Online Privacy

12 Key excerpts on "Online Privacy"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  Targeted Advertising and Consumer Privacy Concerns

  Experimental Studies in an Internet Context

  • (Author)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Cuvillier Verlag

    (Publisher)

  Consumer Privacy Concerns Online 3 55 3. Consumer Privacy Concerns Online 3.1 Foundations of Consumer Privacy Concerns According to research in psychology and sociology, privacy fulfills important functions (Margulis 2003). Individuals seek privacy to maintain personal autonomy, have time out from social demands allowing for emotional release, have room for contemplation, be able to confide information to trusted others in a protected environment, and have room for creativity (Goodwin 1992; Pedersen 1999; Westin 1967). When people perceive their privacy is threatened, they might experience negative affects and adjust their behavior (see section 3.2). The notion of privacy and, thus, the sources of privacy concerns are multidimensional. In the 19 th century, legal scholars focused on physical privacy. Warren and Brandeis (1890) defined privacy as the right to be let alone. Prosser (1960) specified this definition by conceptualizing privacy as freedom from intrusion of a person’s seclusion or solitude. Thus, physical privacy allows individuals to control unwanted intrusions into their environment (Goodwin 1991). With the growth of direct marketing, the usage of information technology in organizations, and more recently the Internet as well as mobile communication devices, the academic focus has shifted to information privacy (e.g., Malhotra, Kim and Agarwal 2004; Milne and Gordon 1993; Phelps, Nowak and Ferrell 2000). According to Westin (1967) information privacy refers to an individual’s ability to control when, how, and to what extent information about him or her is transmitted to others. This conceptualization implies that in a marketing context, the critical element of consumer information privacy is not information disclosure per se, but rather the level of control consumers have over the collection and usage of their information by marketers (e.g., White 2004; Youn 2009).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Digital Privacy

  Theory, Technologies, and Practices

  • Alessandro Acquisti, Stefanos Gritzalis, Costos Lambrinoudakis, Sabrina di Vimercati, Alessandro Acquisti, Stefanos Gritzalis, Costos Lambrinoudakis, Sabrina di Vimercati(Authors)
  • 2007(Publication Date)
  • Auerbach Publications

    (Publisher)

  It should not go without reference that there is a difference between how people perceive risk and actual risk [14]. According to Schnier [13], this difference could explain security trade-offs by Internet users. Gilbert [15] names the following set of reasons that explain why people would 258 Digital Privacy: Theory, Technologies, and Practices overestimate or underestimate risks: people tend to (1) overreact to in-tentional actions and underreact to accidents, abstract events, and natural phenomena; (2) overreact to things that offend their morals; (3) overreact to immediate threats and underreact to long-term threats; and (4) underreact to changes that occur slowly and over time. 12.3.1 Types of Privacy Research on privacy indicates that it is a comprehensive concept. One can distinguish several types of privacy [2]: Physical privacy (also known as solitude ) is the state of privacy in which persons are free from unwanted intrusion or observation. Informational privacy (also known as anonymity ) is the desire to have control over the conditions under which personal data is re-leased. Psychological privacy is defined as the control over release or reten-tion of personal information to guard one’s cognitions and affects. Interactional privacy (also known as intimacy ) is relevant to rela-tionships in social units as it preserves meaningful communication between individuals and among group members. 12.4 Case Study: Privacy Concerns among Members of Online Communities 12.4.1 Case Study Background To explore privacy perceptions and attitudes among online communities’ members, we constructed a questionnaire comprising both open and closed questions. We used this questionnaire to interview fourteen individuals, all members of MySpace.com, which is one of the most popular online com-munities.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Framing Privacy in Digital Collections with Ethical Decision Making

  • Virginia Dressler(Author)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • Springer

    (Publisher)

