Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The rise of “security and privacy”: bibliometric analysis of computer privacy research

  • Survey
  • Published:
International Journal of Information Security Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study of security and computer privacy has become a significant focus in security and privacy research. To reflect a website's, service's, or app's privacy policies, they're frequently used as a beginning step for researchers investigating the reliability of stated data regulations, user comprehension of policy, or user control methods. It's challenging to collect information about privacy practices from Internet resources like websites and mobile applications for analysis because of the wide variations in the structure, presentation, and content. Most computer privacy studies attempt to test new methods for detecting, classifying, and analyzing computer privacy content. However, numerous papers have been published to promote research activities, and no trace of any bibliometric analysis work on computer privacy demonstrates research trends. By conducting a thorough analysis of computer privacy studies, it searches the Scopus database, which contains over 2000 papers published between 1976 and 2020. Using the bibliometric analysis technique, this study examines research activity in Europe, South America, and other continents. This work investigated the number of papers published, citations, research area, keywords, institutions, topics, and researchers in detail. An overview of the research efforts is followed by listing the words into a classification of computer privacy analysis tools, emphasizing the significance of a computer privacy research study. According to the investigation findings, there are numerous significant implications of research efforts in Europe compared to other continents. Finally, we summarize the review findings for each part by highlighting potential future research directions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pimple, K.D.: Emerging pervasive information and communication technologies (PICT): ethical challenges, opportunities and safeguards (2014)

  2. Torra, V.: Random dictatorship for privacy-preserving social choice. Int. J. Inf. Secur. 19(5), 537–545 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/S10207-019-00474-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ware, W.: Records, computers and the rights of citizens. Educ. Res. 2(11), 18–19 (1973). https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x002011018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Utz, C., Degeling, M., Fahl, S., Schaub, F., Holz, T.: (Un)informed consent: studying GDPR consent notices in the field. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 973–990, (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3319535.3354212

  5. Reidenberg, J.R., Russell, N.C., Callen, A., Qasir, S., Norton, T.: Privacy harms and the effectiveness of the notice and choice framework. SSRN Electron. J. (2018). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2418247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hölzl, M., Roland, M., Mir, O., Mayrhofer, R.: Disposable dynamic accumulators: toward practical privacy-preserving mobile eIDs with scalable revocation. Int. J. Inf. Secur. 19(4), 401–417 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/S10207-019-00458-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Obar, J.A., Oeldorf-Hirsch, A.: The biggest lie on the Internet: ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Inf. Commun. Soc. 23(1), 128–147 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1486870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bennett, C.J., Parsons, C.: Privacy and surveillance: the multidisciplinary literature on the capture, use, and disclosure of personal information in cyberspace. Oxford Handb. Internet Stud. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199589074.013.0023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jeff Smith, H., Dinev, T., Xu, H.: Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 35(4), 989–1015 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2307/41409970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chan, Y., Greenaway, K.: Theoretical explanations for firms’ information privacy behaviors. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 6(6), 171–198 (2005). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Awad, N.F., Krishnan, M.S.: The personalization privacy paradox: an empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 30(1), 13–28 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2307/25148715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Earp, J.B., Baumer, D.: Innovative web use to learn about consumer behavior and online privacy. Commun. ACM 46(4), 81–83 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1145/641205.641209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Paine, C., Reips, U.D., Stieger, S., Joinson, A., Buchanan, T.: Internet users’ perceptions of ‘privacy concerns’ and ‘privacy actions.’ Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 65(6), 526–536 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ang, P.H.: The role of self-regulation of privacy and the internet. J. Interact. Advert. 1(2), 1–9 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2001.10722046

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Helles, R., Lomborg, S.: Regulatory response? Tracking the influence of technological developments on privacy regulation in Denmark from 2000 to 2011. Policy Internet 5(3), 289–303 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/1944-2866.POI334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Strauss, J., Rogerson, K.S.: Policies for online privacy in the United States and the European Union. Telemat. Inform. 19(2), 173–192 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0736-5853(01)00012-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Uchidiuno, J., Manweiler, J., Weisz, J.D.: Privacy and fear in the drone era: preserving privacy expectations through technology. In: Conference on human factors in computing systems - proceedings, vol 2018. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188457

  18. Jensen, C., Potts, C.: Privacy policies as decision-making tools: an evaluation of online privacy notices. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. Proc. 6(1), 471–478 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Tsai, J.Y., Egelman, S., Cranor, L., Acquisti, A.: The effect of online privacy information on purchasing behavior: an experimental study. Inf. Syst. Res. 22(2), 254–268 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Culnan, M.J., Armstrong, P.K.: Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: an empirical investigation. Organ. Sci. 10(1), 104–115 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.1.104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gerlach, J., Widjaja, T., Buxmann, P.: Handle with care: how online social network providers’ privacy policies impact users’ information sharing behavior. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 24(1), 33–43 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2014.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mollick, J.S., Mykytyn, P.P.: An empirical investigation on the effects of privacy policies on perceived fairness of online vendors. J. Internet Commer. 8(1–2), 88–112 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1080/15332860903341356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schwaig, K.S., Kane, G.C., Storey, V.C.: Compliance to the fair information practices: how are the Fortune 500 handling online privacy disclosures? Inf. Manag. 43(7), 805–820 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bansal, G., Zahedi, F.M., Gefen, D.: Do context and personality matter? Trust and privacy concerns in disclosing private information online. Inf. Manag. 53(1), 1–21 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Joinson, A.N., Reips, U.D., Buchanan, T., Schofield, C.B.P.: Privacy, trust, and self-disclosure online. Hum. Comput. Interact. 25(1), 1–24 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/07370020903586662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Taddei, S., Contena, B.: Privacy, trust and control: which relationships with online self-disclosure? Comput. Hum. Behav. 29(3), 821–826 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dehdarirad, T., Villarroya, A., Barrios, M.: Research on women in science and higher education: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 103(3), 795–812 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1574-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wu, X., Chen, X., Zhan, F.B., Hong, S.: Global research trends in landslides during 1991–2014: a bibliometric analysis. Landslides 12(6), 1215–1226 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-015-0624-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Olijnyk, N.V.: A quantitative examination of the intellectual profile and evolution of information security from 1965 to 2015. Scientometrics 105(2), 883–904 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1708-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Anyi, K.W.U., Zainab, A.N., Anuar, N.B.: Bibliometric studies on single journals: a review. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, vol. 14, no. 1. pp. 17–55, (2009). Accessed from 21 Oct 2021. [Online]. Available: http://ijie.um.edu.my/index.php/MJLIS/article/view/6951

  31. José de Oliveira, O., Francisco da Silva, F., Juliani, F., César Ferreira Motta Barbosa, L., Vieira Nunhes, T.: Bibliometric method for mapping the state-of-the-art and identifying research gaps and trends in literature: an essential instrument to support the development of scientific Projects. In: Scientometrics Recent Advances (2019)

  32. Barev, T.J., Janson, A.: Towards an integrative understanding of privacy nudging – systematic review and research Agenda. In: 18th Annu. Pre-ICIS Work. HCI Res. MIS, (2019). Accessed from 21 Oct 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/258828/

  33. Ngoc, B.T., Van, B.D., The, Q.P.: Privacy, security, and policies: a review of problems and solutions with semantic web technologies. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 1013, 1–10 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9186-7_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kokolakis, S.: Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: a review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Comput. Secur. 64, 122–134 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. O’Loughlin, K., Neary, M., Adkins, E.C., Schueller, S.M.: Reviewing the data security and privacy policies of mobile apps for depression. Internet Interv. 15, 110–115 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2018.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sambada, J., Bhayani, S.: A review of literature on consumer privacy concerns and behaviour. Int. J. Manag. Stud. V(3(9)), 23 (2018). https://doi.org/10.18843/ijms/v5i3(9)/04

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Shen, N., et al.: Understanding the patient privacy perspective on health information exchange: a systematic review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 125, 1–12 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.01.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pattakou, A., Kalloniatis, C.: Security and privacy under a unified framework: a review. personales.upv.es, (2018). Accessed from 27 Feb 2023. [Online]. Available: http://personales.upv.es/thinkmind/dl/journals/sec/sec_v11_n12_2018/sec_v11_n12_2018_3.pdf

  39. Mellado, D., Blanco, C., Sánchez, L.E., Fernández-Medina, E.: A systematic review of security requirements engineering. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 32(4), 153–165 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2010.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Pattakou, A., Kalloniatis, C.: Security and privacy requirements engineering methods for traditional and cloud-based systems: a review. Cloud Computing, no. c, p. 7, (2017). Accessed from 27 Feb 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.academia.edu/download/51928079/cloud_computing_2017_full.pdf#page=156

  41. Wang, Y., et al.: A survey on Metaverse: fundamentals, security, and privacy. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2022.3202047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Juels, A.: RFID security and privacy: a research survey. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 24(2), 381–394 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1109/JSAC.2005.861395

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  43. Tahsien, S.M., Karimipour, H., Spachos, P.: Machine learning based solutions for security of Internet of Things (IoT): a survey. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2020.102630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Santos, R., Costa, A.A., Grilo, A.: Bibliometric analysis and review of building information modelling literature published between 2005 and 2015. Autom. Constr. 80, 118–136 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Zhao, X., Zuo, J., Wu, G., Huang, C.: A bibliometric review of green building research 2000–2016. Archit. Sci. Rev. 62(1), 74–88 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2018.1485548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Koskinen, J., et al.: How to use bibliometric methods in evaluation of scientific research? An example from Finnish schizophrenia research. Nord. J. Psychiatry 62(2), 136–143 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1080/08039480801961667

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., Larivière, V.: Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the web of science and Scopus. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60(7), 1320–1326 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Wilson, V., Grant, M.J.: Evidence based library and information practice: what’s in it for you? Health Inf. Libr. J. 30(2), 89–91 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Loomes, D.E., Van Zanten, S.V.: Bibliometrics of the top 100 clinical articles in digestive disease. Gastroenterology (2013). https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2013.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mao, G., Zou, H., Chen, G., Du, H., Zuo, J.: Past, current and future of biomass energy research: a bibliometric analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 52, 1823–1833 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., Davarzani, H.: Green supply chain management: a review and bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 162, 101–114 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Falagas, M.E., Pitsouni, E.I., Malietzis, G.A., Pappas, G.: Comparison of PubMed, scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. Wiley Online Libr. 22(2), 338–342 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kulkarni, A.V., Aziz, B., Shams, I., Busse, J.W.: Comparisons of citations in web of science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 302(10), 1092–1096 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Cote, G., Karimi, R.: Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quant. Sci. Stud. 1(1), 377–386 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Singh, V.K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., Mayr, P.: The journal coverage of web of science, scopus and dimensions: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 126(6), 5113–5142 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wang, H., Liu, M., Hong, S., Zhuang, Y.: A historical review and bibliometric analysis of GPS research from 1991–2010. Scientometrics 95(1), 35–44 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0853-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. van Eck, N.J., Waltman, L.: Visualizing bibliometric networks. In: Measuring scholarly impact, pp. 285–320. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  58. White, H.D., McCain, K.W.: Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 49(4), 327–355 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Zupic, I., Čater, T.: Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ. Res. Methods 18(3), 429–472 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wang, N., Liang, H., Jia, Y., Ge, S., Xue, Y., Wang, Z.: Cloud computing research in the IS discipline: a citation/co-citation analysis. Decis. Support. Syst. 86, 35–47 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2016.03.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Verma, S.: Mapping the intellectual structure of the big data research in the IS discipline: a citation/co-citation analysis. Inf. Resour. Manag. J. 31(1), 21–52 (2018). https://doi.org/10.4018/IRMJ.2018010102

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  62. Hallinger, P., Kovačević, J.: A bibliometric review of research on educational administration: science mapping the literature, 1960 to 2018. Rev. Educ. Res. 89(3), 335–369 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319830380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. F. O. R. H. A. Century.: Who picks up the tab for science?. BU Today, pp. 1–13, (2016). Accessed from 21 Oct 2021. [Online]. Available: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Who+picks+up+the+tab+for+science%3F+For+half+a+century%2C+the+government+funded+research.+Times+are+changing&btnG

  64. Schiermeier, Q.: How Europe’s €100-billion science fund will shape 7 years of research. Nature 591(7848), 20–21 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00496-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Qiu, J.: China goes back to basics on research funding. Nature 507(7491), 148–149 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/507148a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. UNESCO Institute for Statistics.: Global Investments in R&D A snapshot of R&D expenditure Figure 1. Regional R&D investments Shares of world R&D expenditure (GERD) by region, (2020). Accessed from 07 Mar 2023. [Online]. Available: https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs59-global-investments-rd-2020-en.pdf

  67. Björk, B.C.: Acceptance rates of scholarly peer-reviewed journals: a literature survey. El Prof. Inf. (2019). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.jul.07

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Buela-Casal, G., Gutiérrez-Martínez, O., Bermúdez-Sánchez, M.P., Vadillo-Muñoz, O.: Comparative study of international academic rankings of universities. Scientometrics 71(3), 349–365 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1653-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Harzing, A.W.: The publish or perish book, (2010). Accessed from 28 Feb 2023. [Online]. Available: http://www.harzing.info/download/popbook12.pdf

  70. Sadeh, N.: Bibliography, (2021). https://normsadeh.org

  71. Flavián, C., Guinalíu, M.: Consumer trust, perceived security and computer privacy: three basic elements of loyalty to a web site. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 106(5), 601–620 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570610666403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Audich, D.: Enhancing readability of privacy policies through ontologies, (2018). Accessed from 21 Oct 2021. [Online]. Available: http://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/handle/10214/12550

  73. Clark, T.C., Westin, A.F.: Privacy and freedom. Calif. Law Rev. 56(3), 911 (1968). https://doi.org/10.2307/3479272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. McDonald, A., Cranor, L.F.: The cost of reading privacy policies. I/S A J. Law Policy Inf. Soc., vol. 4, no. 543, p. 183, (2001). Accessed from 21 Sep 2021. [Online]. Available: https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/isjlpsoc4&section=27

  75. McDonald, A.M., Reeder, R.W., Kelley, P.G., Cranor, L.F.: A comparative study of online privacy policies and formats. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), pp. 37–55. LNCS, Heidelberg (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  76. Milne, G.R., Culnan, M.J.: Strategies for reducing online privacy risks: why consumers read (or don’t read) online privacy notices. J. Interact. Mark. 18(3), 15–29 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Termsfeed.: Generic computer privacy template, (2017). https://www.termsfeed.com/pdf.assets/pdf/privacy-policy-template

  78. Docracy.: An open source computer privacy for mobile apps, (2011)

  79. 3DCart.: Create an online store with 3dcart store builder, (2018)

  80. Kolter, J., Pernul, G.: Generating user-understandable privacy preferences. In: Proceedings - International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, pp. 299–306. ARES, (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/ARES.2009.89

  81. Lucas, M., Franco, M., Patricio, M.: Computer privacy generator, (2017). https://privacypolicygenerator.info/

  82. Miao, D.: PrivacyInformer: an automated privacy description generator for the MIT app inventor, (2014). Accessed from 23 Oct 2021. [Online]. Available: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/95523

  83. Apolinarski, W., Handte, M., Marron, P.J.: Automating the generation of privacy policies for context-sharing applications. In: Proceedings - 2015 International Conference on Intelligent Environments, pp. 73–80. IE, (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/IE.2015.18

  84. Anderson, A. et al.: extensible access control markup language (xacml) version 1.0,” OASIS, 2003. Accessed from 23 Oct 2021. [Online]. Available: http://xml.coverpages.org/XACMLv20CD-CoreSpec.pdf

  85. Sandhu, R., Samarati, P.: Authentication, access control, and audit. ACM Comput. Surv. 28(1), 241–243 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1145/234313.234412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Open Geospatial Consortium.: Geospatial eXtensible access control markup language (GeoXACML), (2011)

  87. Park, J., Sandhu, R.: The UCON ABC usage control model. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 7(1), 128–174 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1145/984334.984339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Pretschner, A., Hilty, M., Basin, D.: Distributed usage control. Commun. ACM 49(9), 39–44 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1151030.1151053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Lämmel, R., Pek, E.: Understanding privacy policies. Empir. Softw. Eng. 18(2), 310–374 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-012-9204-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Harkous, H., Fawaz, K., Lebret, R., Schaub, F., Shin, K.G., Aberer, K.: Polisis: automated analysis and presentation of privacy policies using deep learning. In: Proceedings of the 27th USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 531–548, (2018)

  91. Evans, N.J., Phua, J., Lim, J., Jun, H.: Disclosing instagram influencer advertising: the effects of disclosure language on advertising recognition, attitudes, and behavioral intent. J. Interact. Advert. 17(2), 138–149 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2017.1366885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Bokaei Hosseini, M., Breaux, T.D., Niu, J.: Inferring ontology fragments from semantic role typing of lexical variants. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 10753, pp. 39–56. LNCS, (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77243-1_3.

  93. Cranor, L.F., Arjula, M., Guduru, P.: Use of a P3P user agent by early adopters. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer and communications security, no. WORKSHOP, pp. 1–10, (2002). https://doi.org/10.1145/644527.644528

  94. Marella, A., Pan, C., Hu, Z., Schuab, F., Ur, B., Cranor, L.F.: Assessing privacy awareness from browser Plugins, cups.cs.cmu.edu, no. July, pp. 1–2, (2014). Accessed from 21 Oct 2021. [Online]. Available: http://cups.cs.cmu.edu/soups/2014/posters/soups2014_posters-paper29.pdf

  95. Morel, V., Pardo, R.: SoK: three facets of privacy policies. In: WPES 2020 - Proceedings of the 19th Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, pp. 41–56, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3411497.3420216

  96. Yu, L., Zhang, T., Luo, X., Xue, L., Chang, H.: Toward automatically generating computer privacy for android apps. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 12(4), 865–880 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2016.2639339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Zimmeck, S., et al.: MAPS: scaling privacy compliance analysis to a million apps. Proc. Priv. Enhanc. Technol. 2019(3), 66–86 (2019). https://doi.org/10.2478/popets-2019-0037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Slavin, R. et al.: Toward a framework for detecting computer privacy violations in android application code. In: Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering, vol. 14–22, pp. 25–36, (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884855

  99. Wang, X., Qin, X., Hosseini, M.B., Slavin, R., Breaux, T.D., Niu, J.: GUILeak, in dl.acm.org, pp. 37–47, (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3180155.3180196

  100. Reyes, I., et al.: ‘Won’t somebody think of the children? Examining COPPA compliance at scale. Proc. Priv. Enhanc. Technol. 2018(3), 63–83 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1515/popets-2018-0021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Okoyomon, E. et al.: On the ridiculousness of notice and consent: contradictions in app privacy policies. In: Work. Technol. Consum. Prot. (ConPro 2019), conjunction with 39th IEEE Symp. Secur. Privacy, pp. 1–7, (2019). Accessed from 23 Oct 2021. [Online]. Available: https://dspace.networks.imdea.org/handle/20.500.12761/690

  102. Andow, B. et al.: Policylint: investigating internal computer privacy contradictions on google play. In: Proceedings of the 28th USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 585–602, (2019). Accessed from 23 Oct 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity19/presentation/andow

  103. Chen, S. et al.: An empirical assessment of security risks of global android banking apps. In: Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 1310–1322, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3377811.3380417

  104. Enck, W., et al.: TaintDroid: an information-flow tracking system for realtime privacy monitoring on smartphones. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2619091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Reinhardt, D., Borchard, J., Hurtienne, J.: Visual interactive computer privacy: the beter choice?, (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445465

  106. de Jong, S., Spagnuelo, D.: Iconified representations of privacy policies: a GDPR perspective. In: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 1160, pp. 796–806. AISC, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45691-7_75

  107. Schwartz, P., Solove, D.: “Notice & Choice,” digitalads.org, (2009). Accessed from 23 Oct 2021. [Online]. Available: http://www.digitalads.org/sites/default/files/publications/digitalads_schwartz_solove_notice_choice_nplan_bmsg_memo.pdf

  108. Oltramari, A., et al.: PrivOnto: a semantic framework for the analysis of privacy policies. Semant. Web 9(2), 185–203 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-170283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Shayegh, P., Jain, V., Rabinia, A., Ghanavati, S.: Automated approach to improve IoT privacy policies. arxiv.org, (2019). Accessed from 23 Oct 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.04133

  110. Zimmeck, S., Bellovin, S.M.: Privee: an architecture for automatically analyzing web privacy policies. In: Proceedings of the 23rd USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 1–16, (2014). Accessed from 23 Oct 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity14/technical-sessions/presentation/zimmeck

  111. Reagle, J., Cranor, L.F.: The platform for privacy preferences. Commun. ACM 42(2), 48–55 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1145/293411.293455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Kelley, P.G., Bresee, J., Cranor, L.F., Reeder, R.W.: A ‘nutrition label’ for privacy, (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1572532.1572538

  113. König, U., Schallaböck, J.: Privacy preferences for E-Mail messages, (2011). Accessed from 23 Oct 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/apparea-0.pdf

  114. Rundle, M.C.: International personal data protection and digital identity management tools. SSRN Electron. J. (2011). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.911607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Holtz, L.E., Zwingelberg, H., Hansen, M.: Computer privacy icons. In: Privacy and Identity Management for Life, pp. 279–285 (2011)

  116. van den Berg, B., van der Hof, S.: What happens to my data? A novel approach to informing users of data processing practices. First Monday (2012). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v17i7.4010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Li, S., Da Xu, L., Zhao, S.: The internet of things: a survey. Inf. Syst. Front. 17(2), 243–259 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-014-9492-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Das, A., Degeling, M., Smullen, D., Sadeh, N.: Personalized privacy assistants for the internet of things: providing users with notice and choice. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 17(3), 35–46 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2018.03367733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Langheinrich, M.: A privacy awareness system for ubiquitous computing environments. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (Incl. Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinform.) 2498, 237–245 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45809-3_19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Lee, H., Kobsa, A.: Privacy preference modeling and prediction in a simulated campuswide IoT environment. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications, pp. 276–285. PerCom, (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/PERCOM.2017.7917874

  121. Emami-Naeini, P. et al.: Privacy expectations and preferences in an IoT world. In: Proceedings of the 13th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2017. pp. 399–412, (2019). Accessed from 22 Feb 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2017/technical-sessions/presentation/naeini

  122. Mikusz, M., Houben, S., Davies, N., Moessner, K., Langheinrich, M.: Raising awareness of IoT sensor deployments. In: IET Conference Publications, vol. 2018, no. CP740, (2018). https://doi.org/10.1049/cp.2018.0009

  123. Sweeney, L.: k-anonymity: a model for protecting privacy. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Based Syst. 10(5), 557–570 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488502001648

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  124. Sklavos, N., Zaharakis, I.D.: Cryptography and security in internet of things (IoTs): models, schemes, and implementations, (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/NTMS.2016.7792443

  125. Hu, V., Kuhn, D., Ferraiolo, D.: J. V.- Computer, and U. 2015, “Attribute-based access control. ieeexplore.ieee.org, (2015). Accessed from 23 Oct 2021. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7042715/

  126. Boldt, M., Rekanar, K.: Analysis and text classification of privacy policies from rogue and top-100 fortune global companies. Int. J. Inf. Secur. Priv. 13(2), 47–66 (2019). https://doi.org/10.4018/IJISP.2019040104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Amos, R., Acar, G., Lucherini, E., Kshirsagar, M., Narayanan, A., Mayer, J.: Privacy policies over time: curation and analysis of a million-document dataset. In: The Web Conference 2021 - Proceedings of the World Wide Web Conference, pp. 2165–2176. WWW, (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3442381.3450048

  128. Flach, P.: Machine learning: the art and science of algorithms that make sense of data, (2012).

  129. Fawcett, T.: “ROC graphs: Notes and practical considerations for researchers. Mach. Learn., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 1–38, (2004). Accessed from 23 Oct 2021. [Online]. Available: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.123.4749&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  130. Zhu, X., Davidson, I.: Knowledge discovery and data mining: challenges and realities, (2007)

