IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2022 - 56

Feature
include them in the design has only recently been
the focus of research. For instance, in two studies
conducted by Spiekermann and colleagues [35],
[36], they found that despite their perceived importance,
software engineers believed they neither had
the autonomy nor the time required to implement
PEMs within systems. Similarly, in a study conducted
by Balebako et al. [37], they found that many developers
were often not aware of what information was
collected by third-party ads (22%). They additional
found that privacy concerns were less prevalent in
samples of employees from smaller companies relative
to larger companies.
Similar results were obtained in a survey conducted
by Senarath and Arachchilage [38] assessing
ICS professionals' awareness of a number of
privacy-related issues. They found that many developers
were concerned about whether they had
implemented privacy standards (38.8%), believed
that implementation was too complex (33.3%), or
believed that general design requirements contradict
privacy (27.6%). Moreover, few developers had
any knowledge of basic privacy concepts. Many
developers claimed to have never heard of practices
such as privacy impact assessment (47.2%),
fair information practices (38.9%), privacy by design
(36.1%), and data minimization (22.2%). Crucially,
the majority of developers in their survey did not see
privacy as a functional requirement (83.3%), suggesting
that it is not deemed to be an important feature
of design [39]. In a subsequent study, Senarath
et al. [40] found that the perceived usefulness of the
PEM as well as their compatibility with a developer's
approach were the main determinants of whether
the PEM were used or not. While providing insight
into developers' perceptions, these results do not
address the perceptions of users.
Social and ethical issues in trustworthy
design
Privacy and security have been persistent features
of normative typologies in ICS. For instance,
although privacy has been considered as a distinct
value [41], it has also been considered as a facet
security [42]. In related vein, van de Poel et al. [15]
suggest that while privacy and security are distinct
values, they need not conflict. For instance, monitoring
network activity might superficially appear to
infringe on an individual's privacy, however, in that
network surveillance can identify and take action
56
to stop network intrusions that might compromise
personal information and system functionality, these
cybersecurity activities also preserve privacy. This
is where other values (e.g., fairness and accountability)
must also be weighed when evaluating practices,
for example, if network surveillance occurs, it
should occur in an equitable manner.
The concept of privacy is multifaceted [18], [43],
[44]. For instance, Solove [45] articulates three dominant
metaphors for privacy: 1) Orwell's Big Brother;
2) the Secrecy Paradigm; and 3) the Invasion Conception.
Each of these metaphors emphasizes a
different facet of privacy in terms of rejection of
oppressive surveillance (especially by a centralized
authority), the need for concealment, and violation
as wrongdoing.
Sociotechnical systems are ultimately embedded
within societies, leading to the need to understand
norms of privacy and security in context. Societies
differ in terms of a number of beliefs including privacy
[43], [44] and security [46]. For instance, some
question whether specific cultural traditions are
compatible with the Western concept of privacy.
Within the Chinese cultural tradition, Yao-Huai [47]
notes that privacy has not been discussed in the
scholarly literature as an intrinsic value. Instead, it
is understood as an instrumental good, that is, to
achieve something. If privacy is seen as instrumental,
this might lead to reduced intrinsic motivation to
preserve it. For instance, Tang claimed that privacy
perhaps remains a largely foreign concept
for many Chinese people.... This is due to:
1. long tradition of collectiveness of the society
which is ranked above individualism;
2. tight control by the government that practices
close scrutiny of the citizens and keeps meticulous
records of them; and 3. average crowded living environment,
so that private space is basically something
luxurious and is therefore not generally expected.3
Similar remarks have also been made regarding
Thai society. Referring to anthropological work,
Ramsoota [19] notes that " the traditional Thai conception
of privacy is fundamentally collectivistic. It
is the kind of privacy that is shared by intimate members
of the same household. By this token, individualistic
privacy is said to have no place in traditional
Thai culture " (p. 98).
3Cited in Yao-Huai [47]. The original document is not available.
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2022

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2022
