Privacy Awareness: A Means to Solve the Privacy Paradox?

  • Stefanie Pötzsch
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 298)


People are limited in their resources, i.e. they have limited memory capabilities, cannot pay attention to too many things at the same time, and forget much information after a while; computers do not suffer from these limitations. Thus, revealing personal data in electronic communication environments and being completely unaware of the impact of privacy might cause a lot of privacy issues later. Even if people are privacy aware in general, the so-called privacy paradox shows that they do not behave according to their stated attitudes. This paper discusses explanations for the existing dichotomy between the intentions of people towards disclosure of personal data and their behaviour. We present requirements on tools for privacy-awareness support in order to counteract the privacy paradox.


Privacy Privacy Awareness Privacy Paradox 


  1. 1.
    Acquisti, A., Gross, R.: Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In: Danezis, G., Golle, P. (eds.) PET 2006. LNCS, vol. 4258, pp. 36–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams, A., Sasse, M.A.: Privacy in multimedia communications: Protecting users, not just data. In: Blandford, A., Vanderdonkt, J. (eds.) People and Computers XV - Interaction without frontiers. Joint Proceedings of HCI 2001, pp. 49–64 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Altman, I.: Privacy: A conceptual analysis. Environment and Behavior 8(1), 7–29 (1976)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 Quarterly 30(1), 13–28 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Birnholtz, J.P., Gutwin, C., Hawkey, K.: Privacy in the open: how attention mediates awareness and privacy in open-plan offices. In: Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work. GROUP 2007, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, November 04 - 07, pp. 51–60. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chellappa, R.K., Sin, R.G.: Personalization versus Privacy: An Empirical Examination of the Online Consumer’s Dilemma. Inf. Technol. and Management 6(2-3), 181–202 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, R.: Introduction to Dataveillance and Information Privacy, and Definitions and Terms. Latest revs. (August 7, 2006), (last access 2008-07-29)
  8. 8.
    Cranor, L.F., Arjula, M., Guduru, P.: Use of a P3P user agent by early adopters. In: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. WPES 2002, Washington, DC, November 21, pp. 1–10. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Galletta, D.F., Henry, R., McCoy, S., Polak, P.: Web Site Delays: How Tolerant Are Users? Journal of the Association for Information Systems 5(1), 1–28 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gross, R., Acquisti, A., Heinz, H.J.: Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. WPES 2005, Alexandria, VA, USA, November 2005, pp. 71–80. ACM, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hedbom, H.: A Survey on Transparency Tools for Enhancing Privacy. In: Matyáš, V., et al. (eds.) The Future of Identity in the Information Society. IFIP AICT, vol. 298, pp. 67–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jagatic, T.N., Johnson, N.A., Jakobsson, M., Menczer, F.: Social phishing. Communications of the ACM 50(10), 94–100 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Köpsell, S.: Low Latency Anonymous Communication - How long are users willing to wait? In: Müller, G. (ed.) ETRICS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3995, pp. 221–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mackay, W.E.: Triggers and barriers to customizing software. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Reaching Through Technology. CHI 1991, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States, April 27 - May 02, pp. 153–160. ACM, New York (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manny, C.H.: European and American privacy: Commerce, rights, and justice. Computer Law and Security Report 19(1), 4–10 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Newell, P.B.: Perspectives on privacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15(2), 87–104 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Norberg, P.A., Horne, D.R., Horne, D.A.: The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure Intentions versus Behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs 41(1), 100–126 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    PRIME General Public Tutorial v2, (last access 2008-05-15)
  19. 19.
    Sheehan, K.B., Hoy, M.G.: Dimensions of privacy concern among online consumers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 19(1), 62–72 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simon, H.A.: Models of bounded rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spiekermann, S., Grossklags, J., Berendt, B.: E-privacy in 2nd generation E-commerce: privacy preferences versus actual behavior. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. EC 2001, Tampa, Florida, USA, October 14 - 17, pp. 38–47. ACM, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Varian, H.R.: Economic aspects of personal privacy. In: Privacy and Self-Regulation in the Information Age, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (1996)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Warren, S., Brandeis, L.: The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review 4, 193–220 (1890)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Westin, A.F.: Privacy and Freedom. Atheneum, New York (1967)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefanie Pötzsch
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations