Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Digital Rights in Motion Special Issue

Vol. 9 (2022): Digital rights on the move

Privacy perceptions and the use of tools for its protection in Uruguay

DOI
https://doi.org/10.19092/reed.v10.686
Submitted
November 29, 2021
Published
2023-01-30

Abstract

This article explores Uruguayan’s perceptions about privacy rights in the digital era and the capacity of legal and institutional frameworks to protect it. The article presents the results of a survey and an intervention (experimental design) on the Facebook platform in Uruguay from 2018, where participants received a random treatment about their credit information that was publicly available with their National Identification Number. Based on these results, the article explores the tensions in matters of identity systems, personal data protection and regulation of the privacy right in Uruguay. The Uruguayan case is relevant for its adaptation to the personal data protection standards proposed by the European Union, as well as for the relatively good institutional performance of the country in Latin America. Based on the results of the survey and the experiment, the privacy paradox is confirmed, according to which people recognize an important value in the law but their actions for protection are limited. The article argues in favor of building state and citizen capacities for effective control of personal data.

 

References

  1. Agencia de Gobierno Electrónico y Sociedad de la Información y del Conocimiento. (2020). Estudio sobre conocimientos, actitudes y prácticas de ciudadanía digital: Principales resultados 2020. https://www.gub.uy/agencia-gobierno-electronico-sociedad-informacion-conocimiento/datos-y-estadisticas/estadisticas/estudio-sobre-conocimientos-actitudes-practicas-ciudadania-digital-2020
  2. Barth, S., & de Jong, M. D. T. (2017). The privacy paradox – Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – A systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 1038-1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013
  3. Bergström, A. (2015). Online privacy concerns: A broad approach to understanding the concerns of different groups for different uses. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 419-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.025
  4. Bø, E. E., Slemrod, J., & Thoresen, T. O. (2015). Taxes on the internet: Deterrence effects of public disclosure. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7(1), 36-62.
  5. Cimpanu, C. (2021, 18 de octubre). Hacker steals government ID database for Argentina’s entire population. The Record. https://therecord.media/hacker-steals-government-id-database-for-argentinas-entire-population/
  6. Council of Europe. (2013, 4 de diciembre). Personal data protection: Uruguay becomes first non-European state to accede to “Convention 108”. Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/personal-data-protection-uruguay-becomes-first-non-european-state-to-accede-to-convention-108-
  7. Díaz, P. (2020, 27 de octubre). ¿Vigilancia estatal basada en identificación facial en Uruguay? Datysoc. https://datysoc.org/2020/10/27/vigilancia-estatal-basada-en-identificacion-facial-en-uruguay/
  8. Duval Guillaume. (2012, 24 de septiembre). Amazing mind reader reveals his ‘gift’ [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/F7pYHN9iC9I
  9. Greenleaf, Graham, Global Data Privacy in a Networked World (October 14, 2011). RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON GOVERNANCE OF THE INTERNET, I. Brown, ed., Edward Elgar, 2012, UNSW Law Research Paper No. 2011-38, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1954296
  10. Gupta, S., & Kumaraguru, P. (2013). OCEAN: Open-source collation of eGovernment data and networks - Understanding privacy leaks in open government data. arXiv [cs.CY]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.2784
  11. Hood, C. C., & Margetts, H. Z. (2007). Looking ahead: The tools of government in the digital age. In C. C. Hood, & H. Z. Margetts, The tools of government in the digital age (pp. 184-203). Ciudad: Nueva York. Palgrave MacMillan; 2nd edición, ISBN 978-0230001442
  12. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, & Agencia de Gobierno Electrónico y Sociedad de la Información. (2016). Principales resultados de la encuesta usos de las tecnologías de la información y comunicación. https://www.gub.uy/agencia-gobierno-electronico-sociedad-informacion-conocimiento/datos-y-estadisticas/estadisticas/encuesta-uso-tecnologias-informacion-comunicacion-2016
  13. Kohnstamm, J. (2010). Opinion 6/2010 on the level of protection of personal data in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay. https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2010/wp177_en.pdf
  14. Krasnova, H., Veltri, N. F., & Günther, O. (2012). Self-disclosure and privacy calculus on social networking sites: The role of culture: Intercultural dynamics of privacy calculus. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 4(3), 127-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-012-0216-6
  15. Ministerio del Interior Uruguay. (2019, 25 de octubre). La nueva policía: 10 años de videovigilancia [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovvVi9mu5g4
  16. Pew Research Center. (2016, 21 de septiembre). The state of privacy in post-Snowden America. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/21/the-state-of-privacy-in-america/
  17. Pew Research Center. (2019, 15 de noviembre). Americans and privacy: Concerned, confused and feeling lack of control over their personal information. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/
  18. Schwartz, Paul M. and Peifer, Karl-Nikolaus, Transatlantic Data Privacy (November 7, 2017). 106 Georgetown Law Journal 115 (2017), UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3066971.
  19. Schomakers, E. M. et al. (2019). Internet users’ perceptions of information sensitivity – Insights from Germany. International Journal of Information Management, 46, 142-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.11.018
  20. Solove, D. J. (2006). A taxonomy of privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(3), 477-560.
  21. Solove, D. J. (2021). The myth of the privacy paradox. George Washington Law Review, 89. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3536265
  22. UNICEF #educaDerechos. (2020, 28 de enero). Privacidad en internet [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXmjnNoDrTI
  23. Tene, O., & Polonetsky, J. (2013). Big data for all: Privacy and user control in the age of analytics. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 11(5), 239-273.
  24. The Economist. (2018). Global Microscope 2018: The enabling environment for financial inclusion and the expansion of digital financial services. https://content.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/11/EIU_Microscope_2018_PROOF_10.pdf
  25. Vera, J. (2018, 5 de abril). El nuevo reglamento europeo de protección de datos (GDPR) en Uruguay. El Observador. https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/el-nuevo-reglamento-europeo-de-proteccion-de-datos-gdpr-en-uruguay-20185412140

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.