This Dictionary of Privacy, developed by four researchers who represent disciplines including statistics, cybersecurity, law, computer science and philosophy, is an attempt to create such a resource to fill this gap.

​

There have been many successful ad hoc attempts to do this in the context of particular research projects. However, until now there has not been a single resource that documents the breadth of vocabulary of privacy studies, such that individual researchers, entrepreneurs, regulators, lawyers, policymakers and students can find the terminology and assumptions of the varying disciplines set out for inspection and comparison.

​

With more than 1000 terms meticulously set out, described and cross-referenced, the Dictionary explains, in simple and straightforward language, complex technical terms, legal concepts, privacy management techniques and conceptual matters, alongside the ‘commonsense’ vocabulary that informs public debate.

​

Our method was straightforward. We seeded the Dictionary with the terms in well-known glossaries and lists of key terms and brainstormed more. Major publications were scoured for key words. We did gap analyses where we could, and plenty of them appeared (and were filled) as we wrote. Doubtless there are more gaps to be discovered, for which we apologise in advance.

​

Because the disciplines themselves often differ in their basic vocabulary, we have had to make some choices. For instance, in statistics, the term ‘variable’ is used to stand for the operationalisation of a construct in data; in computer science, this is often called an ‘attribute’. But ‘attribute’ may also stand for something attributed (for instance, by the analysis of data). We have, therefore, followed the statistics usage of the term ‘variable’.

​

It will also be noticed that this is a very European effort: we are jointly citizens of three European countries, and resident in two. Our expertise is inevitably shaped by that. Sometimes it may only be a matter of preferring one spelling to another, but, especially in law, geography counts. The Dictionary is therefore admittedly Eurocentric, has a few discussions of the privacy situation in the United States (which has been disproportionately influential on the literature), and provides very little indeed that specifically references issues raised in the Global South. This is a matter of scope and pragmatics, rather than an attempt to exclude.