  It would be unjust, no matter the level of abstraction, to take a person’s words or images and use them in ways which they would not approve or which could do them harm, especially when they have not consented to their use. Data needs to retain the social context of the person of its origin in order to be treated ethically (Miller, 2016, p. 71). Further, researchers like Ricardo Punzalan at the University of Maryland, Michelle Caswell at University of California (Los Angeles), and Zinaida Manžuch at Vilnuis University have looked specifically at issues apparent within the context and significance in digital collections that focus on ethnographic populations, navigating difficult aspects of permission and value (Punzalan, 2014; Caswell, 2014; Manžuch, 2017). Writers like Gilliland and Wiener (2014) pose the question of scenarios that may have quasi-legal confidentiality concerns, such as collections containing in- formation with older human subject research that would under modern review be subject to an Institutional Review Board. Strauß (2017a, p. 260) views privacy a little differently: “…privacy defines a state where an individual is free from interference.” As professionals, we can work toward an interference-free landscape on behalf of the individual, in setting a framework that provides clear and elicit catego- ries of what should constitute as offline, private information and what would conversely be data that would not be deemed damaging or intrusive. And Strauß (2017a, p. 260) also speaks to a level of trust in society to protect privacy: “…privacy is also linked to the trust that others respect private life and do not intrude into it against the individual’s will.” This notion speaks to the level of awareness and mindfulness toward another’s right to privacy that should be considered when publishing content and needs to be addressed more fully—we can no longer claim ignorance on the matter. 1.4 VIOLATION OF PRIVACY

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Routledge Handbook of Privacy and Social Media

  • Sabine Trepte, Philipp Masur, Sabine Trepte, Philipp Masur, Philipp K. Masur, Sabine Trepte, Philipp K. Masur(Authors)
  • 2023(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  The network depends on each member's privacy regulation, but cannot actively communicate about it as in relational privacy (King, 2019). In contrast, contextual integrity theory holds that each context requires particular forms of privacy regulation (Nissenbaum, 2010). Privacy is understood as an appraisal process in which individuals assess the context and (should) try to act accordingly. For future research, social network analysis would be an interesting way to measure networked privacy on social media. Lewis (2011) analyzed the mechanisms and behavioral dynamics of privacy on Facebook and demonstrated how students’ social networks significantly influence their privacy regulation behaviors during their first year of college. The first-year college students assimilated their privacy behaviors in social media networks early in the term and in ways that depended on the size of their network (Lewis, 2011). Students with larger networks were more likely to manage their privacy by using private profiles than students with smaller networks. In summary, I would consider networked privacy one of the most important terms furthering our understanding of privacy on social media. Social media technology is not only designed, but constantly shaped by humans. Moreover, social media users are in touch with others, but a large share of these relationships are unknown and changing. These two presuppositions challenge privacy theory. They highlight that when we as researchers or practitioners define groups, certain social media contexts, or relevant persons, it is only one very tiny part of the picture. Privacy research, policies, and lawmaking should focus on relational privacy, because relations are observable parts of the network. But they should also acknowledge networked privacy, because privacy regulation is affected by the larger network and its unknown parts

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Examining Internet and Technology around the World

  • Laura M. Steckman(Author)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • ABC-CLIO

    (Publisher)

  Online Privacy involves having the right to maintain personal agency over what data is stored, provided to unknown third parties, repurposed, or displayed on the internet (Editorial Board 2017; Wheeler 2017). Online Privacy is part of a larger conversation on data privacy and has been a concern since the inception of computer sharing (David and Fano 1965). In general, Online Privacy is broken down into two levels: personally identifying information (PII) and non-PII. PII encompasses any information that can be used to identify an individual person. For example, a birthdate and an address can identify an individual, even if their name is not known.

  Non-PII information pertinent to the privacy conversation includes data such as websites users visit and their behavior on the site, as well as their online searches. Debate is ongoing about just how much information should be protected by being labeled “PII.” For instance, GPS tracking data collected by various mobile applications show the daily routine and commute information of users and, in many cases, is unique enough to reveal an individual’s home and workplace (Valentino-DeVries, Singer, Keller, and Krolik 2018). Currently, however, such data is not provided the same protections as PII under laws and regulations governing data privacy.

  Traditionally, the concept of privacy has pertained to physical personal space (like vehicles and homes) and sometimes to personal decisions. Online Privacy, however, has been slow to be recognized as a need by the public in the United States; in fact, it is often not a well-understood concept by citizens and lawmakers. However, Online Privacy is a public conversation that is increasingly surfacing, tied to heated debate and political views. In the late 1990s with the spread of the internet, it became clear that both the internet and companies that used it needed some regulation to protect an individual’s privacy.

