The Role of Privacy Guarantees in Voluntary Donation of Private Health Data for Altruistic Goals
Ruizhe Wang, Roberta De Viti, Aarushi Dubey, Elissa M. Redmiles
Abstract
While voluntary donation of private health information enables valuable research, privacy concerns often deter potential donors. Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) aim to address these concerns, yet their effectiveness in encouraging data sharing remains unclear. This study conducts a vignette survey (N = 494) with participants recruited from Prolific to examine the willingness of US-based people to donate medical data for developing new treatments. It investigates four general guarantees offered across PETs: data expiration, anonymization, purpose restriction, and access control and two mechanisms for verifying these guarantees: self-auditing and expert auditing. This study also controls for the impact of confounds, including demographics and two types of data collectors: for-profit and non-profit institutions. Our findings reveal that respondents hold such high expectations of privacy from non-profit entities a priori that explicitly outlining privacy protections has little impact on their overall perceptions. In contrast, offering privacy guarantees elevates respondents’ expectations of privacy for for-profit entities, bringing them nearly in line with those for non-profit organizations. Further, while the technical community has suggested audits as a mechanism to increase trust in PET guarantees, we observe limited effect from transparency about such audits. We emphasize the risks associated with these findings and underscore the critical need for future interdisciplinary research efforts to bridge the gap between the technical community’s and end-users’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of auditing PETs.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on14
- How Well Do My Results Generalize? Comparing Security and Privacy Survey Results from MTurk, Web, and Telephone SamplesElissa M. Redmiles, Sean Kross, Michelle L. MazurekS&P 2019 · 222 citations
- Obstacles to the Adoption of Secure Communication ToolsRuba Abu-Salma, M. Angela Sasse, Joseph Bonneau, Anastasia Danilova et al.S&P 2017 · 170 citations
- Waldo: A Private Time-Series Database from Function Secret SharingEmma Dauterman, Mayank Rathee, Raluca Ada Popa, Ion StoicaS&P 2022 · 91 citations
- Towards Effective Differential Privacy Communication for Users' Data Sharing Decision and ComprehensionAiping Xiong, Tianhao Wang, Ninghui Li, Somesh JhaS&P 2020 · 72 citations
- Exploring User Perceptions of Discrimination in Online Targeted AdvertisingAngelisa C. Plane, Elissa M. Redmiles, Michelle L. Mazurek, Michael Carl TschantzUSENIX Security 2017 · 70 citations
Related papers
- The Importance of Being Earnest: Shedding Light on Johnny's (False) Sense of PrivacyWirawan Agahari, Alexandra Dirksen, Martin Johns, Mark de Reuver et al.S&P 2025
- See Me If You Can: A Multi-Layer Protocol for Bystander Privacy with Consent-Based RestorationYahya Khawaja, Shirin Rehman, Alexander Ponticello, Divyanshu Bhardwaj et al.CHI 2026 · 2 citations
- Investigating Users' Decision-making for Data Privacy Controls in the Context of Internet of Things (IoT) Devices Using an Incentive-compatible Lottery StudyEhsan Ul Haque, Mohammad Maifi Hasan KhanCHI 2025 · 3 citations
- "I need a better description": An Investigation Into User Expectations For Differential PrivacyRachel Cummings, Gabriel Kaptchuk, Elissa M. RedmilesCCS 2021 · 45 citations
- Balancing Privacy and Data Utilization: A Comparative Vignette Study on User Acceptance of Data Trustees in Germany and the USLeona Lassak, Hanna Püschel, Oliver D. Reithmaier, Tobias Gostomzyk et al.NDSS 2025
