Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 157, Issue 1, pp 137–158 | Cite as

Defining Objectives for Preventing Cyberstalking

  • Gurpreet Dhillon
  • Kane J. SmithEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Cyberstalking is a significant challenge in the era of Internet and technology. When dealing with cyberstalking, institutions and governments struggle in how to manage it and where to allocate resources. Therefore, it is important to understand how individuals feel about the problem of cyberstalking and how it can be managed. In this paper, we use Nissenbaum’s (Wash L Rev 79(1):119–158, 2004) contextual integrity as a theoretical framework for applying Keeney’s (Manag Sci 45: 533–542, 1999) value-focused thinking technique to develop actionable objectives aimed at the prevention of cyberstalking. By systematically interviewing over 100 individuals, we extract 20 objectives based on the underlying norms of distribution and appropriateness relevant to the context of cyberstalking. The objectives ensure that contextual integrity is maintained and cyberstalking prevented. Organizations can benefit from the objectives developed in this research since they are a means for developing an ethical policy regarding cyberstalking. Therefore, they help to ensure an ethical engagement with society at large by organizations when dealing with cyberstalking. Researchers can use these objectives to explore the best means for their implementation by organizations and institutions. Additionally they can explore the network mapping of fundamental and means objectives to determine relationships and their strengths in the cyberstalking context.