  In 1993, Vice President Al Gore (1948–) created the Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF). While the IITF did not touch privacy rights initially, in 1997, it developed privacy standards to coincide with the rise of internet commerce. At that time, the task force defined information privacy as “an individual’s claim to control the terms under which personal information—information identifiable to the individual—is acquired, disclosed, and used” (Editorial Board 2017). Despite the definition, individuals did not gain much control over their data and, in many cases, did not understand what was being collected and for what purpose.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Facets of Facebook

  Use and Users

  • Kathrin Knautz, Katsiaryna S. Baran, Kathrin Knautz, Katsiaryna S. Baran(Authors)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter

    (Publisher)

  Because of these differences regarding offline communication, in particular, for Points 2 and 3, self-revelation on the social web can be taken out of the context in which such a decision was originally made. This effect is called “recontextualization” (Taddicken, 2010).

  “Publicity by default” is another characteristic of social media. Most SNSs, such as Facebook, by default make all user-created profiles and accompanying information available to “the public,” means anyone can view another’s data. Users who upload data to the SNS must take action to change the public availability of their personal data by using privacy settings. Via these settings, an individual’s privacy can be secured to a certain extent. The user, however, must maintain a continuous vigilance over their information and choose between qualities of being open or closed to participate in the social media sphere: “Maintaining a degree of privacy, or ‘closedness,’ will often require disclosure of [one’s] personal information or whereabouts” (Palen & Dourish, 2003, p. 3).

  It remains that even if a piece of information is revealed only to a limited circle, for example, to one’s closest friends, an invasion of privacy may still occur. This occurs when co-owners of the information fail to follow the agreed-upon rules and spread the information, knowingly or unknowingly. This can cause problems in some situations (Margulis, 2003, p. 247 f.).

  According to research from the United States, different users perceive such threats in different ways, with researchers separating them into three categories: “privacy fundamentalists” who feel privacy is very important; the “unconcerned,” who feel little or no worry about their Online Privacy; and “privacy pragmatists,” who feel Online Privacy is important and therefore attempt to protect it. Surveys reveal the third group makes up a 64 % share (Wildemuth, 2006).

  Dealing with Privacy in Social Networks

  In recent years, many empirical studies have discussed how users deal with their privacy in social networks. Being active in any social network means being willing to share some amount self-revelation as a necessary condition to belong (Taddicken & Jers, 2011). Most studies of self-revelation in social media focus on the information provided by users of these networks in their respective profiles. Research has revealed most users offer more information about themselves than usually occurs in face-to-face conversations (Christofides et al., 2009; Haferkamp, 2010). Information provided in the profiles can be ordered by intimacy: data often revealed, such as a person’s first name or gender, are considered less intimate than, for example, a personal telephone number or an exact address (Boyle & Johnson, 2010). Among the data most often released are the last name and a photo of the user (Prommer et al., 2009). Most users do not provide direct contact information (Taraszow et al., 2010) because it results in an increased risk of abuse by publishing more intimate data (Taddicken, 2010).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Genetic Data and the Law

  A Critical Perspective on Privacy Protection

  • Mark Taylor(Author)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  Part I The context 2 Privacy Within any society there are certain ‘rules of engagement’ that exist between individuals and between groups. Often implicit, sometimes uncertain, these rules guide social interactions in a similar way that road signs guide traffic: imperfectly and not without a degree of occasional misunderstanding and mistake. Privacy is a word used to describe a host of such patterns and preferences. As with road traffic management, the idea of privacy is (more or less) global, but the local prevalence, pen- etrance and expression can vary considerably. As a result, privacy is a rather difficult idea to pin down. This chapter begins with a consider- ation of the idea and an explanation of what I intend to imply through the use of the word. The process of settling upon a particular under- standing of privacy, from amongst many possible alternatives, is one that will not involve the consideration of any legal definition; the law is best as a slave and not a master. If it appears later that key terms, such as privacy, are being used in a way that is out of step with a legal definition, then I will consider that a reason as much for reviewing the law as for reconsidering my word-usage. Having established a working understanding of the term privacy, its relationship with the ‘public interest’ will be briefly considered. It is suggested that a false dichotomy is sometimes portrayed between the two ideas, and the relationship between them is, while in reality often difficult, ideally mutually supportive. Privacy plays an important part in establishing the conditions that make public life possible. More than this, privacy is part of the infrastructure that enables a particular kind of public life to exist.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Privacy

  • Eric Barendt(Author)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Taylor & Francis

    (Publisher)

  Such a regulatory model must derive its shape and meaning from a theoretical framework which takes account of privacy as a moral value and as a social construct. This part, therefore, explores privacy from the dual viewpoints of moral philosophy and social science in order to construct a privacy model that ties privacy to both the maintenance of self and person and to the pro-cesses by which we create social relations and negotiate social power. The privacy theory developed below is grounded in the moral-philosophical perspectives on privacy propounded by Stanley Benn and Ferdinand Schoeman, but also closely examines the socio-cultural meanings and implications of the privacy construct as it operates within the Western, post-industrial cultural context.

  A. A Value Theory of Privacy

  This article presents a theoretical approach to privacy which rests on the presumption that privacy within present-day Western society is imbued with an inherently positive value. This theoretical approach also seeks to explain privacy’s value in terms of the specific roles that privacy plays within the context of social and personal life. The proposed theory contrasts with value-neutral perspectives on privacy, espoused by a number of scholars who urge us to employ a purely descriptive portrayal of privacy’s function in order to avoid making unquestioned assumptions about the content and meaning attributed to privacy by the individual social actor.8 That descriptive methodology is rejected here because of its restricted explanatory force. Privacy’s relevance in a legal context is best understood in light of the value attributed to it in common usage. Public perceptions of privacy, in turn, tend to treat privacy as a desirable state deserving of protection:

  Both our privacy intuitions and linguistic usage supports [sic] the “valued” nature of privacy. Our ordinary language reflects a predisposition toward treating privacy as a positively valued condition; for example, the response that comes to mind when someone announces that they have lost privacy is to commiserate with them, rather than to offer congratulations.9

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Social Dimensions of Privacy

  Interdisciplinary Perspectives

  • Beate Roessler, Dorota Mokrosinska(Authors)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  W. (ed.) Overvåkning i en rettsstat. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, pp. 38–48. Hughes, K. 2012. “A behavioural understanding of privacy and its implications for privacy law,” Modern Law Review 75(5): 806–36. Lever, A. 2012. On Privacy. London: Routledge. Nehf, J. P. 2003. “Recognizing the societal value in information privacy,” Washington Law Review 78(1): 1–92. Nissenbaum, H. 2010. Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford University Press. Rachels, J. 1975. “Why privacy is important,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 4(4): 323–33. Regan, P. 1995. Legislating Privacy. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Reiman, J. 1976. “Privacy, intimacy and personhood,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 6(1): 26–44. Richards, N. 2008. “Intellectual privacy,” Texas Law Review 87: 387–445. 2015. Intellectual Privacy. Oxford University Press. Roessler, B. and Mokrosinska, D. 2013. “Privacy and social interaction,” Philosophy and Social Criticism 39: 771–91. Schoeman, F. 1992. Privacy and Social Freedom. Cambridge University Press. Simitis, S. 1987. “Reviewing privacy in an information society,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 135: 707–46. Solove, D. J. 2008. Understanding Privacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Steeves, V. 2009. “Reclaiming the Social Value of Privacy,” in Kerr, I. R., Steeves, V. and Lucock, C. (eds.) Lessons from the Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy and Identity in a Networked Society. Oxford University Press, pp. 191–208. Woolf, Virginia 2002. A Room of One’s Own. London: Penguin Books. 244 13 Privacy, sociality and the failure of regulation: lessons learned from young Canadians’ online experiences Valerie Steeves When Canada first considered enacting private sector privacy legislation in the late 1990s, it was primarily in response to the 1995 European Union Directive restricting the flow of personal data to countries that did not have data protection laws in place.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Cybercrime Risks and Responses

  Eastern and Western Perspectives

  • Russell G. Smith, Ray Cheung, Laurie Yiu-Chung Lau, Russell G. Smith, Ray Cheung, Laurie Yiu-Chung Lau(Authors)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  The rise of social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace has changed society’s definition of the Internet (Cassidy 2006). SNSs are popular not only because users can establish networks or communities but because they enable users to express themselves and establish self-identities (Cassidy 2006). Although scholars may have different definitions on “privacy,” it is widely accepted that the justification for privacy protection is to allow individuals to decide how to define themselves and control personal information. As a result, privacy protection enables individuals to express emotions and to engage in self-evaluation and self-determination and encourages autonomy (Rempell 2006).

