandated to request explicit consent from users before placing cookies, website owners devise ingenious ways to induce our complacency. Websites tend to contain readily available “Accept all cookies” buttons, almost always in bright and appealing colors encouraging interaction. On the other hand, “Reject all cookies” or “Reject all non-essential cookies” buttons are usually grey and uninviting, or placed in less intuitive positions. In some cases they are simply non-existent, and frustrating “Manage cookies” or “Customize cookies” buttons are in their place, forcing users to reject each cookie category individually. These details may appear innocent if we work under the assumption that Internet users are perfectly rational all the time, but that would be a naïve presumption (4). Most of these features result in the subconscious impression that accepting all cookies is the default option while going out of our way to reject them is a cumbersome, inconvenient alternative. That, coupled with the belief that the incentive to protect our online privacy is too slim to be taken seriously, leads users to act with such complacency.

Conclusion

Protecting our privacy is both easier and more significant than many people think. The dismissive claim that our privacy is irrelevant and not worth the hassle is not only misguided but also inconsistent with our behavior in other aspects of our lives. The fatalist claim that insisting on protecting our online privacy is fighting a losing battle is also misinformed. We have the tools we need to protect ourselves, even if we have been led to believe we do not. Sometimes, huge steps in the right direction can be taken by simply stopping to think twice and taking the time to make more rational decisions.

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, ManuelLujan
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.