Trust is built on transparency, not fine print: Online privacy is getting harder to protect

People increasingly trust companies that explain clearly why they collect certain data, rather than those that hide key information deep within lengthy terms and conditions. This growing awareness reflects a broader concern over online privacy, with citizens considering it one of their top priorities. Yet, despite this concern, many still readily agree to data collection without much thought, often because the benefits, such as personalized recommendations or simplified access, are more tangible than the abstract risks. In today’s digital landscape, online services have become an integral part of daily life. Personalized suggestions, navigation tools, e-commerce platforms, and social media all function thanks to vast amounts of user data shared regularly. However, the boundary between practicality and privacy protection has grown increasingly blurred. As users continue to share personal information effortlessly, questions arise about how well they truly understand what happens to their data. This phenomenon, known as the “privacy paradox,” is well documented in academic literature. According to Prof. Dr. sc. Vatroslav Škare from the Marketing Department at Zagreb Faculty of Economics, the contradiction between what people say and what they do is a familiar concept among researchers. He explains that individuals often prioritize immediate benefits over potential long-term risks. For example, installing an app that tracks location for restaurant recommendations feels like a small trade-off for convenience, even though the consequences could be far-reaching. The decision-making process of users tends to favor tangible advantages over hypothetical dangers. Discounts, easier sign-ups, or tailored experiences offer clear value, while concerns about future misuse of data remain abstract and difficult to imagine. Additionally, few users actually read through the extensive legal language in terms of service agreements. Most simply click “Accept” without fully understanding what they are agreeing to. Some users develop a sense that privacy in the digital world has already been compromised, leading them to abandon efforts to protect it further. While technology companies argue that data collection enhances service quality, the question arises: where does useful personalization end and privacy violation begin? Škare notes that there is no universal threshold, as it depends on context. However, he suggests a simple guideline: ask whether the application genuinely needs a particular piece of data to fulfill its purpose or if it is merely collecting it for other reasons. A specific issue emerges when data collected in one context is used in entirely different ways. Information shared with a health app is generally accepted as reasonable for medical purposes. But if the same data is later used for targeted advertising or insurance offers, many users may perceive this as crossing a boundary, even if such processing was technically permitted under the terms of service. Research also shows that users are more likely to accept data sharing when they feel they retain some level of control. The mere ability to enable or disable certain settings can increase user confidence. Despite increased awareness of privacy issues in recent years, understanding how the digital economy operates remains limited. Most users know that tech companies gather information about their habits, but fewer grasp how these data points connect across multiple sources, create detailed profiles, and are used for targeted advertising or other purposes.