Keywords

Cyberstalking Cyber security planning Values Strategic objectives Qualitative research 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Akkermans, H., & Van Helden, K. (2002). Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation: A case study of interrelations between critical success factors. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(1), 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexy, Eileen M. (2005). Perceptions of cyberstalking among college students. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 5(3), 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Khateeb, H. M., & Epiphaniou, G. (2016). How technology can mitigate and counteract cyber-stalking and online grooming. Computer Fraud and Security, 2016(1), 14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen, A. L. (2003). Why privacy isn’t everything: Feminist reflections on personal accountability. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  5. Barth, A., Datta, A., Mitchell, J. C., & Nissenbaum, H. (2006). Privacy and contextual integrity: Framework and applications. In Proceedings of IEEE symposium on security and privacy.Google Scholar
  6. Bauer, T. (2014), The responsibilities of social networking companies: Applying political CSR theory to Google, Facebook and Twitter. In R. Tench, W. Sun, B. Jones (Eds.), Communicating corporate social responsibility: Perspectives and practice (critical studies on corporate responsibility, governance and sustainability (Vol 6, pp. 259–282). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley.Google Scholar
  7. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chik, W. (2008). Harassment through the digital medium-a cross jurisdictional comparative analysis of the law on cyberstalking. Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, 3, 13.Google Scholar
  9. Crump, J. (2011). What are the police doing on twitter? Social media, the police and the public. Policy and Internet, 3(4), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cupach, W., & Spitzberg, B. (1998). Obsessive relational intrusion and stalking. In B. Spitzberg & W. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships (pp. 233–263). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Cupach, W., & Spitzberg, B. (2001). Obsessive relational intrusion: incidence, perceived severity, and coping. Violence and Victims, 15(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  12. Dematteo, D., Wagage, S., & Fairfax-Columbo, J. (2017). Cyberstalking: Are we on the same (web)page? A comparison of statutes, case law, and public perception. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 9(2), 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dhillon, G., & Torkzadeh, G. (2006). Value-focused assessment of information system security in organizations. Information Systems Journal, 16(3), 293–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dreßing, H., Bailer, J., Anders, A., Wagner, H., & Gallas, C. (2014). Cyberstalking in a large sample of social network users: prevalence, characteristics, and impact upon victims. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(2), 61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freestone, O., & Mitchell, V. (2004). Generation Y attitudes towards e-ethics and internet-related misbehaviours. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodno, N. H. (2007). Cyberstalking, a new crime: Evaluating the effectiveness of current state and federal laws. Missouri Law Review, 72 (1), 1–74.Google Scholar
  17. Hazelwood, S., & Koon-Magnin, S. (2013). Cyber stalking and cyber harassment legislation in the United States: A qualitative analysis. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 7(2), 155–168.Google Scholar
  18. Hinduja, Sameer, & Patchin, Justin W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization: School violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hopkinson, C. (2013) Trolling in online discussions: From provocation to community-building. Brno Studies in English, 39(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hunter, M. G. (1997). The use of RepGrids to gather data about information systems analysts. Information Systems Journal, 7, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Joyner, B. E., & Payne, D. (2002). Evolution and implementation: A study of values, business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(4), 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahan, Dan M. (1997). Social influence, social meaning, and deterrence. Virginia Law Review, 83(2), 349–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value-focused thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Keeney, R. L. (1994a). Creativity in decision making with value-focused thinking. Sloan Management Review, 35, 33–41.Google Scholar
  25. Keeney, R. L. (1994b). Using values in operations research. Operations Research, 42(5), 793–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keeney, R. L. (1996). Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. European Journal of Operational Research, 92(3), 537–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keeney, R. L. (1999). The value of internet commerce to the customer. Management Science, 45, 533–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keeney, R. L., & Mcdaniels, T. L. (1992). Value-focused thinking about strategic decisions at BC hydro. Interfaces, 22(6), 94–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keeney, R. L., Winterfeldt, D. V., & Eppel, T. (1990). Eliciting public values for complex policy decisions. Management Science, 36(9), 1011–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23, 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2009). Corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Livingstone, S., Bober, M., & Helsper, E. J. (2005). Internet literacy among children and young people. Findings from the UK Children Go Online project. London: London School of Economics and Political Science. http://www.children-go-online.net.
  33. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2010). Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the Internet: The role of online skills and internet self-efficacy. New Media & Society, 12(2), 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. May, J., Dhillon, G., & Caldeira, M. (2013). Defining value-based objectives for ERP systems planning. Decision Support Systems, 55(1), 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McFarlane, L., & Bocij, P. (2005). An exploration of predatory behavior in cyberspace: Towards a typology of cyberstalkers. First Monday, 8. Retrieved Feb 18, 2006, from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issues8_9/mcfarlane/index.html.
  36. Melissa, J. R. (2009) Why social media is vital to corporate social responsibility. http://mashable.com/2009/11/06/social-responsibility/#lL17q023Caqh.
  37. Merrick, J. R., Parnell, G. S., Barnett, J., & Garcia, M. (2005). A multiple-objective decision analysis of stakeholder values to identify watershed improvement needs. Decision Analysis, 2(1), 44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moores, T. T., & Dhillon, G. (2003). Do privacy seals in e-commerce really work? Communications of the ACM, 46(12), 265–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Niemz, K., Griffiths, M., & Banyard, P. (2005). Prevalence of pathological Internet use among university students and correlations with self-esteem, the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), and disinhibition. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 8(6), 562–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119–158.Google Scholar
  41. Nobles, M. R., Reyns, B. W., Fox, K. A., & Fisher, B. S. (2012). Protection against pursuit: A conceptual and empirical comparison of cyberstalking and stalking victimization among a national sample. Justice Quarterly, 31(6), 986–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organisations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12, 174–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pal, R., Golubchik, L., Psounis, K., & Hui, P. (2014). Will cyber-insurance improve network security? A market analysis. In INFOCOM, 2014 proceedings IEEE (pp. 235–243). IEEE.Google Scholar
  44. Pereira, F., & Matos, M. (2015). Cyber-stalking victimization: What predicts fear among portuguese adolescents? European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22(2), 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Phythian, G. J., & King, M. (1992). Developing an expert system for tender enquiry evaluation: A case study. European Journal of Operational Research, 56, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. (1993). Survey research methodology in management information systems: An assessment. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(2), 75–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Power, D. J., & Sharda, R. (2007). Model-driven decision support systems: Concepts and research directions. Decision Support Systems, 43(3), 1044–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reyns, B. W. (2010) Being pursued online: Extent and nature of cyberstalking victimization from a lifestyle/routine activities perspective. A Dissertation Submitted to the: Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati.Google Scholar
  49. Reyns, B., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. (2011). Applying cyberlifestyle–routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(11), 1149–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roberts, L. (2008). Jurisdictional and definitional concerns with computer-mediated interpersonal crimes: An analysis on cyber stalking. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2(1), 271–285.Google Scholar
  51. Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simpson, B., & Wilson, M. (1999). Shared cognition: Mapping commonality and individuality. Advances in Qualitative Organizational Research, 2, 73–96.Google Scholar
  53. Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smoker, M., & March, E. (2017). Predicting perpetration of intimate partner cyberstalking: Gender and the Dark Tetrad. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 390–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sovern, Jeff. (1999). Opting in, opting out, or no options at all: The fight for control of personal information. Washington Law Review, 74, 1033.Google Scholar
  56. Spitzberg, B. H., & Hoobler, G. (2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New Media and Society, 4(1), 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spitzberg, B., Marshall, L., & Cupach, W. (2001). Obsessive relational intrusion, coping, and sexual coercion victimization. Communication Reports, 14(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Spitzberg, B., Nicastro, A., & Cousins, A. (1998). Exploring the interactional phenomenon of stalking and obsessive relational intrusion. Communication Reports, 11(1), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Spitzberg, B., & Rhea, J. (1999). Obsessive relational intrusion and sexual coercion victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Story, L. & Stone, B. (2007); Facebook retreats on online tracking. www.nytimes.com.
  61. Tavani, H., & Grodzinsky, F. (2002). Cyberstalking, personal privacy, and moral responsibility. Ethics and Information Technology, 4, 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Torkzadeh, G., & Dhillon, G. (2002). Measuring factors that influence the success of internet commerce. Information Systems Research, 13, 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tufekci, Zeynep. (2008). Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 28, 20–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. US Attorney General (1999) Cyberstalking: A new challenge for law enforcement and industry. Report from the Attorney General to the Vice President.Google Scholar
  65. Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4, 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Systems DepartmentVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  2. 2.Department of Information Systems and Supply Chain ManagementUniversity of North Carolina at GreensboroGreensboroUSA

Personalised recommendations