Advertisement

Optional Data Disclosure and the Online Privacy Paradox: A UK Perspective

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9750)

Abstract

Opinion polls suggest that the public value their privacy, with majorities calling for greater control of their data. However, individuals continue to use online services which place their personal information at risk, comprising a Privacy Paradox. Previous work has analysed this phenomenon through after-the-fact comparisons, but not studied disclosure behaviour during questioning. We physically surveyed UK cities to study how the British public regard privacy and how perceptions differ between demographic groups. Through analysis of optional data disclosure, we empirically examined whether those who claim to value their privacy act privately with their own data. We found that both opinions and self-reported actions have little effect on disclosure, with over 99 % of individuals revealing private data needlessly. We show that not only do individuals act contrary to their opinions, they disclose information needlessly even whilst describing themselves as private. We believe our findings encourage further analysis of data disclosure, as a means of studying genuine privacy behaviour.

Keywords

Online privacy Privacy paradox User study Disclosure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would wish to thank the UK EPSRC who have funded this research through a PhD studentship in Cyber Security.

References

  1. 1.
    Acquisti, A.: Privacy in electronic commerce and the economics of immediate gratification. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 21–29 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baek, Y.: Solving the privacy paradox: a counter-argument experimental approach. Comput. Hum. Behav. 38, 33–42 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnes, S.: A privacy paradox: social networking in the United States. First Monday 11(9) (2006) http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/1394
  4. 4.
    Blank, G., Bolsover, G., Dubois, E.: A New Privacy Paradox. Technical report (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bloxham, A.: Most burglars using Facebook and Twitter to target victims, survey suggests (2011). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8789538/Most-burglars-using-Facebook-and-Twitter-to-target-victims-survey-suggests.html
  6. 6.
    Burgoon, J.K.: Privacy and Communication, vol. 6. Routledge, Abingdon (1982)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carrascal, J., Riederer, C., Erramilli, V., Cherubini, M., de Oliveira, R.: 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 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, K., Rea Jr., A.I.: Protecting personal information online: a survey of user privacy concerns and control techniques. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 44(4), 85–92 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Churchill Jr., G.: A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J. Mark. Res. 16(1), 64–73 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clarke, R.: Introduction to dataveillance and information privacy, and definitions of terms. Technical report (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Creese, S., Goldsmith, M., Nurse, J.R.C., Phillips, E.: A data-reachability model for elucidating privacy and security risks related to the use of online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications, pp. 1124–1131 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Culnan, M.: Consumer awareness of name removal procedures: implications for direct marketing. J. Direct Mark. 9(2), 10–19 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Evans, J., Mathur, A.: The value of online surveys. Internet Res. 15(2), 195–219 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fisher, R.: Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. J. Consum. Res. 20(2), 303–315 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Han, P., Maclaurin, A.: Do consumers really care about online privacy? Mark. Manag. 11(1), 35–38 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hansen, M., Hurwitz, W.: The problem of non-response in sample surveys. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 41(236), 517–529 (1946)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jensen, C., Potts, C., Jensen, C.: Privacy practices of internet users: self-reports versus observed behavior. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 63(1), 203–227 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kokolakis, S.: Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: a review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Comput. Secur. (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Konvitz, M.: Privacy and the law: a philosophical prelude. Law Contemp. Probl. 31(2), 272–280 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morando, F., Iemma, R., Raiteri, E.: Privacy evaluation: what empirical research on users’ valuation of personal data tells us. Internet Policy Rev. 3(2), 1–11 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mosbergen, D.: Day-care employee fired for Facebook post saying she hates ‘being around a lot of kids’ (2015). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/05/daycare-worker-fired-facebook-kaitlyn-walls_en_7210122.html
  22. 22.
    Motiwalla, L., Li, X., Liu, X.: Privacy paradox: does stated privacy concerns translate into the valuation of personal information?. In: Proceedings of the 18th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Norberg, P., Horne, D., Horne, D.: The privacy paradox: personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. J. Consum. Aff. 41(1), 100–126 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nurse, J.R.C.: Exploring the risks to identity security and privacy in cyberspace. XRDS Mag. 21(3), 42–47 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Orne, M.: On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: with particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. Am. Psychol. 17(11), 776–783 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Presser, S., Couper, M., Lessler, J., Martin, E., Martin, J., Rothgeb, J., Singer, E.: Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. Pub. Opin. Q. 68(1), 109–130 (2004)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rainie, L., Duggan, M.: Privacy and information sharing. Pew Research Center (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rainie, L., Kiesler, S., Kang, R., Madden, M., Duggan, M., Brown, S., Dabbish, L.: Anonymity, privacy, and security online. Pew Research Center (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Robertson, A.: The United Nations covenant on civil and political rights and the European convention on human rights. Br. Yearb. Int. Law 43, 21 (1968)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sheehan, K.: An investigation of gender differences in on-line privacy concerns and resultant behaviors. J. Interact. Mark. 13(4), 24–38 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Syverson, P.: The paradoxical value of privacy. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Workshop on Economics and Information Security (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    TRUSTe: 2015 TRUSTe UK consumer confidence index. Technical report (2015). http://www.truste.com/resources/privacy-research/uk-consumer-confidence-index-2015/
  33. 33.
    Warren, S., Brandeis, L.: The right to privacy. Harvard Law Rev. 4(5), 193–220 (1890)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Williams, M.: A study of society’s perception of online privacy. In: Proceedings of the 1st Interdisciplinary Cyber Research Workshop, pp. 28–29 (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zickuhr, K.: Three-quarters of smartphone owners use location-based services. Pew Research Center (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations