Perceptions of Digital Footprints and the Value of Privacy

Luisa Vervier, Eva-Maria Zeissig, Chantal Lidynia, Martina Ziefle

Abstract

Nowadays, life takes place in the digital world more than ever. Especially in this age of digitalization and Big Data, more and more actions of daily life are performed online. People use diverse online applications for shopping, bank transactions, social networks, sports, etc. Common to all, regardless of purpose, is the fact that personal information is disclosed and creates so-called digital footprints of users. In this paper, the questions are considered in how far people are aware of their personal information they leave behind and to what extent they have a concept of the attributed importance of particularly sensitive data. Moreover, it is investigated in how far people are concerned about their information privacy and for what kind of benefit people decide to disclose information. Aspects were collected in a two-step empirical approach with two focus groups and an online survey. The results of the qualitative part reveal that young people are not consciously aware of their digital footprints. Regarding a classification of data based on its sensitivity, diverse concepts exist and emphasize the context-specific and individual consideration of the topic. Results of the quantitative part reveal that people are concerned about their online privacy and that the benefit of belonging to a group outweighs the risk of disclosing sensitive data.

References

  1. Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., and Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and Human Behavior in the Age of Information. Science, 30(6221), 509-514.
  2. Acquisti, A., and Grossklags, J. (2005). Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Security and Privacy, 3(1), 26-33.
  3. Acquisti, A., and Gross, R. (2006). Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and Privacy on the Facebook. International Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Springer, Berlin, 36-58.
  4. Alhakami, A. S., and Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk analysis, 14(6), 1085-1096.
  5. Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
  6. Bansal, G., Zahedi, F. M., and Gefen, D. (2010). The Impact of Personal Dispositions on Information Sensitivity, Privacy Concern and Trust in Disclosing Health Information Online. Decision Support Systems, 49(2), 138-150.
  7. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The 'digital natives' debate: A critical review of the evidence. British journal of educational technology, 39(5), 775-786.
  8. Beresford, A., K u¨bler, D., and Preibusch, S. (2012). Unwillingness to pay for privacy: A field experiment. Economics Letters , 117, 25-27.
  9. Boyd, D., and Hargittai, E. (2010). Facebook privacy settings: Who cares? First Monday, 15(8), 13-20.
  10. Brandimarte, L., Acquisti, A., and Loewenstein, G. (2012). Misplaced Confidences: Privacy and the Control Paradox. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 340-347.
  11. Brecht, F., Fabian, B., Kunz, S., and Mueller, S. (2011, June). Are you willing to wait longer for internet privacy? In: European Conference on Information Systems (no page numbering).
  12. Carrascal, J. P., Riederer, C., Erramilli, V., Cherubini, M., and de Oliveira, R. (2013, May). Your browsing behavior for a big mac: Economics of personal information online. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 189- 200). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.
  13. Chakraborty, R., Vishik, C., and Rao, H. R. (2013). Privacy Preserving Actions of Older Adults on Social Media: Exploring the Behavior of Opting out of Information Sharing. Decision Support Systems, 55, 948-956.
  14. Cho, H., Lee, J.S,and Chung, S. (2010). Optimistic bias about online privacy risks: Testing the moderating effects of perceived controllability and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 987- 995.
  15. Data protection Eurobarometer. (2015). Gov.Uk.
  16. Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, A. K., & Hughes, B. N. (2009). Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 15(1), 83-108.
  17. Dinev, T., and Hart, P. (2003). Privacy Concerns And Internet Use- A Model Of Trade-Off Factors. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2003(1), D1-D6.
  18. Dinev, T., and Hart, P. (2006). An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61-80.
  19. Heise, D. R. (1970). The semantic differential and attitude research. Attitude measurement, 235-253.
  20. Helsper, E. J., and Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503-520.
  21. Hui, K., Tan, B., and Goh, C. (2006). Online Information Disclosure: Motivators and Measurements. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 6(4), 415-441.
  22. Kehr, F., Kowatsch, T., Wentzel, D., and Fleisch, E. (2015). Blissfully ignorant: The effects of general privacy concerns, general institutional trust, and affect in the privacy calculus. Information Systems Journal, 25(6).
  23. Kehr, F., Wentzel, D., and Mayer, P. (2013). Rethinking the Privacy Calculus: On the Role of Dispositional Factors and Affect. The 34th International Conference on Information Systems, (1), 1-10.
  24. Keith, M. J., Thompson, S. C., Hale, J., Lowry, P. B., and Greer, C. (2013). Information disclosure on mobile devices: Re-examining privacy calculus with actual user behavior. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 71(12), 1163-1173.
  25. (2013), 1-29.
  26. Kowalewski, S., Ziefle, M., Ziegeldorf, H., and Wehrle, K. (2015). Like us on Facebook!-Analyzing User Preferences Regarding Privacy Settings in Germany. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 815-822.
  27. Krasnova, H., and Veltri, N. F. (2010, January). Privacy calculus on social networking sites: Explorative evidence from Germany and USA. In System sciences (HICSS), 2010 43rd Hawaii international conference on (pp. 1-10). IEEE.
  28. Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., and Christakis, N. (2008). The taste for privacy: An analysis of college student privacy settings in an online social network. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 14(1), 79-100.
  29. Li, H., Sarathy, R., and Xu, H. (2010). Understanding situational online information disclosure as a privacy calculus. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 51(1), 62-71.
  30. Mayring, P. (2001, February). Combination and integration of qualitative and quantitative analysis. In Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 2, No. 1).
  31. Morando, F., Iemma, R., and Raiteri, E. (2014). Privacy evaluation: what empirical research on users' valuation of personal data tells us. Internet Policy Review, 3(2), 1-11.
  32. Morton, A. (2013, September). Measuring inherent privacy concern and desire for privacy-A pilot survey study of an instrument to measure dispositional privacy concern. In Social Computing (SocialCom), 2013 International Conference on (pp. 468-477). IEEE.
  33. Mothersbaugh, D. L., Foxx Ii, W. K., Beatty, S. E., and Wang, S. (2011). Disclosure Antecedents in an Online Service Context: The Role of Sensitivity of Information. Journal of Service Research, 1-23.
  34. Norberg, P. A., Horne, D. R., and Horne, D. A. (2007). The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure Intentions versus Behaviors. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), 100-126.
  35. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
  36. Rainie, L., Kiesler, S., Kang, R., Madden, M., Duggan, M., Brown, S., and Dabbish, L. (2013). Anonymity, privacy, and security online. Pew Research Center, 5.
  37. Schoeman, F. (1984). Philosophical dimensions of privacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  38. Sheehan, K.B. and Hoy, M.G. (2000). Dimensions of Privacy Concern Among Online Consumers. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 19(1), 62-73.
  39. Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., and Xu, H. (2011). Information Privacy Research: An Interdisciplinary Review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 989-1015.
  40. Special Eurobarometer 359: Attitudes on Data Protection and Electronic Identity in the European Union. Report. (2011).
  41. Taddicken, M. (2014). The 'Privacy Paradox' in the Social Web: The Impact of Privacy Concerns, Individual Characteristics, and the Perceived Social Relevance on Different Forms of SelfDisclosure. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 19(2), 248-273.
  42. TRUSTe. (2014). TRUSTe 2014 US Consumer Confidence Privacy Report. Consumer Opinion and Business Impact (Vol. 44).
  43. Van den Broeck, E., Poels, K., and Walrave, M. (2015). Older and wiser? Facebook use, privacy concern, and privacy protection in the life stages of emerging, young, and middle adulthood. Social Media+ Society, Advance online publication.
  44. Xu, H., Dinev, T., Smith, H. J., and Hart, P. (2008). Examining the Formation of Individual's Privacy concerns: Toward an Integrative View. In International Conference on Information Systems.
  45. Xu, H., Dinev, T., Smith, J., and Hart, P. (2011). Information Privacy Concerns: Linking Individual Perceptions with Institutional Privacy Assurances. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(12), 798-824.
  46. Warren, S.D., and Brandeis, L.D. (1890). The Harvard Law Review Association. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193- 220.
  47. Westin, A. (1967). Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum.
  48. Ziefle, M.; Halbey, J. and Kowalewski, S. (2016). Users' willingness to share data in the Internet: Perceived benefits and caveats. International Conference on Internet of Things and Big Data (IoTBD 2016), pp. 255- 265. SCITEPRESS.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Vervier L., Zeissig E., Lidynia C. and Ziefle M. (2017). Perceptions of Digital Footprints and the Value of Privacy . In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Internet of Things, Big Data and Security - Volume 1: IoTBDS, ISBN 978-989-758-245-5, pages 80-91. DOI: 10.5220/0006301000800091


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iotbds17,
author={Luisa Vervier and Eva-Maria Zeissig and Chantal Lidynia and Martina Ziefle},
title={Perceptions of Digital Footprints and the Value of Privacy},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Internet of Things, Big Data and Security - Volume 1: IoTBDS,},
year={2017},
pages={80-91},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0006301000800091},
isbn={978-989-758-245-5},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Internet of Things, Big Data and Security - Volume 1: IoTBDS,
TI - Perceptions of Digital Footprints and the Value of Privacy
SN - 978-989-758-245-5
AU - Vervier L.
AU - Zeissig E.
AU - Lidynia C.
AU - Ziefle M.
PY - 2017
SP - 80
EP - 91
DO - 10.5220/0006301000800091