The Role of Trust and Control in Managing Privacy When Photos and Videos Are Stored or Shared

  • Srinivas MadhisettyEmail author
  • Mary-Anne Williams
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 881)


A photo or a video could contain sensitive information coded as tacit information, which makes it difficult gauge, the loss of privacy, if such photo or a video were shared. Social media applications like Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and many more such applications are becoming popular. The instant sharing of information via photos and videos is making the management of issues which rise out of loss of privacy more difficult. Many users of social media trust that their content will not be misused other than purposes that were originally intended. This paper discusses not only about how much of that trust is real and how much of it was forced, but demonstrates the reasoning behind forced trust. These interferences were made after data collection via interviews and data analysis using Grounded Theory.


Privacy Photos and videos Trust Control 


  1. 1.
    Abdul-Rahman, A.: A framework for decentralized trust reasoning. Ph.D. thesis, University of London (2005).
  2. 2.
    Braynov, S., Sandholm, T.: Contracting with uncertain level of trust. Comput. Intell. 18, 501–514 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, S., Williams, M.-A.: Privacy in social networks: a comparative study. In: PACIS 2009 Proceedings, vol. 81 (2009).
  4. 4.
    Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R.: Trust and control: a dialectic link. Appl. Artif. Intell. 14(8), 799–823 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Corbin, J., Strauss, J.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, S., Williams, M.-A.: Towards a comprehensive requirements architecture for privacy-aware social recommender systems. Proceedings of the 7th Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling, vol. 110, pp. 33–42 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Charmaz, K.: Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage, London (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Facebook 2011, Facebook principles, viewed 17 February 2014.
  9. 9.
    Fukuyama, F.: Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Touchstone, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Govani, T., Pashley, H.: Student awareness of the privacy implications when using Facebook, viewed 11 January 2015Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago (1967)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gregor, S.: Design theory in information systems. Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 10(1) (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goffman, E.: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday, New York (1959)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Habermas, J.: The theory of communicative action vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Polity Press, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huey, L.: A social movement for privacy/against surveillance? some difficulties in engendering mass resistance in a land of twitter and tweets. Case Western Reserv. J. Int. Law 42(3), 699–710 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kipnis, D.: Trust and technology. In: Kramer, R.M., Tyler, T.R. (eds.) Trust in Organizations. Sage, London (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luhmann, N.: Trust and Power. Wiley, Chichester (1979)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liamputtong, P.: Qualitative Research Methods, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lewicki, R.J., Bunker, B.B.: Developing and Maintaining Trust in Work Relationships. Sage Publication, London (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M.: Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Newbury Park (1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marshall, C., Rossman, G.B.: Designing Qualitative Research, 3rd edn. Sage, London (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L.L., Chervany, N.L.: The meaning of trust. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 28(2), 269–304 (1996)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Palen, L., Dourish, P.: Unpacking “privacy” for a networked world. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 129–136 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Petronio, S., Durham, W.: Understanding and applying communication privacy management theory. In: Baxter, L.A., Braithwaite, D.O. (eds.) Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication, pp. 309–322. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pearson, S.: Trusted Computing Platforms: TPCA Technology in Context. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Resnick, P.: The value of reputation on eBay: A controlled experiment. Exp. Econ. 9(2), 79–101 (2006). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Riegelsberger, J.: The mechanics of trust: a framework of research and design. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 62(3), 381–422 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ormerod, P.: Why Most Things Fail: Evolution, Extinction and Economics. Faber & Faber, London (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Westin, A.: Privacy and Freedom. Atheneum, New York (1967)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of SoftwareUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations