A new MIT study shows that people’s views on data privacy shift dramatically depending on how the data is used, who benefits from it — and whether they’re given a voice in the process.
Key Points at a Glance
- MIT’s “Data Slots” game reveals people’s privacy values are fluid and context-dependent.
- Participants valued mobility and health data most — but opinions varied by situation.
- People were more open to sharing data when clear personal or social benefits were involved.
- Public input and transparency may ease privacy concerns and improve data policy.
- Over 2,000 participants from 92 countries contributed to the study’s insights.
What’s your health data worth? How about your GPS location or smart home metrics? The answer may depend less on the data itself and more on how it’s used — and by whom.
A new international study by MIT’s Senseable City Lab reveals that people don’t have a fixed price tag for privacy. Instead, our data-sharing preferences are deeply shaped by context, purpose, and perceived benefits. It’s a nuanced take on an issue often reduced to binary “yes or no” answers.
“There is no absolute value in privacy,” says study co-author Fabio Duarte. “Depending on the application, people might feel use of their data is more or less invasive.”
Published in Nature: Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, the study centers on an inventive card game called “Data Slots,” designed by the research team to explore how real people make decisions about sharing personal information. Over 2,000 rounds of the game were played by participants in 92 countries — offering a rich, global snapshot of what people truly think about their data.
In Data Slots, players are dealt cards representing 12 types of personal data — from health and location to household energy use. They then trade cards, brainstorm ways that data could be used in real-life settings (like at work, at home, or in public), and weigh potential risks and rewards. The game is equal parts poker and policymaking, blending chance with choice.
The most “valuable” data, according to participants? Personal mobility. Players were least willing to trade that card, keeping it 43% of the time. Health data and utility usage followed close behind. At the other end of the spectrum, players parted most easily with animal health data, retained only about 10% of the time.
But what’s most striking is that people’s choices weren’t absolute. When shown how their data might be used for social good — for example, combining workplace health data with environmental data to improve office air quality — many participants were far more willing to share.
“It might be invasive,” notes researcher Simone Mora, “but you might get some benefits back.”
This transactional logic upends the idea that people are simply pro- or anti-privacy. Instead, the study suggests we are situationally sensitive, open to trade-offs, and — importantly — interested in being part of the conversation.
“Now perhaps the company can make some interventions to improve overall health,” adds co-author Martina Mazzarello. “That changes the calculus.”
For cities, which are increasingly dependent on data to improve everything from traffic flow to pollution control, this is critical information. Transparency and participation, the study finds, can shift public attitudes meaningfully.
“The bottom line is that if cities disclose what they plan to do with data, and if they involve resident stakeholders to come up with their own ideas about what they could do, that would be beneficial,” says Duarte. “In those scenarios, people’s privacy concerns start to decrease a lot.”
The implications extend beyond cities. Corporations, health providers, and tech platforms alike may benefit from a more participatory approach to data governance — one that treats people not just as subjects, but as stakeholders.
By gamifying data policy, the MIT team didn’t just collect opinions — they surfaced a more sophisticated public ethic around data sharing. One rooted in reciprocity, trust, and real-world context.
The takeaway? Privacy isn’t dead. It’s just smarter than we thought.