  131. Urban, T., Degeling, M., Holz, T., Pohlmann, N.: Your hashed IP address: Ubuntu. Perspectives on transparency tools for online advertising. In: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pp. 702–717, (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3359789.3359798

  132. Bufalieri, L., La Morgia, M., Mei, A., Stefa, J.: GDPR: when the right to access personal data becomes a threat. In: Proceedings - 2020 IEEE 13th International Conference on Web Services, pp. 75–83. ICWS, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICWS49710.2020.00017

  133. Hosseini, M.B., Breaux, T.D., Slavin, R., Niu, J., Wang, X.: Analyzing privacy policies through syntax-driven semantic analysis of information types. Inf. Softw. Technol. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Fan, Y., et al.: Privacy preserving based logistic regression on big data. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2020.102769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Mustapha, M., Krasnashchok, K., Al Bassit, A., Skhiri, S.: Computer privacy classification with XLNet (Short Paper). In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 12484, pp. 250–257. LNCS, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66172-4_16

  136. Labani, S., Wadhwa, K., Asthana, S.: Basic approach to data analysis and writing of results and discussion sections. MAMC J. Med. Sci. 3(1), 6 (2017). https://doi.org/10.4103/mamcjms.mamcjms_50_16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Su, M.Y.: Using clustering to improve the KNN-based classifiers for online anomaly network traffic identification. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 34(2), 722–730 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2010.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Kim, D.W., Yan, P., Zhang, J.: Detecting fake anti-virus software distribution webpages. Comput. Secur. 49, 95–106 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2014.11.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Sarne, D., Schler, J., Singer, A., Sela, A., Tov, I.B.S.: Unsupervised topic extraction from privacy policies. In; The Web Conference 2019 - Companion of the World Wide Web Conference, pp. 563–568. WWW, (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3308560.3317585

  140. Jardine, E.: Privacy, censorship, data breaches and Internet freedom: the drivers of support and opposition to Dark Web technologies. New Media Soc. 20(8), 2824–2843 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817733134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Robillard, J.M., et al.: Availability, readability, and content of privacy policies and terms of agreements of mental health apps. Internet Interv. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2019.100243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Tomuro, N., Lytinen, S., Hornsburg, K.: Automatic summarization of privacy policies using ensemble learning. In: CODASPY 2016 - Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy, pp. 133–135, (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2857705.2857741

  143. Audich, D.A., Dara, R., Nonnecke, B.: Extracting keyword and keyphrase from online privacy policies. In: 2016 11th International Conference on Digital Information Management, pp. 127–132. ICDIM, (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDIM.2016.7829792

  144. Fabian, B., Ermakova, T., Lentz, T.: Large-scale readability analysis of privacy policies. In: Proceedings - 2017 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence, pp. 18–25. WI, (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3106426.3106427

  145. Audich, D.A., Dara, R., Nonnecke, B.: Computer privacy annotation for semi-automated analysis: a cost-effective approach. IFIP Adv. Inf. Commun. Technol. 528, 29–44 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95276-5_3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Fan, W., He, J., Guo, M., Li, P., Han, Z., Wang, R.: Privacy preserving classification on local differential privacy in data centers. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 135, 70–82 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2019.09.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia supported this research for the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme with Project Code: FRGS/1/2023/ICT07/USM/02/1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computer Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Gelugor, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

    Auwal Shehu Ali, Zarul Fitri Zaaba & Manmeet Mahinderjit Singh

  2. Department of Computer Sciences, Bayero University Kano, PMB 3011, Kano, Kano State, Nigeria

    Auwal Shehu Ali

Authors
  1. Auwal Shehu Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zarul Fitri Zaaba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manmeet Mahinderjit Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zarul Fitri Zaaba.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ali, A.S., Zaaba, Z.F. & Singh, M.M. The rise of “security and privacy”: bibliometric analysis of computer privacy research. Int. J. Inf. Secur. 23, 863–885 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-023-00761-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-023-00761-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation