Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of Privacy Knowledge on Privacy Attitudes in the Domain of Location-Based Services

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Privacy and Identity Management (Privacy and Identity 2022)

Part of the book series: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology ((IFIPAICT,volume 671))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 293 Accesses

Abstract

In our daily life, we make extensive use of location-based services when searching for a restaurant nearby, searching for an address we want to visit, or searching for the best route to drive. Location information is highly sensitive personal information that users share without the awareness of being continuously tracked by various apps on their smartphones or smart devices. Privacy knowledge and overall privacy literacy facilitate gaining control over sharing personal information and adjusting privacy settings online. This research examines the influence of privacy literacy on privacy attitudes in the domain of location-based services. Hereby, privacy literacy is measured through four dimensions by asking the participants about various aspects of knowledge about institutional practices, technical aspects of data protection, data protection law, privacy policies, and also about possible data protection strategies. The overall privacy literacy score is examined in relation to various privacy attitudes such as tolerance of sharing personal information, perceived intrusion when using location-based services, and their perceived benefits. Overall, 155 participants took part in the questionnaire. A significant difference can be found between the overall privacy literacy score between German participants and those from other countries with German participants having a higher privacy literacy score. Furthermore, privacy literacy positively correlates with trust in the GDPR, and also with privacy concern about the secondary use of location information. Indicating, that the higher the privacy literacy level is, the more concerned participants seem to be.

The study has been conducted with the support of the DFG in the scope of the project MO 1038/28-1.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://surveysparrow.com/.

  2. 2.

    The study has been conducted in accordance with the guidelines proposed by the ethics committee of Faculty IV of the Technische Universität Berlin.

References

  1. Almuhimedi, H., et al.: Your location has been shared 5,398 times! a field study on mobile app privacy nudging. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 787–796 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, M.: More Americans using smartphones for getting directions, streaming tv (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barth, S., De Jong, M.D.: The privacy paradox-investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior-a systematic literature review. Telematics Inform. 34(7), 1038–1058 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barth, S., de Jong, M.D., Junger, M., Hartel, P.H., Roppelt, J.C.: Putting the privacy paradox to the test: online privacy and security behaviors among users with technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources. Telematics Inform. 41, 55–69 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chekol, A.G., Fufa, M.S.: A survey on next location prediction techniques, applications, and challenges. EURASIP J. Wirel. Commun. Netw. 2022(1), 1–24 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13638-022-02114-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Crossler, R.E., Bélanger, F.: The mobile privacy-security knowledge gap model: Understanding behaviors. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Crossler, R.E., Bélanger, F.: Why would i use location-protective settings on my smartphone? motivating protective behaviors and the existence of the privacy knowledge-belief gap. Inf. Syst. Res. 30(3), 995–1006 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. De Luca, A., Das, S., Ortlieb, M., Ion, I., Laurie, B.: Expert and \(\{\)Non-Expert\(\}\) attitudes towards (secure) instant messaging. In: Twelfth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2016), pp. 147–157 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fiesler, C., et al.: What (or who) is public? privacy settings and social media content sharing. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, pp. 567–580 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Furini, M.: Users behavior in location-aware services: digital natives versus digital immigrants. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 2014 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gabriele, S., Chiasson, S.: Understanding fitness tracker users’ security and privacy knowledge, attitudes and behaviours. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–12 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gamarra Acosta, M., et al.: Privacy perception in location-based services for mobile devices in the university community of the north coast of Colombia (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Harborth, D., Pape, S.: How privacy concerns, trust and risk beliefs, and privacy literacy influence users’ intentions to use privacy-enhancing technologies: The case of tor. ACM SIGMIS Database: DATABASE Adv. Inf. Syst. 51(1), 51–69 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hoofnagle, C.J., King, J., Li, S., Turow, J.: How different are young adults from older adults when it comes to information privacy attitudes and policies? Available at SSRN 1589864 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jiang, H., Li, J., Zhao, P., Zeng, F., Xiao, Z., Iyengar, A.: Location privacy-preserving mechanisms in location-based services: a comprehensive survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54(1), 1–36 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kang, R., Dabbish, L., Fruchter, N., Kiesler, S.: \(\{\)“My\(\}\) data just goes \(\{\)Everywhere:"\(\}\) user mental models of the internet and implications for privacy and security. In: Eleventh Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2015), pp. 39–52 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kraus, L., Wechsung, I., Möller, S.: A comparison of privacy and security knowledge and privacy concern as influencing factors for mobile protection behavior. In: Workshop on Privacy Personas and Segmentation, p. 2014 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lind, F., Boomgaarden, H.G.: What we do and don’t know: a meta-analysis of the knowledge gap hypothesis. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 43(3), 210–224 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mekovec, R., Vrček, N.: Factors that influence internet users’ privacy perception. In: Proceedings of the ITI 2011, 33rd International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, pp. 227–232. IEEE (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nissenbaum, H.: Contextual integrity up and down the data food chain. Theoret. Inquir. Law 20(1), 221–256 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Palos-Sanchez, P.R., Hernandez-Mogollon, J.M., Campon-Cerro, A.M.: The behavioral response to location based services: an examination of the influence of social and environmental benefits, and privacy. Sustainability 9(11), 1988 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Park, Y.J.: Digital literacy and privacy behavior online. Commun. Res. 40(2), 215–236 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Park, Y.J., Campbell, S.W., Kwak, N.: Affect, cognition and reward: predictors of privacy protection online. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28(3), 1019–1027 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pelet, J.É., Taieb, B.: Privacy protection on social networks: a scale for measuring users’ attitudes in France and the USA. In: Rocha, Á., Correia, A.M., Adeli, H., Reis, L.P., Costanzo, S. (eds.) WorldCIST 2017. AISC, vol. 570, pp. 763–773. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56538-5_77

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Poikela, M., Kaiser, F.: It is a topic that confuses me-privacy perceptions in usage of location-based applications. In: European Workshop on Usable Security (EuroUSEC) (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Poikela, M.E.: Theoretical background to location privacy. In: Perceived Privacy in Location-Based Mobile System. TSTS, pp. 13–32. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34171-8_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Sanchez, O.R., Torre, I., He, Y., Knijnenburg, B.P.: A recommendation approach for user privacy preferences in the fitness domain. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. 30(3), 513–565 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Skirpan, M.W., Yeh, T., Fiesler, C.: What’s at stake: characterizing risk perceptions of emerging technologies. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–12 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Trepte, S., et al.: Do people know about privacy and data protection strategies? towards the "online privacy literacy scale"(oplis). In: Gutwirth, S., Leenes, R., de Hert, P. (eds.) Reforming European Data Protection Law. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol. 20, pp. 333–365. Springer (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9385-8_14

  30. Urban, J.M., Hoofnagle, C.J.: The privacy pragmatic as privacy vulnerable. In: Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2014) Workshop on Privacy Personas and Segmentation (PPS) (2014)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Aknowledgments

Special thanks to Vinay Dev Mudgil for his support in implementing and running the survey.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Vera Schmitt

Authors
  1. Vera Schmitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vera Schmitt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Office Data Protection Commissioner of Schleswig-Holstein (ULD), Kiel, Germany

    Felix Bieker

  2. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Joachim Meyer

  3. Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

    Sebastian Pape

  4. Ostfalia Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften, Wolfenbüttel, Germany

    Ina Schiering

  5. Leibniz-Institut für Bildungsmedien | Georg-Eckert-Institut, Braunschweig, Germany

    Andreas Weich

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 A: Privacy Attitudes Questionnaire

The questionnaire is based on questionnaires developed by [21], examining LBS and behavioural responses, [4] examining the privacy paradox about privacy and security behaviour in relation to privacy knowledge, and [27] assessing privacy perception for fitness trackers. The answers are given on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 indicates strongly disagree and 5 strongly agree.

  1. 1.

    Tolerance

    1. (a)

      I need to disclose too much personal data for a useful use of location-based apps like maps, finding the nearest place of interest.

    2. (b)

      It is too easy for third parties to get access to my personal data when I use location-based apps.

    3. (c)

      There is a risk that the provider of location-based apps abuses my data for advertising/consumption purposes.

    4. (d)

      The use of location-based apps is related to a higher fraud risk than the use of other apps.

  2. 2.

    Appreciation

    1. (a)

      The benefits gained by using location-based services outweigh the privacy risks.

    2. (b)

      The benefits I get from using location-based services are worth giving away my personal information.

  3. 3.

    Secondary Use of Personal Information

    1. (a)

      I am concerned that mobile apps may use my personal information for other purposes without notifying me or getting my authorization

  4. 4.

    Perceived Intrusion

    1. (a)

      I feel that as a result of my using location-based services, others know about me more than I am comfortable with.

    2. (b)

      I believe that as a result of my using location-based services, information about me that I consider private is now more readily available to others than I would want.

  5. 5.

    Perceived Surveillance

    1. (a)

      I am concerned that location-based services allow for monitoring my mobility patterns via smartphones.

  6. 6.

    Perceived Ease of Use

    1. (a)

      My interaction with the location-based services like finding directions or finding the nearest restaurant is clear and understandable.

    2. (b)

      Interacting with location-based services does not require a lot of mental effort. location-based services like maps, and finding the nearest restaurant are easy to use.

  7. 7.

    Perceived Usefulness

    1. (a)

      Using the location-based services, I find places of interest more quickly.

    2. (b)

      Using the location-based services, I receive personalized offers.

    3. (c)

      I like the apps that track my location to provide services like roadside assistance.

