





































 

1 

 

 
 
 
 
 
https://www.designforsocialchange.org/journal/index.php/DISCERN-J 
 
ISSN 2184-6995 
 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 
International License. 

 

  

 

 
 
Building preferred futures for human privacy through service design 
 
Davide Parrilli 

 

Published online: November 2023 

 
To cite this article:  
Parrilli, D. (2023). Building preferred futures for human privacy through service design. Discern: 
International Journal of Design for Social Change, Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 1-13. 
 

 
 
 
  



 

2 

 

Building preferred futures for human privacy through service design  
 
Davide Parrillia, Rodrigo Hernández-Ramíreza 

 
aUNIDCOM/IADE, Faculdade de Design, Tecnologia e Comunicação, Universidade Europeia, Lisbon, Portugal 

 

Abstract 

Designers are increasingly confronted with challenges that have a wide social and political impact.  

In particular, we identify threats to people’s informational privacy as a worrying challenge for human 

beings. Scholars concerned with surveillance capitalism and society denounce the massive extrapolation 

and use of people’s information leading to its commodification and jeopardizing the possibility for ‘data 

subjects’ to be free and autonomous in their choices. According to commonly accepted paradigms of design 

ethics, designers are now called upon to tackle macro issues with broad relevance for entire communities. 

Hence data privacy should be a concern for design and designers. Among design disciplines and practices, 

we identify service design as the practice that should naturally be more concerned with privacy for its focus 

on interactions, because contemporary services necessarily involve the collection and processing of 

people’s data. This paper assesses the role of service designers in identifying preferred futures for privacy 

and designing accordingly. Building on a multidisciplinary literature review, the paper addresses an existing 

gap in service design. Moving from servitization scenarios, the paper creates a vital link between service 

design and informational privacy as a universal human idea. Expanding on contributions from ethics 

traditions and approaches, the paper sets the foundations of privacy ethics for service design. Within this 

framework, finally, this work discusses how service designers should define preferred futures for privacy 

and lead the creative process of designing ethically-minded solutions for privacy. 

 

Keywords: Ethics, Information, Privacy, Service design 

 

Introduction 

Design is a domain with increasing political and social relevance. Designed objects shape how people live, 

consume, interact, and ultimately exist (Verbeek, 2014). Designers must stand at the forefront of the 

conversation regarding the future of humankind. In some instances, the political dimension of the 

designer’s work prevails over its function — examples are Italian radical design, anti-design, new design  

and conceptual design movements in the second half of the 20th century, as well as contemporary critical 

design (Malpass, 2019)—although all design is political (Pater, 2016).  

 

When designers work to reduce social inequalities and injustices (Fry et al., 2015), their actions necessarily 

carry ethical and political implications (Papanek, 2019). According to this approach, the challenges facing 

humanity and the corresponding risks for human health, security, prosperity and survival reveal the need  

to embrace a vision of the designer as a problem-solver — and, more and more, a leader in collaborative 

problem-solving — through designed solutions which are morally and politically meaningful. This activity 

occurs within a broader social, political, economic, and natural context upon which designers traditionally 

(and, often, inescapably) have little margin of intervention.  

 

Among design practices and disciplines, service design potentially offers a holistic approach to the solution 

of macro or wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Service design is a fairly recent discipline (Evenson  

& Dubberly, 2009). It is attached to a design thinking approach (Brown & Katz, 2019; Grenha Teixeira et al., 

2017) that promises a holistic vision of complex problems and their solutions. Service design is 

fundamentally a social activity, given its focus on interactions between users, citizens, services and 



 

3 

 

technologies. Designing the conditions for such interactions (Penin, 2017) necessarily involves making 

ethical and political decisions. The areas where service designers have the most significant impact are often 

civic, such as public transportation and health (Meroni & Sangiorgi, 2011; Penin, 2017; Raun, 2017). 

 

Therefore, service design is inextricably tied to some form of political and social responsibility.  

Because service design is intrinsically focused on interactions — between humans and service providers; 

humans and technology and between humans as users — it intersects a dimension of human beings  

still largely unexplored in the design literature: their information. Data privacy has been identified as  

a major challenge with social and political connotations for contemporary humans. The protection of 

personal information is a wicked problem that requires a careful balance between privacy and different 

values, such as personal and state security — but also the legitimate claim of companies to make a profit  

in a data-driven economy. Protecting people’s information is one of the most pressing social issues in our 

contemporary surveillance society (Capurro, 2005). Wherever we go, we are followed, tracked, and 

monitored by pervasive technologies that can reveal exactly what we are doing and will probably  

do next, based on our past behaviours and other data collected throughout our lives. 

 

This must be a concern for service design because virtually all designable artefacts and interactions that 

constitute a service (Kimbell, 2011) involve the collection and use of people’s information. Privacy is  

a political challenge that requires balancing the interests of personal information providers (users of 

services and citizens) against those of their processors (service providers and any third parties involved  

in the processing activities, often surreptitiously). However, a reality check reveals an unbalanced 

relationship between data providers and merchants that heavily favours the latter. 

 

According to some scholars, social dynamics have evolved into a form of unfair playground of control and 

domination by governments and Big Tech corporations, which they refer to as surveillance capitalism 

(Doctorow, 2020; Foster & McChesney, 2014; Zuboff, 2019). The evolution of surveillance capitalism is 

shaping citizens’ perceptions of informational privacy — that is, the right to control who, when, to what 

extent and how can have access to and use somebody’s personal information (name, contact details, 

personal images, biometric data, genetic data, etc.) (Westin, 1967). Surveillance capitalism has paved the  

way for the emergence of a real surveillance culture (Lyon, 2017), where people not only accept being 

monitored, observed and tracked almost continuously but eagerly participate in a sort of voluntary 

surveillance (Albrechtslund, 2008). 

 

Given the framework described in the previous paragraphs, this paper addresses the following research 

question: What should guide service designers to choose a preferred future for privacy and design 

accordingly? The paper explores the possibilities offered by ethics to act as a driving force for service 

designers to create privacy-oriented solutions. Building on the mapping of futures proposed in the 

speculative design literature (Dunne & Raby, 2013), we introduce the idea of a preferred future as the 

framework for the work of service designers who create privacy solutions. 

 

Through a multidisciplinary literature review, this paper explores how ethics can support a designer’s 

definition of a preferred future for privacy and guide an ethical service design practice for privacy.  

Despite its impact on users and organizations, to the best of our knowledge, no researcher has previously 

investigated the role of ethics in service design and privacy. This paper fills a gap in service design research 

because service design has not yet developed a comprehensive approach to privacy issues from  

an ethical perspective. 



 

4 

 

In the first section of the paper, we connect informational privacy and service design by assessing privacy 

threats in servitization scenarios. Next, we define the foundations of privacy ethics for service design. In the 

third section, we build on privacy ethics for service design to discuss how service designers should define 

preferred futures for privacy. Finally, we introduce our future research, together with some concluding 

remarks. 

 

Privacy and service design: Crossing paths 

We propose approaching the relationship between privacy and service design through the lenses of 

servitization. The increasing trend of servitization, where companies offer solutions composed of tangible 

products and services, such as “X-as-a-Service” for cars, bicycles, furniture, etc. (Vandermerwe & Rada, 

1988), is driving the expansion of service design. Further, the literature highlights service design as an 

effective approach to solving the challenges of servitization (Calabretta et al., 2016). Thus, the servitization 

of design products is a typical outcome of service design as practice.  

 

This shift from selling material products to offering bundles of products and services significantly impacts 

the provider–consumer relationship, dilating it over a longer period (Costa et al., 2018; Oliva & Kallenberg, 

2003) and involving the exchange of service-related personal data. The act of buying a product immediately 

is replaced by a longer-term relationship between the parties that lasts until the end of the contractually 

agreed consumption of the product by the consumer. 

 

Servitization and virtualization, which refer to the dematerialization of traditional tangible products, are 

related concepts. However, servitization does not necessarily involve the virtualization of physical products. 

For example, while software has moved from material support to software as a service (SaaS) in the cloud, 

a shared car or bike made available to users through an app still retains its physical dimension. What is 

disrupted in the sharing economy (Albinsson et al., 2018) is the exclusive link between object and 

user/owner — the idea that one product has one owner and one user. This model has been replaced by 

multiple users for a single product and one owner. Another aspect of the sharing economy is the need for 

providers to know who is using the object and monitor users to protect the service provider’s assets against 

theft, vandalism and misuse. 

 

The servitization of products often adds extra layers of interaction and complexity between the product 

and its users. Buying a car involves a simple interaction between the buyer and the seller. However, using  

a car-as-a-service involves regularly interacting with different people and departments within the mobility 

provider. An app serves as an interface to find a nearby car and reserve it, and the cockpit interface is used 

to unlock the car and start the engine; these are some of the several touchpoints in the service journey. 

From a privacy perspective, several layers of complexity are added. The car seller typically collects users’ 

data when ordering the product and signing the contract(s) but will not have access to information about 

the buyer’s use of the car. 

 

On the contrary, the car-as-a-service provider collects all information about users, including car use, such  

as where drivers go, how long their trips last, what time of the day they use the car and how frequently.  

If the car is provided with a dashcam, the service provider will collect information about other road users. 

Furthermore, if a security camera is installed inside the vehicle (unless prohibited by local legislation), the 

provider will know whether the user is driving alone or with someone else. 

 

The servitization of products leads to a significant increase in personal data collected and processed by 

service providers, which can potentially threaten users’ privacy. The more interactions within a service 



 

5 

 

journey, the more data collection and manipulation opportunities. From a business perspective, this offers 

new possibilities for companies by expanding their assets with valuable customer information. However, 

the uncontrolled multiplication of personal data processed by service providers has given rise to another 

phenomenon: the commodification of personal information and human experiences. Couldry and Mejias 

argue that “capitalism today, in the expansionary phase we call data colonialism, is transforming human 

nature (that is, preexisting streams of human life in all its diversity) into a newly abstracted form (data) that 

is also ripe for commodification” (2019, p. 32). 

 

Service design focuses on “understanding customers’ experiences” (Costa et al., 2018, p. 114). As such,  

it necessarily relies on users’ and stakeholders’ personal information. To define personal information or 

data, we rely on the relationship between the information itself (e.g. “loving red cars”) and the person to 

whom that information refers (e.g. “John loves red cars”). Personal data is the information that refers  

to an identified or identifiable person. This connection sustains the legal notion of personal data in several 

jurisdictions, including Brazil, China and the European Union. 

 

In practice, it is inconceivable to design service solutions, including servitization solutions, that do not 

involve customers’ data. Interactions with service providers (either in person or through digital 

touchpoints) and other users necessarily imply a flow of personal information. Therefore, issues regarding 

informational privacy naturally emerge. Interestingly, legal hurdles can be avoided by anonymizing personal 

data (when feasible or reasonable). However, essentially anonymized data differs from anonymous data. 

Anonymization implies that personal data is collected before it is indeed anonymized. This process reduces 

the risk of data infringement but does not eliminate it. Anonymous transactions are a more efficient 

strategy because no personal data is collected so no privacy claims can be made. However, the nature of 

the service itself often renders anonymous transactions meaningless or impossible. This approach is only 

realistic when providing a one-shot standard service that does not require any further follow-up action by 

the service provider or customer, such as when a customer buys an item from an automatic vending 

machine that requires cash payment. 

 

Regardless of the legal liability of service providers for the processing of personal data, service designers 

have ethical responsibilities regarding the personal information they collect from people (Monteiro, 2019). 

Although corporations often collect personal data that may not be immediately useful or may never  

be useful (Doctorow, 2020), service designers who act and think ethically must reject this questionable 

practice (Bowles, 2018; Falbe et al., 2020). 

 

Privacy ethical dilemmas in service design 

Service designers frequently face ethical dilemmas, some of which are not strictly related to privacy. For 

example, who are designers ultimately working for? (Monteiro, 2019). However, the answers to these 

questions influence how personal information is treated. Service design and ethics intersect regularly. 

However, a literature review reveals that service design (and, in general, design) lacks a solid foundation  

to support true privacy design ethics.  

 

Value-sensitive design (VSD) should be recognized for its attention to privacy, though mainly from  

a pragmatic perspective. VSD explicitly acknowledges privacy as a design value (Cummings, 2006; Friedman 

et al., 2003; Friedman & Hendry, 2019). However, VSD does not logically or ethically justify its claim that 

privacy is a value. This allows for the possibility that privacy may lose its status as a value if social attitudes 

evolve in that direction. Because values are intended as what a person or a group determines important in 

life, VSD has weak normative orientation and high designer agency, thus leaving ample room for subjective 



 

6 

 

appreciation of values (Donia & Shaw, 2021). Further, the word ‘value’ is problematic because it is 

intrinsically culture-related. The literature extensively shows that privacy is closely related to cultures and 

traditions (Capurro, 2005; Ess, 2020; Ma, 2019, 2021): claiming that privacy is a value as such may be an 

oversimplification. Additionally, while VSD argues that privacy should be balanced against other values, 

such as security, the lack of a ranking of values can seriously jeopardize privacy. If security is consistently 

prioritized over privacy in design processes, privacy becomes an empty word. 

 

The establishment of the foundations of privacy for service design is still an unexplored field in the 

literature. The first step is to assess the nature of these foundations. A multidisciplinary literature review 

reveals that privacy is essentially an ethical concern (Floridi, 2014; Sætra et al., 2021; Vallor, 2021). 

However, we claim that simply transposing philosophical principles into the design field will not suffice and 

will lead to poor results. Unlike philosophy, design is practice-based and solution-oriented. Effective 

problem-solving requires good principles that work in practice, not just in theory. As Dorst describes it,  

a design situation consists of a designer, a design problem, a design context and a design process (2019), 

but it must also result in a design solution. In the words of Archer, “Design begins with a need. The product  

is a means for fulfilling that need” (1984, p. 60).  

 

Service designers must decide how to treat customers, stakeholders and their information: as a means to 

an end (to make a profit, increase control over citizens, stock up assets for future sale, etc.) or as ends in 

themselves. The answer depends on the ethical approach followed by designers. Utilitarianism and 

deontology shaped the ethics debate in the last centuries. While utilitarians judge the morality of an action 

based on its consequences — if the outcome is positive for the majority of people, then the action is moral, 

deontologists are more concerned with the intention behind the action — if the intention is good, then the 

action is ethical regardless of its outcome (MacKinnon & Fiala, 2015). As a consequence, utilitarianists 

potentially justify data surveillance activities if they aim to achieve a greater good.  

 

Policy and business initiatives are often subtly utilitarian in scope. For example, in July 2021, the European 

Parliament voted in favour of a temporary regulation that allows web-based service providers to detect 

online material containing child sexual abuse continuously (see Psychogiopoulou & Sierra, 2022). In August 

2021, Apple declared that it would scan all iPhones of US customers for images of child sexual abuse, but  

it stopped the project a few months later (Bromell, 2022; Montasari et al., 2023). Scanning every digital 

conversation between users to detect illegal material means treating them and their information as  

a means to reach a positive goal, without inflicting pain or unhappiness on monitored users. In this global  

and digital Panopticon, initially proposed by the founder of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, at the end of 

the 18th century (Bentham, 1791/2009), the inmates (aka the users of digital services) are constantly 

surveilled without their awareness by an invisible guard. They actively cooperate with such surveillance  

(Han & Butler, 2015). 

 

Deontologists assert that humanity should be treated as an end in itself and reject the idea that the ends 

justify the means (MacKinnon & Fiala, 2015). This approach protects people’s information more 

comprehensively, mainly through legislation. For example, the European Union’s General Data Protection 

Regulation (GDPR) is inspired by deontological principles (Burk, 2005; Ess, 2019), as are all data protection 

laws around the world that follow the GDPR model. 

 

However, due to its rigidity, deontology may not be best suited to face the challenges posed by 

contemporary business models. Despite its inflexibility, deontology finds its privileged application in 

legislation, which is naturally slow-evolving and technology-neutral. It is famously — and contradictorily — 



 

7 

 

attributed to Kant that one should not lie even if it means causing the death of another human being 

(MacKinnon & Fiala, 2015). 

 

Other classical philosophical approaches have been successfully applied to solve 21st-century ethical 

challenges. Virtue ethics, which aim to improve one’s moral virtues through practice, have been applied  

in design practices: in game design, virtue ethics can guide game developers in designing meaningful games 

(Sicart, 2009). Vallor argues that “virtue ethics is a uniquely attractive candidate for framing many of the 

broader normative implications of emerging technologies in a way that can motivate constructive proposals 

for improving technosocial systems and human participation in them” (2016, p. 33).  

 

Virtue ethics can guide service designers to make ethical choices — that is, to embed morality in their 

products. Consistent with Sicart’s approach (2009), virtue ethics does not imply designing blandly, 

overprotecting users from ethical threats and unethical content. On the contrary, users of an ethical design 

product should have the opportunity to face ethical challenges and make choices. Turning our attention to 

privacy, a service design product that eliminates by design any user interaction with technology, the service 

provider and other users to avoid privacy threats is not ethical. The same applies when users are forced to 

interact and surrender their information without having the chance to exercise their autonomy and 

freedom. As we will discuss in the next section, an ethically-minded service design respects users’ 

autonomy and freedom to decide how they interact with other stakeholders. But this should happen  

within an ethical framework, which we call ‘preferred futures for privacy’, that excludes  

privacy-depriving solutions. 

 

Interactions are at the core of information ethics scholars’ approach to privacy: “To be is to be interactable, 

even if the interaction is only indirect” (Floridi, 2010, p. 12). Information ethics can rigorously sustain an 

understanding of privacy that transcends cultures. In this sense, information ethics is in a good position to 

support privacy ethics for service design. Floridi claims that “I am my information”, and misusing personal 

data is equivalent to non-physical personal aggression (2014). This statement is a powerful justification for 

protecting people’s information, including their autonomy and integrity, against any attempts to 

commodify the human experience. 

 

An analysis and understanding of the relationship between service design, privacy and culture is missing  

in the literature. Building on our criticism of the VSD approach to privacy, one cannot legitimately take for 

granted that privacy is a universal value. Indeed, privacy is not perceived and experienced equally across 

cultures. Historically, privacy emerged in England in the 15th century (Holvast, 2009) and gained legal 

relevance in the US at the end of the 19th century (Warren & Brandeis, 1890). In contrast, in Asian cultures, 

individual privacy has traditionally been seen as egoistic (Ess, 2020; Yao-Huai, 2005). However, ethicists 

with a Buddhist background demonstrate that this view is somewhat reductionist. Privacy is not exclusively 

a value of the so-called Western world but is a human universal, despite cultural differences (Hongladarom, 

2007). Further, societies evolve; individualism is a growing trend in modern China (Ess, 2020), and the need 

to protect personal information in the digital world emerged regardless of the local philosophical roots 

(Capurro, 2005). The fact that many Asian countries, including China, Japan and South Korea, have data 

privacy legislation in place may be taken as evidence of these claims. 

 

Recognizing the universal validity of the idea of privacy is a fundamental step for service designers to 

consider when designing complex service solutions. At the same time, understanding cultural differences is 

a key move in the design process of successful products that are not rejected by users. In service design 

practice, missing this point can severely damage the fortune of a project. By way of an example, female 



 

8 

 

patients from specific cultural backgrounds may be less open to providing personal health information to 

male doctors than other patients. Not considering this aspect in the design of a health service may exclude 

entire communities. In service design projects that involve the digitalization of services, exclusion is 

expectable also if digitalization does not consider that some groups may not be willing (or able) to share 

personal information online. 

 

Service design to build preferred futures for privacy 

Scholars agree that service design is inspired by human-centred principles (Meroni & Sangiorgi, 2011; 

Penin, 2017). However, human-centred design has not yet developed a deep understanding of privacy or 

the necessary tools to integrate it into its practice (Parrilli, 2021). Nevertheless, privacy is closely related to 

human-centred design, which ultimately affirms human dignity (Buchanan, 2000). Privacy refers to personal 

information, including experiences, emotions, thoughts and freedom. Protecting privacy is, therefore, 

equivalent to defending the most intimate values of individuals, including their dignity. 

 

It follows that a genuinely human-centred service design should protect people’s privacy against threats 

from corporations, governments and other users (Fukuyama, 2022). Any lack of care, abuse or misuse of 

personal information can potentially impact a person’s physical and emotional well-being, ranging from the 

annoyance of receiving and deleting unwanted marketing emails to the devastation caused by 

cyberbullying and revenge porn. 

 

From the perspective of information ethics, human beings are composed of information. Therefore, 

protecting privacy is not only about defending a human value but also a fundamental aspect of everyone’s 

sense of self. Without an ontological connection between individuals and their information,  

it is impossible to establish a strong understanding of informational privacy or to design products and 

services that prioritize privacy. Privacy considerations must be integrated into the creative process from  

the beginning, and the final solutions should prioritize privacy to genuinely respect the human-centred 

design paradigm. 

 

Service designers must make choices among all possibilities offered in a specific context. Specifically, they 

must make decisions that project into the future. In 2013, Dunne and Raby mapped the future into four 

categories: possible, plausible, probable and preferable (2013). They locate the preferable future at the 

intersection of probable and plausible futures. Despite the complexity of agreeing on the elements of  

a preferable future, we argue that service designers should design solutions for a preferred future within 

the spectrum of preferable futures.  

 

Within the range of preferable futures, the service design process should lead to a decision about the 

future that service designers want to see implemented through their designed solutions. A preferred future 

is an ethically-oriented scenario that service designers want to achieve because they assume that it is 

beneficial for the communities they work for. This requires an action plan, starting from mapping and 

understanding the stakeholders’ interests to make ethical and political choices about the interests and 

values most worthy of protection and enhancement.  

 

The definition of a preferred future happens in a co-design process led by service designers: in this sense, 

this process does not deviate from the co-creation paradigm typical of service design (Andreassen et al., 

2016; Ordanini & Parasuraman, 2011; Sanders & Stappers, 2014). Designing without users and stakeholders 

would implicitly contradict the human-centredness of service design, but the collaborative nature of the 

creative process implies that service designers should take the lead — an ethical lead. The opportunity and 



 

9 

 

challenge for service designers is to transmit the values they want to enhance to the users and stakeholders 

involved in the co-creation, maximizing the chance that the preferred future becomes a widely accepted 

reality. 

 

A service designer working for preferred futures is neither a designer, a moralist (Wakkary, 2021) — since 

the use and context of the designed products are more important than the celebration of the designer as 

master — nor a critical designer. Critical designers challenge ideas and paradigms in design and society, and 

their real scope is not to design solutions that are implementable and marketable. The Pillow, designed by 

Dunne in 1995, is an LCD screen that works as an abstract radio, picking up mobile phones, pagers, walkie-

talkies and baby monitoring devices, and shows changing patterns in response to ambient electromagnetic 

radiations. The scope of the object is to question ideas and notions of privacy, and although it is intended 

to be mass-produced, the authors recognize that it has impractical value (Dunne & Gaver, 1997). 

 

When choosing the values and interests to protect through design, service designers working for  

a preferred future consider that the rights of users and citizens to have their information treated with 

respect should take priority over the business interests of corporations seeking to amass personal 

information for profit and the political interests of governments seeking to control and manipulate citizens 

(Bowles, 2018; Couldry & Mejias, 2019; Doctorow, 2020; Véliz, 2020; Zuboff, 2019). Achieving a balance 

between values and interests is always necessary. The friction between privacy and (legitimate) security 

claims often undermines privacy. In a globally interconnected world, not all interactions are good. 

Interactions with nefarious intentions, initiated by digital sexual predators, terrorists, hackers and others, 

must be rightfully detected and blocked. However, this principle cannot legitimize massive surveillance and 

deny reasonable informational privacy rights. 

 

Service designers should adopt a sensible stance toward ethical considerations. Being morally neutral does 

not help designers practice ethically meaningful design (Falbe et al., 2020). At the same time, prioritizing 

citizens’ rights and interests does not mean rejecting technology. It is a matter of using existing and future 

technologies ethically. For instance, installing facial recognition cameras in a massive transport system such 

as São Paulo’s subway without reasonable intentions is both illegal and unethical (Straetmans, 2019). On 

the other hand, using facial recognition technology to identify and delete images of a victim of revenge 

porn or child sexual abuse once they are online would be a virtuous use of technology. 

 

The health sector is an important area where ethical and unethical practices should be considered. 

Transparently collecting and processing patients’ data to enhance the value proposition of services  

is a positively moral approach. For example, it can be used for early diagnosis of serious conditions  

or to prevent the spread of diseases. However, massive data processing activities done without patients’ 

complete understanding and agreement, solely to increase sales and profits of big pharmaceutical 

corporations, are unethical. 

 

The reason for this is related to the nature of personal data. The dominant conception of privacy is that 

everyone has control over their personal information, akin to a property right (Solove, 2006; Westin, 1967). 

However, we argue that personal data referring to a vast collectivity, such as citizens’ health data in a given 

city or country, assumes a public, albeit confidential, nature. Therefore, using such information only for 

social and non-profit purposes is ethical. Surveillance capitalism not only commodifies data but also 

privatizes collective information. The recent deal between Israel’s health data and multinational pharma 

giant Pfizer for vaccines serves as a worrying example of this phenomenon (Choun & Petre, 2022). 



 

10 

 

The scope of ethically-minded service design — opposed to a profit and opportunity-driven, and therefore 

amoral, service design — for privacy is to build service design solutions that impact positively all 

stakeholders involved in the service value proposition chain from different perspectives.  

 

Ethically-minded service design creates a virtuous circuit for all stakeholders, including businesses (Dyllick  

& Rost, 2017). An ethical approach to privacy makes compliance unnecessary because the solutions are 

privacy-compliant by design. This reduces or eliminates compliance costs and bureaucracy, benefiting 

service providers. Additionally, in an increasingly privacy-aware world, implementing poor privacy policies 

and designing products that show little consideration for users’ informational privacy may result in losing 

clients. For example, in 2021, WhatsApp’s update to its terms of service was poorly explained and justified, 

leading to more than 32 million users migrating to alternative services like Telegram and Signal (Le-Khac  

& Choo, 2022). While the real world is not yet perfectly ethical, positive change is happening. It is time for 

service designers to fully embrace and advocate for ethically-minded reforms. 

 

Conclusions: Towards a privacy social and political agenda for service design? 

The understanding of how to tackle privacy issues in service design practice is still embryonic in service 

design research. With this paper, we set a first stepping stone to link privacy and service design, and we 

based privacy for service design on ethical grounds. We contributed to service design research with the 

identification of these ethical grounds for privacy, rooted in different ethical traditions (primarily 

deontology, virtue ethics and information ethics, but also utilitarianism) and guidelines for service 

designers. The most important principles are for service designers to treat people and their information  

as ends and not means and not to surrender to the commodification of personal data and experiences. 

The ethical approach should guide service designers in the present, but more importantly, it will help 

service designers to set future targets: that is, to identify the preferred futures they want to build. 

Intentionally, this contribution aims to start a conversation with the service design community and scholars 

to fully explore the potential of privacy ethics for the practice of service design. 

 

Speculatively, one may have the ambition to translate privacy ethics for service design into a social and 

political agenda, specifically a privacy social and political agenda for service design. The idea of privacy is  

a human universal, but privacy is applied and experienced differently across cultures. This paper does not 

advocate for a total ban on collecting and processing personal information. Instead, it calls for limited, 

socially oriented and non-opportunistic use of citizens’ personal information. The big data economy and 

society present tremendous opportunities to improve the world through meaningful services. However,  

the challenge lies in how data is used. A political privacy agenda for service design should prevent the 

community of service designers from using data for unethical and objectionable purposes, such as accruing 

profits for companies without direct benefits for society or discriminating against communities and target 

groups. Discrimination occurs subtly through ‘smart’ algorithms that exclude many people from realizing 

their potential. 

 

Our future research is intended to enhance privacy ethics for service design principles and to study how to 

implement such principles in service design practice. We are developing an adaptive, human-centred and 

workable privacy ethical framework for service design that will lead to the conceptual grounds for a social 

and political agenda to discuss with the global service design community. Additionally, the ethical privacy 

framework will be supplemented by a prototype of an ethically-minded service design product designed  

to raise awareness among users about the importance of their information and adequately safeguarding it. 

  



 

11 

 

References 
Albinsson, P. A., Perera, B. Y., & Belk, R. W. (Eds.). (2018). The rise of the sharing economy: Exploring the challenges 

and opportunities of collaborative consumption. Praeger. 

Albrechtslund, A. (2008). Online social networking as participatory surveillance. First Monday. 
https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v13i3.2142  

Andreassen, T. W., Kristensson, P., Lervik-Olsen, L., Parasuraman, A., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Edvardsson, B., & Colurcio, 

M. (2016). Linking service design to value creation and service research. Journal of Service Management, 

27(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-04-2015-0123  

Archer, L. B. (1984). Systematic method for designers. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp.  
68–82). John Wiley & Sons. 

Bentham, J. (2009). Panopticon: Or the inspection house .Kessinger Publishing. (Original work published 1791) 

Bowles, C. (2018). Future ethics. NowNext Press. 

Bromell, D. (2022). Regulating free speech in a digital age: Hate, harm and the limits of censorship. Springer. 

Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2019). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation  

(Revised and updated edition). HarperBusiness. 
Buchanan, R. (2000, June 22). Human dignity and human rights: Thoughts on the principles of human-centered design. 

Design Issues, 17(3), 35–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1511799  

Burk, D. L. (2005). Privacy and property in the global datasphere. Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper (05-17). 

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.716862  

Calabretta, G., Lille, C., Beck, C., & Tanghe, J. (2016). Service design for effective servitization and new service 
implementation. In N. Morelli, A. de Götzen, & F. Gran (Eds.), Service design geographies. Proceedings  

of the ServDes.2016 conference (pp. 91–104). https://ep.liu.se/ecp/125/008/ecp16125008.pdf  

Capurro, R. (2005). Privacy. An intercultural perspective. Ethics and Information Technology, 7, 37–47. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-005-4407-4  

Choun, D. L., & Petre, A. (2022). Digital health and patient data: Empowering patients in the healthcare ecosystem. 

Taylor and Francis. 

Costa, N., Patrício, L., Morelli, N., & Magee, C. L. (2018). Bringing service design to manufacturing companies: 

Integrating PSS and service design approaches. Design Studies, 55, 112–145. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.09.002  

Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating  
it for capitalism. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503609754  

Cummings, M. L. (2006). Integrating ethics in design through the value-sensitive design approach. Science and 

Engineering Ethics, 12(4), 701–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0065-0  

Doctorow, C. (2020). How to destroy surveillance capitalism. Medium Editions. 

Donia, J., & Shaw, James. A. (2021). Ethics and values in design: A structured review and theoretical critique. Science 

and Engineering Ethics, 27(5), 57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00329-2  

Dorst, K. (2019). What design can’t do. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 5(4), 357–359. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.11.004  

Dunne, A., & Gaver, W. W. (1997). The pillow: Artist-designers in the digital age. In CHI ’97 extended abstracts on 

human factors in computing systems looking to the future - CHI ’97 (pp. 361–362). 

https://doi.org/10.1145/1120212.1120434 

Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: Design, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT Press. 

Dyllick, T., & Rost, Z. (2017). Towards true product sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 346–360. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.189  

Ess, C. (2020). Digital media ethics (3rd ed.). Polity. 

Ess, C. M. (2019). Intercultural privacy: A Nordic perspective. In H. Behrendt, W. Loh, T. Matzner, & C. Misselhorn 
(Eds.), Privatsphäre 4.0: Eine Neuverortung des Privaten im Zeitalter der Digitalisierung (pp. 73–88). J.B. 

Metzler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04860-8_5  

Evenson, S., & Dubberly, H. (2009). Designing for service: Creating an experience advantage. In G. Salvendy  

& W. Karwowski (Eds.), Introduction to service engineering (pp. 403–413). John Wiley & Sons. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470569627.ch19  
Falbe, T., Andersen, K., & Frederiksen, M. M. (2020). Ethical design handbook. Smashing Media. 

Floridi, L. (2010). Information: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. 

Floridi, L. (2014). The 4th revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford University Press. 

Foster, J. B., & McChesney, R. W. (2014). Surveillance capitalism: Monopoly-finance capital, the military-industrial 

complex, and the digital age. Monthly Review, 66(3). https://monthlyreview.org/2014/07/01/surveillance-
capitalism/  

https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v13i3.2142
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-04-2015-0123
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1511799
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.716862
https://ep.liu.se/ecp/125/008/ecp16125008.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-005-4407-4
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.09.002
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503609754
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0065-0
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00329-2
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.11.004
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.189
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04860-8_5
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470569627.ch19
https://monthlyreview.org/2014/07/01/surveillance-capitalism/
https://monthlyreview.org/2014/07/01/surveillance-capitalism/


 

12 

 

Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. (2019). Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. MIT Press. 

Friedman, B., Kahn, P., & Borning, A. (2003). Value sensitive design: Theory and methods. 

Fry, T., Dilnot, C., & Stewart, S. C. (Eds.). (2015). Design and the question of history. Bloomsbury Academic. 

Fukuyama, F. (2022). Liberalism and its discontents. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 

Grenha Teixeira, J., Patrício, L., Huang, K.-H., Fisk, R. P., Nóbrega, L., & Constantine, L. (2017). The MINDS method: 

integrating management and interaction design perspectives for service design. Journal of Service Research, 

20(3), 240–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670516680033  

Han, B.-C., & Butler, E. (2015). The transparency society. Stanford Briefs, an imprint of Stanford University Press. 

Holvast, J. (2009). History of privacy. In V. Matyáš, S. Fischer-Hübner, D. Cvrček, & P. Švenda (Eds.), The future of 

identity in the information society (pp. 13–42). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03315-5_2  
Hongladarom, S. (2007). Analysis and justification of privacy from a Buddhist perspective. 

Horst W. J. Rittel, & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. 

Kimbell, L. (2011). Designing for service as one way of designing services. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 41–52. 

Le-Khac, N.-A., & Choo, K.-K. R. (2022). A practical hands-on approach to database forensics. Springer. 

Lyon, D. (2017). Surveillance culture: Engagement, exposure, and ethics in digital modernity. International Journal  

of Communication, 11, 824–842. 
Ma, Y. (2019). Relational privacy: Where the East and the West could meet. Proceedings of the Association for 

Information Science and Technology, 56(1), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.65  

Ma, Y. (2021). Language and intercultural information ethics concepts: A preliminary discussion of privacy. Data and 

Information Management, 5(1), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.2478/dim-2020-0027  

MacKinnon, B., & Fiala, A. (2015). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues (8th ed.). Cengage Learning. 

Malpass, M. (2019). Critical design in context: History, theory, and practices. Bloomsbury Visual Arts. 

Meroni, A., & Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Design for services. Gower. 

Montasari, R., Carpenter, V., & Masys, A. J. (Eds.). (2023). Digital transformation in policing: The promise, perils and 

solutions. Springer. 

Monteiro, M. (2019). Ruined by design: How designers destroyed the world, and what we can do to fix it. 
https://www.ruinedby.design/  

Oliva, R., & Kallenberg, R. (2003). Managing the transition from products to services. International Journal of Service 

Industry Management, 14(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230310474138  

Ordanini, A., & Parasuraman, A. (2011). Service innovation viewed through a service-dominant logic lens:  

A conceptual framework and empirical analysis. Journal of Service Research, 14(1), 3–23. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510385332  

Papanek, V. (2019). Design for the real world. Thames & Hudson. 

Parrilli, D. M. (2021). Why digital design needs a privacy-centered ethical framework. In N. Martins & D. Brandão 

(Eds.), Advances in design and digital communication: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on 

design and digital communication, Digicom 2020, November 5–7, 2020, Barcelos, Portugal (pp. 216–221). 

Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61671-7_20  
Pater, R. (2016). The politics of design: A (not so) global manual for visual communication. BIS Publishers. 

Penin, L. (2017). An introduction to service design: Designing the invisible. Bloomsbury Publishing. 

Psychogiopoulou, E., & de la Sierra, S. (Eds.). (2022). Digital media governance and supranational courts: Selected 

issues and insights from the European judiciary. Edward Elgar Publishing. 

Raun, L. (2017). Designing for service change: A study on how designers address implementation during service design 
projects for hospitals. [Doctoral dissertation, Aalborg University]. VBN. 

https://doi.org/10.5278/vbn.phd.tech.00017  

Sætra, H. S., Coeckelbergh, M., & Danaher, J. (2021). The AI ethicist’s dilemma: Fighting big tech by supporting big 

tech. AI and Ethics, 2(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00123-7  

Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: Three approaches to making in codesigning. 
CoDesign, 10(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.888183  

Sicart, M. (2009). The ethics of computer games. MIT Press. 

Solove, D. J. (2006). The digital person: Technology and privacy in the information age. New York University Press. 

Straetmans, G. (Ed.). (2019). Information obligations and disinformation of consumers. Springer. 

Vallor, S. (2016). Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford University Press. 

Vallor, S. (2021). Social networking and ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2021). 

Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/ethics-

social-networking/  

Vandermerwe, S., & Rada, J. (1988). Servitization of business: Adding value by adding services. European Management 

Journal, 6(4), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(88)90033-3  

https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670516680033
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03315-5_2
https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.65
https://doi.org/10.2478/dim-2020-0027
https://www.ruinedby.design/
https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230310474138
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510385332
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61671-7_20
https://doi.org/10.5278/vbn.phd.tech.00017
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00123-7
https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.888183
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/ethics-social-networking/
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/ethics-social-networking/
https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(88)90033-3


 

13 

 

Véliz, C. (2020). Privacy is power: Reclaiming democracy in the digital age. Bantam Press. 

Verbeek, P.-P. (2014). Some misunderstandings about the moral significance of technology. In P. Kroes  

& P.-P. Verbeek (Eds.), The moral status of technical artefacts (pp. 75–88). Springer Netherlands. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7914-3_5  

Wakkary, R. (2021). Things we could design: For more than human-centered worlds. MIT Press. 

Warren, S., & Brandeis, L. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193–220. 

Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and freedom. Scribner. 

Yao-Huai, L. (2005). Privacy and data privacy issues in contemporary China. Ethics and Information Technology,  

7(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-005-0456-y  

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. 
PublicAffairs. 

 
 
 
 

 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7914-3_5
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-005-0456-y

	aUNIDCOM/IADE, Faculdade de Design, Tecnologia e Comunicação, Universidade Europeia, Lisbon, Portugal
	Albinsson, P. A., Perera, B. Y., & Belk, R. W. (Eds.). (2018). The rise of the sharing economy: Exploring the challenges and opportunities of collaborative consumption. Praeger.
	Albrechtslund, A. (2008). Online social networking as participatory surveillance. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v13i3.2142
	Andreassen, T. W., Kristensson, P., Lervik-Olsen, L., Parasuraman, A., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Edvardsson, B., & Colurcio, M. (2016). Linking service design to value creation and service research. Journal of Service Management, 27(1), 21–29. https://do...
	Archer, L. B. (1984). Systematic method for designers. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp.  68–82). John Wiley & Sons.
	Bentham, J. (2009). Panopticon: Or the inspection house .Kessinger Publishing. (Original work published 1791)
	Bowles, C. (2018). Future ethics. NowNext Press.
	Bromell, D. (2022). Regulating free speech in a digital age: Hate, harm and the limits of censorship. Springer.
	Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2019). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation (Revised and updated edition). HarperBusiness.
	Buchanan, R. (2000, June 22). Human dignity and human rights: Thoughts on the principles of human-centered design. Design Issues, 17(3), 35–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1511799
	Burk, D. L. (2005). Privacy and property in the global datasphere. Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper (05-17). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.716862
	Calabretta, G., Lille, C., Beck, C., & Tanghe, J. (2016). Service design for effective servitization and new service implementation. In N. Morelli, A. de Götzen, & F. Gran (Eds.), Service design geographies. Proceedings  of the ServDes.2016 conference...
	Capurro, R. (2005). Privacy. An intercultural perspective. Ethics and Information Technology, 7, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-005-4407-4
	Choun, D. L., & Petre, A. (2022). Digital health and patient data: Empowering patients in the healthcare ecosystem. Taylor and Francis.
	Costa, N., Patrício, L., Morelli, N., & Magee, C. L. (2018). Bringing service design to manufacturing companies: Integrating PSS and service design approaches. Design Studies, 55, 112–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.09.002
	Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating  it for capitalism. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503609754
	Cummings, M. L. (2006). Integrating ethics in design through the value-sensitive design approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(4), 701–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0065-0
	Doctorow, C. (2020). How to destroy surveillance capitalism. Medium Editions.
	Donia, J., & Shaw, James. A. (2021). Ethics and values in design: A structured review and theoretical critique. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(5), 57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00329-2
	Dorst, K. (2019). What design can’t do. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 5(4), 357–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.11.004
	Dunne, A., & Gaver, W. W. (1997). The pillow: Artist-designers in the digital age. In CHI ’97 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems looking to the future - CHI ’97 (pp. 361–362). https://doi.org/10.1145/1120212.1120434
	Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: Design, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT Press.
	Dyllick, T., & Rost, Z. (2017). Towards true product sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 346–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.189
	Ess, C. (2020). Digital media ethics (3rd ed.). Polity.
	Ess, C. M. (2019). Intercultural privacy: A Nordic perspective. In H. Behrendt, W. Loh, T. Matzner, & C. Misselhorn (Eds.), Privatsphäre 4.0: Eine Neuverortung des Privaten im Zeitalter der Digitalisierung (pp. 73–88). J.B. Metzler. https://doi.org/10...
	Evenson, S., & Dubberly, H. (2009). Designing for service: Creating an experience advantage. In G. Salvendy  & W. Karwowski (Eds.), Introduction to service engineering (pp. 403–413). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470569627.ch19
	Falbe, T., Andersen, K., & Frederiksen, M. M. (2020). Ethical design handbook. Smashing Media.
	Floridi, L. (2010). Information: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
	Floridi, L. (2014). The 4th revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford University Press.
	Foster, J. B., & McChesney, R. W. (2014). Surveillance capitalism: Monopoly-finance capital, the military-industrial complex, and the digital age. Monthly Review, 66(3). https://monthlyreview.org/2014/07/01/surveillance-capitalism/
	Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. (2019). Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. MIT Press.
	Friedman, B., Kahn, P., & Borning, A. (2003). Value sensitive design: Theory and methods.
	Fry, T., Dilnot, C., & Stewart, S. C. (Eds.). (2015). Design and the question of history. Bloomsbury Academic.
	Fukuyama, F. (2022). Liberalism and its discontents. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
	Grenha Teixeira, J., Patrício, L., Huang, K.-H., Fisk, R. P., Nóbrega, L., & Constantine, L. (2017). The MINDS method: integrating management and interaction design perspectives for service design. Journal of Service Research, 20(3), 240–258. https://...
	Han, B.-C., & Butler, E. (2015). The transparency society. Stanford Briefs, an imprint of Stanford University Press.
	Holvast, J. (2009). History of privacy. In V. Matyáš, S. Fischer-Hübner, D. Cvrček, & P. Švenda (Eds.), The future of identity in the information society (pp. 13–42). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03315-5_2
	Hongladarom, S. (2007). Analysis and justification of privacy from a Buddhist perspective.
	Horst W. J. Rittel, & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
	Kimbell, L. (2011). Designing for service as one way of designing services. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 41–52.
	Le-Khac, N.-A., & Choo, K.-K. R. (2022). A practical hands-on approach to database forensics. Springer.
	Lyon, D. (2017). Surveillance culture: Engagement, exposure, and ethics in digital modernity. International Journal  of Communication, 11, 824–842.
	Ma, Y. (2019). Relational privacy: Where the East and the West could meet. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 56(1), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.65
	Ma, Y. (2021). Language and intercultural information ethics concepts: A preliminary discussion of privacy. Data and Information Management, 5(1), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.2478/dim-2020-0027
	MacKinnon, B., & Fiala, A. (2015). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
	Malpass, M. (2019). Critical design in context: History, theory, and practices. Bloomsbury Visual Arts.
	Meroni, A., & Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Design for services. Gower.
	Montasari, R., Carpenter, V., & Masys, A. J. (Eds.). (2023). Digital transformation in policing: The promise, perils and solutions. Springer.
	Monteiro, M. (2019). Ruined by design: How designers destroyed the world, and what we can do to fix it. https://www.ruinedby.design/
	Oliva, R., & Kallenberg, R. (2003). Managing the transition from products to services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230310474138
	Ordanini, A., & Parasuraman, A. (2011). Service innovation viewed through a service-dominant logic lens:  A conceptual framework and empirical analysis. Journal of Service Research, 14(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510385332
	Papanek, V. (2019). Design for the real world. Thames & Hudson.
	Parrilli, D. M. (2021). Why digital design needs a privacy-centered ethical framework. In N. Martins & D. Brandão (Eds.), Advances in design and digital communication: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on design and digital communication...
	Pater, R. (2016). The politics of design: A (not so) global manual for visual communication. BIS Publishers.
	Penin, L. (2017). An introduction to service design: Designing the invisible. Bloomsbury Publishing.
	Psychogiopoulou, E., & de la Sierra, S. (Eds.). (2022). Digital media governance and supranational courts: Selected issues and insights from the European judiciary. Edward Elgar Publishing.
	Raun, L. (2017). Designing for service change: A study on how designers address implementation during service design projects for hospitals. [Doctoral dissertation, Aalborg University]. VBN. https://doi.org/10.5278/vbn.phd.tech.00017
	Sætra, H. S., Coeckelbergh, M., & Danaher, J. (2021). The AI ethicist’s dilemma: Fighting big tech by supporting big tech. AI and Ethics, 2(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00123-7
	Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: Three approaches to making in codesigning. CoDesign, 10(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.888183
	Sicart, M. (2009). The ethics of computer games. MIT Press.
	Solove, D. J. (2006). The digital person: Technology and privacy in the information age. New York University Press.
	Straetmans, G. (Ed.). (2019). Information obligations and disinformation of consumers. Springer.
	Vallor, S. (2016). Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford University Press.
	Vallor, S. (2021). Social networking and ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2021). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/ethics-social-networking/
	Vandermerwe, S., & Rada, J. (1988). Servitization of business: Adding value by adding services. European Management Journal, 6(4), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(88)90033-3
	Véliz, C. (2020). Privacy is power: Reclaiming democracy in the digital age. Bantam Press.
	Verbeek, P.-P. (2014). Some misunderstandings about the moral significance of technology. In P. Kroes  & P.-P. Verbeek (Eds.), The moral status of technical artefacts (pp. 75–88). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7914-3_5
	Wakkary, R. (2021). Things we could design: For more than human-centered worlds. MIT Press.
	Warren, S., & Brandeis, L. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193–220.
	Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and freedom. Scribner.
	Yao-Huai, L. (2005). Privacy and data privacy issues in contemporary China. Ethics and Information Technology,  7(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-005-0456-y
	Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.

