Defining Objectives for Preventing Cyberstalking
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.
KeywordsCyberstalking Cyber security planning Values Strategic objectives Qualitative research
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Allen, A. L. (2003). Why privacy isn’t everything: Feminist reflections on personal accountability. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Cupach, W., & Spitzberg, B. (2001). Obsessive relational intrusion: incidence, perceived severity, and coping. Violence and Victims, 15(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value-focused thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Keeney, R. L. (1994a). Creativity in decision making with value-focused thinking. Sloan Management Review, 35, 33–41.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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.
- Melissa, J. R. (2009) Why social media is vital to corporate social responsibility. http://mashable.com/2009/11/06/social-responsibility/#lL17q023Caqh.
- Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119–158.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Simpson, B., & Wilson, M. (1999). Shared cognition: Mapping commonality and individuality. Advances in Qualitative Organizational Research, 2, 73–96.Google Scholar
- 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
- Story, L. & Stone, B. (2007); Facebook retreats on online tracking. www.nytimes.com.
- US Attorney General (1999) Cyberstalking: A new challenge for law enforcement and industry. Report from the Attorney General to the Vice President.Google Scholar