Ok, so what about Implementation?

Research on privacy architecture and location based privacy / ubiquitous computing is particularly helpful to measurement.  

Guarda and Zannone provide a unique contribution to the field of privacy with an excellent description of privacy engineering concepts, and a focus on privacy requirements engineering.  Privacy requirements engineering can be used as a basis for comprehensive privacy architecture, such as that provided in Venter et al.  Clarkson et al raise an interesting consideration for privacy scholars in terms of broadening the concept of identifiability by examining physical characteristics of documents.  The model itself presents particularly neat diagrammatic registration and validation pipelines.  

Conversely, P3P is one way to facilitate an informed online transaction.  However, Kelley et al neglect to consider that privacy is a highly context dependent issue.  It is feasible that a user may make different privacy decisions in an online transaction despite or even contrary to policy because of branding; the perception of trust may be more important than the published privacy policy no matter how easy it is to read.  

Several of the other applied research papers (Narayanana, Xiao) posit that anonymity is not a robust privacy-protection using real world examples that often involve releasing more information than necessary for re-identification, neither is it practical in social networking tools.  Li et al represents an excellent taxonomy of privacy-preserving techniques for wireless sensor networks in a logical format that could be easily repeated for other technological implementations and systems.  In addition, the tabular summary of the privacy-preserving solutions presented is a succinct summary analysis that can be used to build on Applewhite’s work and provide further evidence of the risk of commodification of personal information.