



































Americans Cannot Consent to Companies’ Use of Their Data


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

5 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

AMERICANS DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THEIR DATA IS USED, CAN'T 

CONTROL IT 
  

 

John David Smith, Jane Elizabeth Williams, Michael Thomas Jones  

University of Pennsylvania, USA  

  

Abstract 

This study examines Americans' knowledge and beliefs about commercial data-extraction practices. The study 

finds that Americans have a limited understanding of how their data is collected and used, and they do not believe 

they can do anything to control it. This lack of knowledge and belief undermines the ability of individuals to 

provide genuine consent to companies' use of their data. 

Keywords: Americans' knowledge, Commercial data-extraction practices, Consent, Data privacy, Data 

protection, Opt-in/opt-out  

  

Introduction  

Consent has aways been a central part of Americans’ interactions with the commercial internet.2 Federal 

and state laws, as well as decisions from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), require either implicit (“opt out”) 

or explicit (“opt in”) permission from individuals for companies to take and use data about them. Genuine opt-

out and opt-in consent requires that people have knowledge about commercial data-extraction practices as well 

as a belief they can do something about them. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the commercial internet, 

this Annenberg national survey finds that Americans have neither.   

Our portrait of a society underprepared for the behind-the-screen pitfalls of internet commerce is drawn 

from a nationally representative, multimode fall 2022 survey of 2,014 American adults conducted for the authors 

by the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center. Responding to a 17-question true/false quiz 

about basic data gathering practices and policies, huge percentages of Americans do not know— 
1 Funded by an unrestricted grant from Facebook.  
2 The authors agree with the view that because the word internet has become a commonplace social 

technology not owned by any entity, it is appropriate to de-capitalize the word, contrary to APA style. A previous 

example is the phonograph.  See, for example, Bromwich (2016) and J. Schwartz (2002).  

Copyright © 2023 (Joseph Turow, jturow@asc.upenn.edu; Yphtach Lelkes, yphtach.lelkes@asc.upenn.edu; Nora 

A. Draper, Nora.Draper@unh.edu; and Ari Ezra Waldman, awaldman@law.uci.edu). Licensed under the Creative 

Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives (by-nc-nd). Available at http://ijoc.org. and substantial 

percentages admit they do not know—basic practices and policies around companies’ use of people’s data. 

Moreover, high levels of frustration, concern, and fear compound Americans’ lack of knowledge. At a time when 

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

6 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

individual consent lies at the core of key legal frameworks governing the collection and use of personal 

information, our findings describe an environment where genuine consent may not be possible.   

Background  

Digital Consent and the Law  

The contemporary approach to consent to U.S. privacy law and practice has its roots in five Fair 

Information Practices and Procedures (FIPPs), a set of principles meant to empower the public when interacting 

with data collectors. These “FIPPs,” which include notice, choice/consent, information review and correction, 

information security, and enforcement/redress, date back to a 1973 report by the U.S. Department of Health, 

Education, and Welfare (HEW), entitled Records, Computers, and the Rights of Citizens (U.S. Secretary’s 

Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems, 1973). Although written long before the mass 

popularization of the World Wide Web, social media, and machine learning, that report was commissioned in 

response to the growing “use of automated data systems containing information about individuals” (U.S. 

Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems, 1973, Preface).   

In the decades since the HEW report, the FTC has built a “common law” of privacy through consent 

decrees and settlement agreements with the companies it regulates (Solove & Hartzog, 2011). These consent 

decrees have primarily focused on notice and held companies to the promises they make in their privacy policies. 

Several sector-specific federal laws (for example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) do the 

same. Not waiting for federal regulation, several states have passed laws codifying versions of the FIPPs 

(Waldman, 2022b). Parallel to these developments, various European privacy conventions have issued similar but 

more expansive guidelines for giving individuals knowledge and control over their data. Consent is not the only 

basis for lawful data collection according to the E.U.’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), but it is the 

most frequently invoked (Kaminski & Jones, 2021, p. 109). Therefore, in both the United States and the European 

Union, commercial marketers’ right to use data taken from individuals on the internet turns on the notion of 

consent.  

As a result, much privacy law still relies on industry self-regulation and individual privacy 

selfmanagement: Companies post privacy policies that detail the information they collect and individual 

consumers are tasked with reading and understanding these policies and making decisions about whether to use 

a website. This regime is known as “notice-and-consent.”  

In the European Union, consent must be explicit; a person must “opt in” to allowing their data to be used. 

In the United States, FTC oversight and state laws allow consent to be implicit in most cases. That is, if privacy 

policies reveal what the company is doing with consumers’ data, taking and using that data— and even selling 

it—is acceptable. Many privacy policies allow individuals to “opt out” of these activities, often tying to an 

industrywide “ad choices” framework that purports to facilitate this activity, but doing so is quite complex. 

California requires internet marketers to post a clickable notice—“Do Not Sell My Information”—that aims to 

streamline the activity. Some states do require opt in for firms taking “sensitive” information such as sexual 

orientation and some health issues (California Consumer Privacy Act, 2018). Opting in for sensitive issues has 

also become customary for the largest websites and apps. And Apple requires apps that track user activities across 

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

7 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

other apps and internet locations allow users to click an optin button affirming that is acceptable (Cyphers, 2022). 

But whether emphasizing opt in or opt out, all these activities are based on the idea that it is possible for a person 

to read a long, legalese privacy policy, process and understand that information, and freely give informed consent 

for the taking and use of information about that person on the internet.  

Concerns About Digital Consent  

Many scholars specializing in the legal and philosophical aspects of technology have increasingly 

despaired that the notice-and-consent regime puts too much responsibility for privacy protection on the individual. 

They have worried that the privacy policies and the steps encouraged by the fair information practices do not 

provide people the transparency and control over commercial data about them that the FTC, European Union, and 

other government entities have expected.  

As early as 1999, Paul Schwartz warned that consent garnered through privacy notices was unlikely to be 

either informed or voluntarily given (P. Schwartz, 1999). He argued that the notices are generally meaningless 

since they are often ignored by individuals, written in vague legalistic language, and fail to present meaningful 

opportunities for individual choice (see also Obar & Oeldorf-Hirsch, 2020). In a similar vein, Solon Barocas and 

Helen Nissenbaum (2009) observed that “notice and consent” regimes faces several challenges: (1) there is often 

a disconnect between the privacy policies of online entities and those of the third parties with whom they share 

data; (2) privacy policies change over time, often with short or no notice; and (3) the proliferation of actors in the 

digital advertising spaces results in flows of user data not legible to users. Neil Richards and Woodrow Hartzog 

(2019) suggested that existing consent models invite unwitting and coerced consent. They argued that individuals 

cannot understand the legal agreements, technologies, or consequences of data extraction. In fact, work by Joseph 

Turow, Michael Hennessy, and Nora Draper (2018) showed that people even misunderstand the very meaning of 

the term privacy policy, thinking it promises the firm will protect their privacy.   

Arguments About Consent and Policy  

Despite these concerns, the policy implications of Americans’ consent to commercial data extraction 

remain in play. There are those who say there is no problem, those who see the problem and view it as fixable, 

and those who say consent is beyond repair.  

Marketers and many within the information-driven industry see no problem with notice-andconsent. When 

confronted with surveys indicating people don’t want to be tracked, they argue that people only claim to care 

about privacy in surveys; their actions say otherwise. This is known as the “privacy paradox” (Norberg, Horne, 

& Horne, 2007). People rationally give up their data, the marketing industry claims, because users want access to 

ads, offers, and discounts that are helpfully personalized and relevant. Governments have also accepted the 

legitimacy of frameworks based on consent. They differ only in terms of whether individuals should be asked to 

opt out of data gathering described in the privacy policy or opt into data gathering when the commercial 

relationship is starting or changing.  

There are those who think consent can be redeemed. They point to the need for more transparency and 

education about the interactive media environment. A stream of media literacy scholarship is based on the idea 

that people from preschool onward can be taught to manage their data online and on apps. Philip Masur, for 

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

8 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

example, argues for research “on privacy-related knowledge dimensions, abilities and skills” that suggest the 

“necessary prerequisites for informationally self-determined behavior in online environments” (see Mansur, 219, 

para. 26). More specifically, Sonia Livingstone (2019) and her team studying children and online privacy in the 

United Kingdom find “important gaps in children’s ability to foresee and navigate institutional and commercial 

aspects of privacy” (para. 3). They emphasize young children’s difficulty assimilating certain types of 

technological information and that neither teachers nor parents can keep up with “the fast-changing digital 

environment” (Livingstone, 2019, para. 8). Nevertheless, they add, efforts need to be made to create a learning 

environment which allows children to develop not only the necessary technical skills but also a broader 

understanding of how media and data are created, recorded, tracked, aggregated, analysed, distributed, applied, 

used and commercialized. (Livingstone, 2019, para. 6)  

Education organizations have been trying to do some of that, with varied attention to commerce and 

personal information. For example, PBS Kids’ Humble Media Genius (2017), for children 6–11, discusses privacy 

in terms of the need for passwords. It doesn’t mention specific concerns about marketers and data. “The Smart 

Talk,” from the Norton antimalware firm and the National Parent Teacher Association (2022), is a “technology 

agreement” signed by parents and their children that formalizes their discussions about “digital safety topics” (p. 

3). In addition to noting the importance of such actions as password use, privacy settings, and two-factor 

authentication with apps, the agreement suggests somewhat vaguely that the child “pause to consider who I am 

giving my information to and how it could be used or sold” (National Parent Teacher Association & Norton, 2022, 

“Preface to Questions,” pp. 15–18). Common Sense Media’s (n.d.) multigrade “Digital Citizenship” approach 

does introduce the concept of “big data” in its seventh- and eighthgrade curricula. The seventh- and eighth-grade 

curricula explain “why information about [students] and their behaviors is valuable to companies[,] analyze how 

certain types of data are used by companies[, and] . . . [explore] strategies to limit individual data collection by 

companies” (Common Sense Media, n.d., para. 2). In the eighth grade, that includes how to turn cookies off in 

their browser settings if the student is uncomfortable with tracking. While these programs have different 

approaches, they all emphasize individual autonomy and ignore government regulations and oversights. .  

An extension of this individual literacy approach for adults is the notion of a “privacy label.” In 2009, 

researchers from Carnegie Mellon University created “a clear, uniform, single-page summary of a company’s 

privacy policy” so people could decide whether to use a particular website or another (Kelly,  

Bresee, Cranor, & Reeder, 2009, p. 1). In 2020, Common Sense Education similarly suggested the idea of 

“Building a Better Nutrition Label for Privacy” (Girard, 2020). Commercially, both Apple’s App Store (in 2021) 

and the Google Play app emporium (in 2022) initiated versions of privacy “nutrition labels” for the apps they 

carry. Both require app developers to present their data use practices in the same format as every other app (Perez, 

2022).  

Evidence suggests that the nutrition label does not work. In a January 2021 spot check of app labels on 

the App Store, the Washington Post found inaccuracies in labels’ claims and suggested they gave users a false 

sense of security about how their data are used. Google also acknowledged the difficulty of ferreting out false 

information. Both companies said they would try to ensure the accuracy of apps’ assertions about their tracking 

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

9 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

practices (Fowler, 2021). Yet it is hard to see how a standardized, necessarily oversimplified “nutrition label” can 

give people meaningful insights into the complicated world of data collection that companies allude to in their 

privacy policies and that they practice in even more difficult-tounderstand ways.  

It is the intricate nature of these activities that leads a third group of scholars to find consent useless. Helen 

Nissenbaum (2018), for example, suggests that the complexity of digital life makes securing real consent 

impossible. Julie Cohen (2021) adds that digital networks are too powerful for consent-based approaches to 

privacy that center on individual control. Daniel Solove (2013) suggests that the rights companies extend to 

individuals regarding the collection and use of their personal information are undermined by a lack of public 

understanding about how that information is used. Solove argues that technology companies “take refuge” in 

consent; they rely on a click-to-agree button to give them permission to do whatever they want with user data. 

And Ari Waldman (2021) has shown the consent paradigm presumes perfect rationality in decision making that 

does not exist and conflates consent with actual choice (pp. 52–67).  

This debate between those who support the notice-and-consent model and those who recognize its dangers 

led us to carry out a major inquiry into the extent to which adult Americans can navigate notice and whether 

knowledgeable, or informed, consent is even possible. We adapt our notion of informed consent from the 

formulation expressed by Robert J. Levine (1988) in connection with the ethics of clinical medical research. As 

summarized by Cottrell and McKenzie (2011),   

Informed consent is “the voluntary agreement of an individual, or his or her authorized representative, who has 

the legal capacity to give consent, and who exercises free power of choice, without undue inducement or any 

other form of constraint or coercion to participate.” (p. 106)  

They add that “the individual must have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the nature of the proposed 

research, the anticipated risks and potential benefits, and the requirements of the research to be able to make an 

informed decision” (Cottrell & McKenzie, 2011, p. 106).  

From the standpoint of the use of people’s data by commercial entities, Levine’s formulation points to two 

elements of consent, both of which are necessary to make an informed decision: understanding and autonomy. A 

person must understand the corporate practices and policies—and the extent of legal protections, if any—related 

to the data companies try to take about them. A person must also believe that technology companies will give the 

person the independence to decide whether and when to give up the data. If people do not fit either or both 

elements, it indicates that their consent to companies’ data collection is involuntary, not free, and illegitimate.  

Our research task, then, involved investigating Americans’ knowledge of essential facts about marketing 

practices and policies in the digital environment as well as their belief that they have the autonomy to control the 

extent to which marketers take and use data about them. To explore Americans’ sense of autonomy, we used the 

idea of digital resignation, a concept Turow, Draper, and Hennessey introduced in 2015. It measures the extent to 

which Americans say they would like to control the data firms have about them but believe they cannot. Since the 

term was coined, marketers’ command of internet data has become more far reaching, cross media, and location 

specific. What we find now definitively negates the idea that Americans feel that they can adequately understand 

and consent to marketers’ data-gathering regime. It also indicates that Americans do not have even the basic 

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

10 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

knowledge to benefit from such a regime. At this point in the development of the internet, individual consent is 

unworkable.  

The Study and Its Population  

Our findings come from a survey we carried out regarding Americans’ opinions about and understanding 

of questions related to privacy, surveillance, and technology. The survey was conducted from August 8, 2022, to 

September 8, 2022, by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. A general 

population sample of adults (18 and over) was selected from NORC’s AmeriSpeak Panel. NORC conducted Web 

and telephone interviews with a nationally representative, English (N = 1963) or Spanish (N = 51) speaking 

sample of 2,014 adult internet users living in the continental United States. The survey used a mixed-mode design, 

and respondents could opt to take the survey via a self-administered Web survey (N = 1919) or by talking to a 

live telephone interviewer (N = 95). Respondents were sampled using area probability and address-based 

sampling from NORC’s National Sample Frame, and fully represented the U.S. population. The median survey 

duration was 13 minutes. The Weighted Household Recruitment Rate (RR3) was 20.3%. 7,141 panelists were 

invited to take the survey, yielding a completion rate of 28.2%. The Weighted Cumulative Response Rate was 

4.5%, a good result for national surveys. Statistical results are weighted to correct known demographic 

discrepancies. The margin of sampling error for the complete set of weighted data is ±2.95% at the 95% 

confidence level. The error margin is higher for smaller subgroups within the sample. Table 1 provides an 

introductory snapshot of the population we interviewed.  

Table 1. Characteristics of U.S. Adults in Sample (N = 2,014).  

Trait  %  

Sex    

Male  49  

Female  51  

Age 18–24    

11  

25–34  17  

35–44  17  

45–54  14  

55–64  18  

65–74  14  

75+  8  

Race/Ethnicity   

White, non-Hispanic   

  

62  

Black, non-Hispanic  12  

Asian, non-Hispanic  6  

Hispanic  17  

Mixed, other non-Hispanic  3  

Income   

Under $30,000  

  

21  

$30,000 to under $60,000  27  

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

11 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

Statement   

True   

( % )   

False   

) % (   

DK   

( ) %   

Wrong   

( % )   

71   24   

$60,000 to under $100,000  24  

$100,000 and Over  28  

Highest Education Level  

Less than high school graduate  

  

9  

High school or equivalent  

Vocational/tech school/some college/associates Bachelor’s degree  

29  

26  

21  

Postgraduate study/professional degree  15  

Note. When numbers in this and other tables don’t add to 100%, it is due to rounding error.  

  
Findings  

Americans Overwhelmingly Lack the Basic Knowledge  About Internet Privacy Necessary to Grant Consent  

A primary element of consent is sufficient understanding of risks and benefits. Strikingly large percentages 

of adult Americans are not alert to basic practices and policies by companies and governments that can help them 

navigate the commercial internet in ways that benefit them. Table 2 contains 17 truefalse statements we asked our 

sample to gauge what we call their internet navigational knowledge— important facts that can help them use the 

digital commercial world to their benefit. It shows that large percentages of Americans—71%—do know that 

when they go to a website, it can “collect information about [their] online behaviors even if [they] don’t register 

using [their] name or email address.” Beyond that, awareness of types of company tracking drops considerably: 

55% know a smart TV can help advertisers send an ad to a viewer’s smartphone based on the show they are 

watching; 52% are correct that a company can tell that a person has opened its email even the person doesn’t click 

on any links; and 46% know that a website can track people’s activity across devices even if they do not log into 

the same account on those devices.  

Table 2. True-False Statements About Basic Corporate and Governmental Internet Practices and Policies (N 

= 2,014).  

 

 

 

When I go to a website, it can collect information about my  5  30  

online behaviors even if I don’t register using my name or email 

address.  

    

A smart TV can help advertisers send an ad to a viewer’s smartphone 

based on the show they are watching.  

55  7  38  45  

A company can tell that I have opened its email even if I don’t click on 

any links.   

52  10  38  48  

A website cannot track my activity across devices unless I log into the 

same account on those devices.  

17  46  36  53  

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

12 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

When a website has a privacy policy, it means the site will not share my 

information with other websites or companies without my 

permission.  

33  44  23  56  

Facebook’s user privacy settings allow me to limit the information 

about me that Facebook shares with advertisers.  

44  20  36  56  

All fifty states have laws requiring companies to notify individuals of 

security breaches involving personally identifiable information.  

43  18  39  57  

It is illegal for internet marketers to record my computer’s IP address.  15  40  46  61  

It is legal for an online store to charge people different prices depending 

on where they are located.  

38  25  38  63  

The doorbell company Ring has a policy of not sharing recordings with 

law enforcement without the homeowner’s permission.  

37  13  50  63  

By law, a travel site such as Expedia or Orbitz that compares prices on 

different airlines must include the lowest airline prices.  

23  28  49  72  

In the United States, the federal government regulates the types of digital 

information companies collect about individuals.  

30  24  45  75  

Some large American cities have banned the use of facial recognition 

technology by law enforcement.  

30  12  58  70  

The U.S. federal government requires that companies ask internet users 

to opt in to being tracked.  

24  30  45  76  

Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act ensures that digital 

platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube can be held 

responsible for illegal content posted on their platforms.  

33  19  48  81  

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) 

prevents apps that provide information about health . . . from selling 

data collected about app users to marketers.  

37  18  45  82  

Some social media platforms activate users’ smartphone speakers to 

listen to conversations and identify their interests in order to sell 

them ads.  

44  16  40  85  

 
Note. Bolded numbers indicate the correct answers.  

Even lower percentages of Americans can correctly identify when corporate and government policies give 

them control over information. Less than half of the adult population (44%) understands that the phrase privacy 

policy does not indicate a site won’t share a person’s information with other sites without the person’s permission 

(many privacy policies state that they do share, in fact, and even sell such information).   

From there the table shows a slide toward increasing collective ignorance. For example, just a bit more 

than one in three (38%) knows it is legal for an online store to charge people different prices depending on where 

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

13 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

they are located. Fewer than one in three (28%) knows that a travel site such as Expedia or Orbitz that compares 

prices on different airlines need not include the lowest airline prices. Only about one in six knows that the federal 

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) does not prevent apps that provide information 

about health from selling data collected about app users to marketers. And one in seven thinks some social media 

platforms activate users’ smartphone speakers to listen to conversations and identify their interests to sell them 

ads.  

Being wrong about such facts can have real consequences. Think of a person who believes a travel site 

such as Expedia or Orbitz that compares prices on different airlines must include the lowest airline prices. That 

may lead him not to check other sites or apps and so not get the best deal. Or consider a person who uses a fertility 

app to facilitate family planning. In the wake of the Dobbs decision that gave individual states the right to regulate 

abortion, privacy experts encouraged people to delete fertility apps. The fear was that some fertility apps share 

data about users’ attempts to get pregnant, leaving users open not just to advertisements about sales on diapers 

but also intrusions by employers and health insurers, erosion of autonomy, concerns about abortion rights, and 

the loss of dignity that comes with unwanted sharing of personal information (Harwell, 2019; Hill, 2022; 

Morrison, 2022). Moreover, retailers such as Target are under no HIPAA obligation to keep the purchases of 

fertility related purchases private. At the same time, people who think social media platforms like Instagram cause 

their smartphones to listen to them may be paying attention to the wrong kinds of concerns, or they may be 

worried about everything digital, which can make it difficult to focus on commercial surveillance activities that 

really count.  

Another insight the table presents is the large percentage of Americans who admit to not knowing the 

answer to the true-false questions. The don’t knows range from 23% regarding the meaning of privacy policy (and 

one of only two statements where the percentage of don’t know is lower than the of incorrect answers) to the 

statement about travel sites where a full 49% of respondents selected that choice. They didn’t try to guess, 

implying that they directly acknowledge the digital world’s confusing nature.   

Table 3 assigns letter grades to the navigational knowledge test. Seventy-seven percent of our respondents 

failed the test by getting at most 53% of the questions (9/17) correct.   

Table 3. Americans’ Grades on the Navigational Knowledge (N = 2,014).  

Letter Grade  

# correct for that 

group  Percent of the population  

F (53% or less correct)  0–9  77%  

D (59–65% correct)  10–11  15%  

C (71–76% correct)  12–13  6%  

B (82–88% correct)  14–15  1%  

A (94% correct)  16  .03%  

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

14 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

Note. Fifteen percent received a D, having gotten at most a 65% score. Only 6% of the sample received a C, 

getting 71–76% of questions correct, and 1% got a B. One person in the entire sample received an A, and 6% got 

none of the answers correct.   

There are statistically significant variations in navigational knowledge across U.S. society. Figure 1 shows 

typically small differences in knowledge based on gender, age, race, income, and education. These distinctions, 

however, should not obscure the overriding finding: All the groups did very poorly, answering fewer than half the 

questions correctly. When it comes to navigating the commercial internet, our findings indicate Americans overall 

are sorely lacking knowledge to navigate it in ways that protect their interests.  

   
Figure 1. Average knowledge by various demographics.  

Americans Do Not Believe They Can Control Their Data or That Companies Will Help Them  

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

15 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

Consent must also be given voluntarily, and consumers must believe they can relinquish consent. In this 

environment of (often admitted) lack of knowledge, Americans say they want to control the data companies get 

about them but do not believe they can. They also do not believe companies can be trusted to help them. We 

arrived at this conclusion by presenting our sample with 12 statements adapted from prior studies (Choi, Park & 

Jung, 2018, Lutz, Hoffmann, & Ranzini, 2020, Marwick & Hargittai, 2019; Turow, Hennessy, & Draper, 2015) 

that plumb people’s perception of their data control and company trust in nuanced ways. As Table 4 shows, 

virtually all Americans (91%) agree they want to have control over what marketers can learn about them online. 

At the same time, around 80% say they are naïve to believe they can do so, that they aren’t confident they are 

taking the right steps to protect their digital data, and that they have little control over what marketers can learn 

about them online. Further, 73% say that they don’t have the time to keep up with ways to control what companies 

can learn about them online, and 60% agree with the blunt statement “I do not understand how digital marketers 

learn about me.”  

Table 4. Americans’ Responses to Statements About Control Over Their Data (N = 2,014).  

 
 Strongly  Strongly  

 Agree  Agree  Disagree  Disagree  Neither*  

Response  (%)  (%)  (%)  (%)  (%)  

 
I want to have control over what 

marketers can learn about me online. 

(91% agree)  

60  31  6  2  1  

I would like to understand how digital 

marketers use the information they 

collect about my online activities. 

(87% agree)  

47  40  9  3  1  

It would be naïve to think that I can 

reliably protect my personal data 

online. (80% agree)  

36  45  14  4  1  

I am not sure that I am taking the right 

steps to protect my digital data. (80% 

agree)  

28  52  16  3  2  

I have come to believe that I have little 

control over what marketers can learn 

about me online. (79% agree)  

26  53  16  5  1  

I do not have the time to keep up with 

ways to control the information that 

24  49  21  5  1  

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

16 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

companies have about me. (73% 

agree)  

I trust myself to make the right 

decisions when it comes to handling 

my digital data. (69% agree)  

22  47  25  4  2  

I do not understand how digital 

marketers learn about me. (60% 

agree)  

19  41  31  8  1  

It doesn’t make a difference whether I try to protect my personal data online or not.(46% agree)  

 11  35  31  22  1  

I trust companies I visit online to handle 

my data the way I would want the data 

handled. (28% agree)  

5  23  40  31  1  

I don’t care what companies learn about 

me online. (18% agree)  

4  14  29  52  1  

I believe companies can be trusted to  3  11  34  51  1  

use my personal data with my best interests in mind. (14% agree)  

 
Note. *Neither was a volunteered, don’t know or a skipped question on the Web version.  

Trust in marketers is very low when it comes to this topic. Only 28% of Americans agree that they trust 

companies they visit online to handle their data in ways the individuals would want. An even lower number—

14%—agrees that “companies can be trusted to use my personal data with my best interest in mind.” As opposed 

to marketers, 69% agree that they trust themselves to make the right decisions when it comes to handling their 

digital data. Based on other answers, it seems people mean they trust themselves rather than marketers to try to 

make the right data-control decisions even if they are unsure the steps they are taking are effective. They 

acknowledge it’s tough to succeed. Table 4 indicates that 46% of Americans don’t believe it makes “a difference 

whether I try to protect to protect my data online or not.” But recall that a much higher 80% (including, it turns 

out, 73% of those who say it makes a difference to keep trying) nevertheless agree it is naïve to believe they can 

protect their online data. And 79% agree “I have come to believe that I have little control over what marketers 

can learn about me online.”  

Americans Do Not Accept the Idea of Data Tradeoffs  

Americans’ lack of trust in marketers extends to situations in which marketers offer them value in 

exchange for their data. Table 5 lists the four statements we presented that reflect this idea of reciprocity. Three 

of the tradeoff propositions depict an everyday data-collection approach as well as a common privilege (discount, 

improved service, or use of a store’s wireless internet) marketers claim to present in return. The table shows that 

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

17 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

over 60% of respondents disagree with the acceptability of specific common tradeoff activities. A huge 88% don’t 

agree that that if companies give them a discount, it is fair for these companies to collect information about them 

without their knowledge. A smaller but still large 68% disagree that if a store lets them log into its Wi-Fi, it’s fair 

for the store to monitor their online actions. In direct contrast to marketers’ claims that Americans want 

personalized service and understand that this requires the collection and analysis of personal information, 61% 

disagree that it is okay if a store where they shop uses information it has about them to create a picture of them 

that improves the services they provide for them. Table 5 also indicates that 52% of Americans agree that they 

sometimes feel marketers hold discounts hostage for data. An example would be a store’s requirement that 

shoppers log in to its website or app to reveal personal data if they want to enjoy the benefits of special prices.   

Table 5. Americans’ Responses to Marketers’ Information Collection Activities (N = 2,014).  

Statement  

Strongly  

Agree  

(%)  

Agree  

(%)  

Disagree  

(%)  

Strongly  

Disagree  

(%)  

Neither*  

(%)  

If companies give me a discount, it is 

a fair exchange for them to collect 

information about me without my 

knowing it. (88% disagree)  

3  8  24  64  1  

If I log onto a store’s Wi-Fi, it is fair 

for them to monitor what I’m doing 

online while I am in the store. (68% 

disagree)  

7  24  26  42  1  

It’s okay if a store where I shop uses 

information it has about me to 

create a picture of me that improves 

the services they provide for me. 

(61% disagree)  

5  34  32  29  1  

I sometimes feel that if I don’t let 

companies take my data, I won’t 

get the discounts I want. (52% 

agree)  

12  40  25  22  1  

Note. *Neither was a volunteered don’t know on the phone or a skipped question on the web version.  

Americans Are Resigned to Marketers’ Ability to Use Data About Them  

While Americans don’t accept the idea of tradeoffs, a large proportion is still willing to give up their data 

in actual situations. For example, when we gave people a scenario that offered them discounts for providing a 

supermarket they frequent personal information for discounts, about half—47%—did say yes. But less than half 

of people who were willing to accept discounts also accepted the notion of tradeoffs. And only 40% of the people 

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

18 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

who said yes to the supermarket scenario were the same people who thought it’s fine for a store where they shop 

to create a picture about them in return for benefits. Why are people giving up their data if not because they 

support tradeoffs? Our data shows that these people are simply resigned.   

Resignation occurs when a person believes an undesirable outcome is inevitable but feels powerless to 

stop it. Asking our respondents whether they agree or disagree with two statements in Table 2, we investigated 

what percentage of the population can be described as resigned to marketers’ imbibing data about them. We 

presented these statements in random order among the 10 other agree/disagree propositions so that the respondents 

wouldn’t see the relationship between the two or suspect our intention. To be identified as resigned, a person had 

to agree with both.  

One statement was “I want to have control over what marketers can learn about me online.” The other was 

“I’ve come to believe that I have little control over what marketers can learn about me.” As Table 4 shows, 91% 

of Americans agree that “I want to have control over what marketers can learn about me online,” and 79% agree 

that “I have come to believe that I have little control over what marketers can learn about me online.” When we 

investigated the overlap that designates resignation, we found that a large majority of the population—74%—is 

resigned. They believe they live in a world where marketers taking and using their data is inevitable.  

Our findings also indicate the Americans who are willing to give up their data in the supermarket scenario 

are far more likely to be resigned than to accept the notion of tradeoffs: 81% of the people who said yes to the 

supermarket scenario are resigned. Conversely, 50% of those who said yes to the supermarket scenario believe in 

tradeoffs. So, when we see someone giving up data to marketers, it is far more likely they are doing it because 

they are resigned rather than believe in tradeoffs.  

Importantly, huge percentages of American are either resigned, have extremely low knowledge (that is, 

score 53% or below on the true-false questions), or both. We found that 57% are resigned with extremely low 

knowledge; 20% have extremely low knowledge and aren’t resigned; and 17% do not fail the knowledge test 

(they score above 53%) but are resigned. Only 5% of the population has neither low knowledge nor resignation. 

That is a stunningly low number for an “information society” centered around the commercialization of data.  

Most Americans Believe That Marketers’ Use of Using Their Data Can Harm Them, and They Are Resigned 

to That Happening  

We found that marketers’ data capture and resignation come with another combined cost in Americans’ 

mind: individual harm they are powerless to prevent. A full 80% of the population agrees that what companies 

know about them from their online behaviors can hurt them. Moreover, 62% of Americans believe they can be 

harmed and are resigned. Put differently, about 6 in 10 Americans believe that what companies know about them 

can hurt them, and that they are powerless to stop it. Roughly 5 in 10 Americans also have extremely low 

knowledge (fail the navigational knowledge test), are resigned, and believe firms can harm them. In fact, of the 

77% of Americans who clearly fail the test (get below 53% on it), 80% believe what companies know about them 

can harm them. In this context, the idea of consent becomes especially nonsensical.  

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

19 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

Americans Want Congress to Act  

Americans seem to understand that they have no real ability to consent to marketers’ data gathering. It’s 

not surprising, then, that Americans see federal government help as necessary now. We asked, “How urgent is it 

for Congress to regulate how digital companies’ use personal information?” A full 79% of Americans say it is 

urgent, with 53% saying it is very urgent. Only 6% of people said it was not at all urgent—the rest said they didn’t 

know. In a society where people’s consent to marketers’ use of their data inherently illegitimate, what directions 

should public policy take?  

Conclusion  

For the first time in human history, we live in a society where individuals are defined continually by data 

streams circulating under the surface of everyday life. Companies can see what we do on our websites and apps 

(through first-party cookies and other such trackers) to follow us across the media content we visit (via third-party 

cookies and emerging versions) and view our activities as we move from one media technology to another—for 

example, from the Web to our smartphone to our tablet to our “connected” TV to the in-store trackers we pass in 

the aisles to outdoor message boards we stop to view. The goal is to give us tags or personas and have computers 

decide whether and how we ought to be the companies’ targets.   

This study has found that overwhelmingly and to an extent not known before, Americans neither 

understand the basics of such commercial surveillance practices and policies nor feel they can do anything about 

rampant data extraction. Yet consider the patterned prejudicial discrimination the continual marketing activities 

encourage. John may get low-end car ads while Jack gets high-end ones. Jane may be among the people targeted 

for “depression and anxiety” based on an artificial intelligence model that links a HIPAAcompliant database to 

person-linked databases that identify her personally and predict her specific health conditions (Center for Digital 

Democracy, 2022). Her teenage daughter may be targeted with junk food commercials because firms know her 

above-average weight and food predilections. Do you want your retailer to know you as a 35-year-old female 

who is newly pregnant? Do you feel comfortable that your supermarket is continually analyzing what you’ve 

bought? Or that Meta is offering you up advertisers in thousands of categories based on your actions on Instagram, 

Facebook, and elsewhere you don’t know? As Latanya Sweeney (2013) has shown, even names that indicate 

racial identity can have a significant effect on the kinds of advertisements that appear on search platforms. Apart 

from the potential discriminatory deals such a world propels, it also encourages a loss of dignity: a sense that 

unseen forces are defining us and we really can’t do anything about it.  

If consumers have trouble understanding today’s tracking activities, it seems unlikely they will 

understand—and be capable of giving informed consent to—the vast data collection that powers machine 

learning. Terms such as generative artificial intelligence (AI), over-the-top TV (OTT), connected television 

(CTV), the metaverse, and biometrics reflect a new world of interconnected technologies marketers are entering 

that will follow and define people in new ways. When you phone an 800 number to complain, do you want the 

company to infer your emotional state by the sound of your voice and to triage you to an agent who is successful 

at satisfying and even “upselling” people with your putative emotions and purchase history? That already happens, 

and it indicates the rise of marketers peering into the human body for data (Turow, 2021). Biometric data cannot 

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

20 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

be changed like email addresses. Yet people already give opt-out or opt-in “consent” to the collection of their 

bodily data every day. Understanding how those data feed automated decision-making systems, geolocation 

tracking, and biometric analyses, among other high-tech tools, requires individuals to read about, process, and 

make decisions based on algorithmic information even many experts do not comprehend (Kearns & Roth, 2019).  

Companies may argue that they offer ways for people to stop such tracking. But as we have seen, a great 

percentage of the U.S. population has no understanding of how the basics of the commercial internet work. 

Expecting Americans to learn how to continually keep track of how and when to opt out, opt in, and expunge their 

data is folly. Moreover, the more people accept that data will be taken about them, the more that activity will 

become normalized. Normalization is a psychological concept that associates frequency with acceptability (Bear 

& Knobe, 2017). People a generation from now will take for granted that giving up personal data is the way to 

get along in the 21st century. And they won’t complain when the techniques commercial marketers use are picked 

up by political campaigns, police, and governments in their avowedly democratic societies.  

Recent proposals for comprehensive privacy legislation retain consent as a primary vehicle for extracting 

data from individuals. Although the GDPR (2018) allows data collection for many reasons, consent is the one 

most used by marketers and other data collectors. New state privacy laws are also based on consent. The California 

Consumer Privacy Act (2018) relies on opt-out consent. Two proposals recently introduced in Arizona would let 

technology companies sell customer data, avoid all restrictions on processing data about adults, and make 

decisions based on consumer profiling if they obtain consent (Arizona S.B. 1614, 2020; Arizona H.B. 2729, 2020). 

Two proposals introduced in the Illinois Senate would allow companies to skirt limits on processing sensitive 

data, even processing that posed a significant risk to privacy, if they obtain consent (Data Privacy Act, 2019; Data 

Transparency and Privacy Act, 2020). And Maine’s privacy law, which took effect in 2019, lifts all restrictions 

on use, disclosure, sale, and third-party access to personal information if companies obtain consent (An Act To 

Protect the Privacy of Online Customer Information, 2019).   