  Because the Internet allows information to be instantly accessible to billions of users, this has created an unprecedented challenge for privacy protection. Renowned privacy scholar Solove (2007) has suggested that the traditional concept of privacy should be expanded to acknowledge that individuals are less likely to be able to control personal information in the digital age. Solove (2007) has pointed out that privacy regulations should correspond to individuals’ expectation of confidentiality and oblige others to meet such expectations.

  Despite the difficulties of establishing a precise standard of privacy in the digital age, it is worth considering the way in which protection of privacy has evolved in the US courts. In the case Lawrence v Texas, for example, the Supreme Court overruled its previous decision and struck down a sodomy law in Texas on the ground of constitutional protection of the privacy of sexual relations (see Millier 2009, p. 550).

  In the case of United States v Gines-Perex

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Privacy in Mobile and Pervasive Computing

  • Marc Langheinrich, Florian Schaub(Authors)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • Springer

    (Publisher)

  Alan Westin, then professor of public law and govern- ment at Columbia University, defined privacy in his groundbreaking book Privacy and Freedom as “the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others” [Westin, 1967]. The “thing” to pro- tect here is a person’s “data”—information about them that, once collected, may be shared with others without their knowledge or consent. Not surprisingly, Westin’s type of privacy is called information privacy or sometimes also data privacy. Figure 2.2 illustrates how each of these privacy types relates to a different aspect (in center of figure): bodily privacy to the person, territorial privacy to physical space, communication pri- vacy to our social interactions, and information privacy to stored “files” about us. Figure 2.2 also shows how, as technology moves forward, these privacy types are being challenged anew. For example, Westin’s “information privacy” is being challenged by today’s online profiles: with each website we visit being connected to countless ad networks, content delivery networks, perfor- mance trackers, affiliate sites, and other third parties a single page view can easily result in dozens if not hundreds of traces being left in databases around the world—practically impossible for the individual to keep track of, lest control. Similarly, communication privacy has long ceased to be an issue that pertains only to postal services: email, chat, mobile messaging, and online social networking potentially allow both governments and companies to observe our communication patterns in a more fine-grained fashion than ever before. And by using a modern smartphone for our communication with others, we also provide countless of companies, if not governments, with detailed information on our whereabouts and activities.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Handbook of Media Economics, vol 1B

  • Simon P. Anderson, Joel Waldfogel, David Stromberg(Authors)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • North Holland

    (Publisher)

  Related to this is Acquisti and Gross (2009) , who show that using public data online, it is possible to predict an individual’s social security number. Increasingly, news media and even private citizens will find value in aggregating and publicizing already-public information in unexpected ways that may antagonize people who do not expect public data to be that public. 11.8. CONCLUSION: FUTURE SPHERES OF PRIVACY When thinking about how Online Privacy issues will develop in the next decade, it is help-ful to think of other spheres of life where digitization will happen on a broad scale and consequently create privacy issues. To highlight future avenues for research, this chapter points to three spheres where privacy issues are likely to grow in the next decade. It is important to emphasize that at the moment these spheres are somewhat removed from tra-ditional issues of media economics. This chapter does not attempt to draw tenuous links, as generally futurology and economics are not the same. However, from the standpoint that media convergence is likely to continue and that media ubiquity is likely to increase, there are several spheres where we can expect to see significant privacy discussions occurring. The first is the so-called Internet of things. As everyday objects such as thermostats, door locks, webcams, televisions, alarms, garage openers, power outlets, sprinklers, and scales start generating large amounts of digital data, new privacy issues will emerge. What is crucial about this is not the items themselves, which are generally mundane, but instead the idea of hyperconnectivity. By measuring how a user interacts with each of these “things,” external outsiders and data analysts will be able to gain a far fuller and more complete picture of the user’s behavior. Into this category of concerns falls also more advanced technologies such as Google Glass, which undoubtedly will generate huge amounts of both useful and potentially controversial data.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book