Based on our findings and their relation to deep discussions among scholars regarding this issue, we 

believe that consent, whether opt in or opt out, should no longer be allowed to trigger data collection. That means 

companies shouldn’t be able to use first-party or third-party data collected pursuant to a consent button to create 

definitions or personas of people that they offer up to customers. Our data indicate that large proportions of 

Americans don’t distinguish between first party and other data trackers; they don’t want any data taken from them 

as they try to eke benefits from the internet.   

Our findings also call into question the value of many of the “rights-based” privacy laws proposed and 

enacted by several U.S. states over the past several years. These laws, which attempt to regulate data extraction 

by providing consumers with rights to access the information companies have about them, rights to request 

deletion of that data, rights to move the data to other companies, and rights to correct inadequate data, still require 

individuals to understand and process information in privacy policies and terms of service at scale (Waldman, 

2022a). They require knowledge and a belief that companies will genuinely listen to their requests—that is, the 

opposite of the confusion and resignation we have found across the U.S. population.  We recognize that some 

shoppers derive benefits from ad targeting in the form of sales, coupons, and information. If policymakers would 

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

21 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

like to retain an advertising-based business model based on consumer interests, we suggest that they restrict it to 

contextual advertising. Policymakers could permit a system where companies can target people based only on the 

context in which advertisers find customers in the moment—on a website for cars, an app about travel, a 

supermarket aisle with diapers, or a video closely associated with a set of interests—without allowing the 

marketers to share or keep any history of consumer connections to those contexts.  

We realize we are calling for regulations that include a paradigm shift in information-economy law and 

corporate practice. To encourage lawmakers to implement these major changes undoubtedly requires a politically 

engaged public that is angry about the contemporary situation—just the opposite of the resigned public our study 

has found. Figuring out how to best do that presents a new challenge for researchers. One way to move citizens 

from resignation to anger and action regarding commercial surveillance may involve pointing out how the 

discriminatory tracking and targeting that takes place in marketing realms has begun to migrate to other sectors 

of society—for example, political campaigning, policing, incarceration, and migrant interrogation (see Crain & 

Nadler, 2019; Turow, 2021, pp. 234–243)—where harm from digital discrimination is easier to imagine and angry 

indignation perhaps easier to ignite. Further, tying these developments to the rise of biometric profiling in and 

outside of marketing—emphasizing the profound implications of allowing firms to interrogate typically 

unchangeable aspects of the body—may raise worries about future generations and provide even more catalysts 

to turn public resignation into anger and, ultimately, action.  

References  

An Act To Protect the Privacy of Online Customer Information, Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. §9301(3). (2019). 

Retrieved from 

https://legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/bills_129th/chapters/PUBLIC216.asp#:~:text=Privacy%20of 

%20customer%20personal%20information,United%20States%20Code%2C%20Section%202703  

  

Arizona H.B. 2729 §§18-574(B), 18-577(G)(3). (2020). Retrieved from 

https://azleg.gov/legtext/54leg/2R/bills/HB2729P.pdf  

  

Arizona S.B. 1614 §18-701(H). (2020). Retrieved from 

https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/54leg/2R/bills/SB1614P.pdf  

  

Baracos, S., & Nissenbaum, H. (2009). On notice: The trouble with notice and consent. In Proceedings of the 

Engaging Data Forum: The First International Forum on the Application and Management of Personal 

Electronic Information. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstracts=2567409  

  

Bear, A., & Knobe, K. (2017). Normality: Part descriptive, part prescriptive. Cognition, 167, 25–37.  

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.024  

  

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

22 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

Bromwich, J. E. (2016, May 24). Goodbye, Internet. Hello, internet. New York Times. Retrieved from 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/business/media/internet-to-be-lowercase-in-new-yorktimes-and-

associated-press.html?_r=0  

  

Bulger, M., & Davison, P. (2018). The promise, challenges, and futures of media literacy. Journal of Media  

Literacy Education, 10(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2018-10-1-1  

  

California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135. (2018). Retrieved from 

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1 

798.135  

  

Center for Digital Democracy. (2022, November 21). Trade regulation rule on commercial surveillance and data 

security. Retrieved from 

https://www.democraticmedia.org/sites/default/files/field/publicfiles/2022/cddsurveillancehealthftc1121

22.pdf  

Choi, H., Park, J., & Jung, Y. (2018). The role of privacy fatigue in online privacy behavior. Computers in Human 

Behavior, 8, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.001   

   

Cohen, J. E. (2021, March 23). How (not) to write a privacy law. Retrieved from 

https://knightcolumbia.org/content/how-not-to-write-a-privacy-law  

  

Common Sense Media. (n.d.). Digital citizenship. Retrieved from 

https://www.commonsense.org/education/digital-citizenship  

  

Cottrell, R., & McKenzie, J. (2011). Health promotion (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.  

  

Crain, M., & Nadler, A. (2019). Political manipulation and internet advertising infrastructure. Journal of 

Information Policy, 9, 370–410. https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0370  

  

Cyphers, B. (2022, May). How to disable ad ID tracking on iOS and Android, and why you should do it now. 

Retrieved from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/how-disable-ad-id-tracking-ios-andandroid-and-

why-you-should-do-it-now  

  

Data Privacy Act, Illinois S.B. 2263 §30(3). (2019). Retrieved from 

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=101&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=2263&GAID= 

15&SessionID=108&LegID=121653  

  

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

23 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

Data Transparency and Privacy Act, Illinois S.B. 2330 §35(l)(3). (2020). Retrieved from 

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=2330&GAID=15&DocTypeID=SB&LegId 

=122685&SessionID=108&GA=101  

  

Fowler, G. (2021, January 29). I checked Apple’s new privacy “nutrition labels.” Many were false. Washington 

Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/29/apple-privacy-nutrition-

label/  

  

General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., at 

art. 6(1). (2018). Retrieved from https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/  

 

Girard, K. (2020, August 10). Building a better nutrition label for privacy. Retrieved from 

https://www.commonsense.org/education/articles/building-a-better-nutrition-label-for-privacy  

  

Harwell, D. (2019, April 10). Is your pregnancy app sharing your intimate data with your boss? Washington Post. 

Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/04/10/tracking-yourpregnancy-an-

app-may-be-more-public-than-you-think/  

  

Hill, K. (2022, June 30). Deleting your period tracker won’t protect you. The New York Times. Retrieved from 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/technology/period-tracker-privacy-abortion.html  

  

Kaminski, M., & Jones, M. L. (2021). An American’s guide to the GDPR. Denver Law Review, 98(1), 93–128. 

Retrieved from https://www.denverlawreview.org/print-archive459f/volume98-issue1  

  

Kearns, M., & Roth, A. (2019). The ethical algorithm: The science of socially aware algorithm design. Oxford, 

UK: Oxford University Press.  

  

Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2005). Toward critical media literacy: Core concepts, debates, organizations, and policy. 

Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(3), 369–386.  

  

Kelly, P. G., Bresee, J., Cranor, L.F., & Reeder, R. (2009). Cranor. In SOUPS ’09: Proceedings of the 5th 

Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (pp. 1–12). https://doi.org/10.1145/1572532.1572538   

  

Lee, N. M. (2018). Fake news, phishing and fraud: A call for research on digital media literacy education beyond 

the classroom. Communication Education, 67(4), 360–466. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2018.1503313  

  

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

24 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

Levine, R. J. (1988). Ethics and regulation of clinical research. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.   

  

Livingstone, S. (2019, June 14). What should we teach children about online privacy, and how? Retrieved from 

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2019/06/24/what-should-we-teach-children-about-onlineprivacy-and-

how/  

  

Lutz, C., Hoffmann, C. P., & Ranzini, G. (2020). Data capitalism and the user: An exploration of privacy cynicism 

in Germany. New Media & Society, 22(7), 1168–1187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820912544   

  

Mansur, P. K. (2019, March 28). Reconceptualizing online privacy literacy. Retrieved from 

https://philippmasur.de/2019/03/28/reconceptualizing-online-privacy-literacy/  

  

Marwick, A., & Hargittai, E. (2019). Nothing to hide, nothing to lose? Incentive and disincentives to sharing 

information with institutions online. Information, Communication & Society, 22(12), 1697–1713. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1450432   

 

Morrison, S. (2022, July 6). Should I delete my period app? Retrieved from 

https://www.vox.com/recode/2022/7/6/23196809/period-apps-roe-dobbs-data-privacy-abortion  

  

National PTA & Norton. (2022, June 12). Conversations that click. Retrieved from https://thesmarttalk.org/  

  

Nissenbaum, H. (2018, September 24). Stop thinking about consent: It isn’t possible and it isn’t right. Harvard 

Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/09/stop-thinking-about-consentit-isnt-possible-

and-it-isnt-right.  

  

Norberg, P., Horne, D. R., & Horne D. A. (2007). The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions 

versus behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), 100–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-

6606.2006.00070   

  

Obar, J., & Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2020). The biggest lie on the internet: Ignoring the privacy policies and terms of 

service policies of social networking services. Information, Communication & Society, 23(1), 128–147. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1486870  

  

Perez, S. (2022, April 26). Google launches its own privacy “nutrition labels,” following similar effort by Apple. 

Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/26/google-play-launches-its-ownprivacy-nutrition-

labels-following-similar-effort-by-apple/  

  

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

25 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

Public Broadcasting Service. (2017). Ruff Ruffman: Humble media genius. Retrieved from 

https://pbskids.org/fetch/ruff/  

  

Richards, N., & Hartzog, W. (2019). The pathologies of digital consent. Washington University Law Review,  

96(6), 1461–1503. Retrieved from https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol96/iss6/11  

  

Schwartz, J. (2002, December 29). The Nation: Case-sensitive crusader. New York Times. Retrieved from 

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/29/weekinreview/the-nation-case-sensitive-crusader-who-ownsthe-

internet-you-and-i-do.html  

  

Schwartz, P. (1999). Privacy and democracy in cyberspace. Vanderbilt Law Review, 52(6), 1607–1701.  

Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol52/iss6/2   

  

Solove, D. J. (2013). Introduction: Privacy self-management and the consent dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 

126(7), 1880–1903. Retrieved from https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol126/introduction-privacy-self-

management-and-the-consent-dilemma/   

  

Solove, D. J., & Hartzog, W. (2011). The FTC and the new common law of privacy. Columbia Law Review, 

114(3), 583–676. Retrieved from https://columbialawreview.org/content/the-ftc-and-the-newcommon-

law-of-privacy/   

  

Sweeney, L. (2013). Discrimination in online ad delivery: Google ads, Black names and White names, racial 

discrimination, and click advertising. Acmqueue, 11(3), 10–29.  

  

Torres, M., & Mercado, M. (2006). The need for critical media literacy in teacher education core curricula. 

Educational Studies, 39(3), 250–282.  

  

Turow, J. (2021). The voice catchers: How marketers listen in to exploit your feelings, your privacy, and your 

wallet. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.  

  

Turow, J., Hennessy, M., & Draper, N. (2015). The tradeoff fallacy: How marketers are misrepresenting American 

consumers and opening them up to exploitation. Retrieved from 

https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1554&context=asc_papers  

  

Turow, J., Hennessy, M., & Draper, N. (2018). Persistent misperceptions: American’s misplaced confidence in 

privacy policies, 2003–2015. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 62(3), 461–478.  

  

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Art and Communication 

Vol.7 , Issue3 May- June - 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

 
 

 

 

26 | American Journal of Art and Communication 

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJAC  

U.S. Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems. (1973). Records, computers, and the 

rights of citizens (OHEW Publication NO. (OS)73-94). U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare. 

Retrieved from https://archive.epic.org/privacy/hew1973report/  

 

Waldman, A. E. (2021). Industry unbound: The inside story of privacy, data, and corporate power. Cambridge, 

UK: Cambridge University Press.  

  

Waldman, A. E. (2022a). Privacy rights trap. Northwestern University Law Review Online, 117, 88–106. Retrieved 

from https://northwesternlawreview.org/articles/privacys-rights-trap/   

  

Waldman, A. E. (2022b). The new privacy law. UC Davis Law Review Online, 55, 19–41. Retrieved from 

https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/online/55/waldman.html   

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com