  8. 8.

    GDPR Perception

    1. (a)

      General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) protects our online privacy and enables us to have greater control over, and ownership of, our personal data.

    2. (b)

      General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires that organizations implement an appropriate level of security to prevent data loss, information leaks, and other unauthorized data processing operations.

    3. (c)

      We should trust GDPR while doing shopping and conducting all manner of information-baring tasks online.

1.2 B: Privacy Literacy Questionnaire

The OPLIS Questionnaire was developed by [29] and contains four dimensions (the correct answers are marked as bold):

  1. 1.

    Knowledge about institutional practices

    1. (a)

      The National Security Agency (NSA) accesses only public user data, which are visible for anyone. (True/false/don’t know)

    2. (b)

      Social network site operators (e.g. Facebook) also collect and process information about non-users of the social network site. (True/false/don’t know)

    3. (c)

      User data that are collected by social network site operators (e.g. Facebook) are deleted after five years. (True/false/don’t know)

    4. (d)

      Companies combine users’ data traces collected from different websites to create user profiles. (True/false/don’t know)

    5. (e)

      E-mails are commonly passed over several computers before they reach the actual receiver. (True/false/don’t know)

  2. 2.

    Knowledge about technical aspects of data protection

    1. (a)

      What does the term “browsing history” stand for? In the browsing history...

      1. i.

        ...the URLs of visited websites are stored.

      2. ii.

        ...cookies from visited websites are stored.

      3. iii.

        ...potentially infected websites are stored separately.

      4. iv.

        ..different information about the user are stored, depending on the browser type.

    2. (b)

      What is a “cookie”?

      1. i.

        A text file that enables websites to recognize a user when revisiting.

      2. ii.

        A program to disable data collection from online operators.

      3. iii.

        A computer virus that can be transferred after connecting to a website.

      4. iv.

        A browser plugin that ensures safe online surfing.

    3. (c)

      What does the term “cache” mean?

      1. i.

        A buffer memory that accelerates surfing on the Internet.

      2. ii.

        A program that specifically collects information about an Internet user and passes them on to third parties.

      3. iii.

        A program, that copies data on an external hard drive to protect against data theft.

      4. iv.

        A browser plugin that encrypts data transfer when surfing online.

    4. (d)

      What is a “trojan”? A trojan is a computer program, that...

      1. i.

        ...is disguised as a useful application, but fulfills another function in the background.

      2. ii.

        ... protects a computer from viruses and other malware.

      3. iii.

        ... was developed for fun and has no specific function

      4. iv.

        . .. caused damage as a computer virus in the 90ies but doesn’t exist anymore.

    5. (e)

      What is a “firewall”?

      1. i

        A fallback system that will protect the computer from unwanted web attacks.

      2. ii

        An outdated protection program against computer viruses.

      3. iii

        A browser plugin that ensures safe online surfing.

      4. iv

        A new technical development that prevents data loss in case of a short circuit.

  3. 3.

    Knowledge about data protection law

    1. (a)

      Forwarding anonymous user data for the purpose of market research is legal in the European Union. (True/false/don’t know)

    2. (b)

      The EU-Directive on data protection...

      1. i.

        ... has to be implemented into national data protection acts by every member state.

      2. ii.

        ... does not exist yet.

      3. iii.

        ... functions as a transnational EU-data protection act.

      4. iv.

        ... solely serves as a non-committal guideline for the data protection acts of the member states.

    3. (c)

      In Germany the same standard GTC applies to all SNS. Any deviations have to be indicated. (True/false/don’t know)

    4. (d)

      According to German law, users of online applications that collect and process personal data have the right to inspect which information about them is stored. (True/false/don’t know)

    5. (e)

      Informational self-determination is...

      1. i

        ...a fundamental right of German citizens.

      2. ii

        ... a philosophical term.

      3. iii

        ... the central claim of data processors.

      4. iv

        ...the central task of the German Federal Data Protection Commissioner...

  4. 4.

    Knowledge about data protection strategies

    1. (a)

      Tracking of one’s own internet is made more difficult if one deletes browser information (e.g. cookies, cache, browser history) regularly. (True /false/don’t know)

    2. (b)

      Surfing in the private browsing mode can prevent the reconstruction of your surfing behavior because no browser information is stored. (True /false/don’t know)

    3. (c)

      Using false names or pseudonyms can make it difficult to identify someone on the Internet. (True/false/don’t know)

    4. (d)

      Even though It-experts can crack difficult passwords, it is more sensible to use a combination of letters, numbers and signs as passwords than words, names, or simple combinations of numbers. (True/false/don’t know)

    5. (e)

      In order to prevent access to personal data, one should use various passwords and user names for different online applications and change them frequently. (True/false/don’t know)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Schmitt, V. (2023). Influence of Privacy Knowledge on Privacy Attitudes in the Domain of Location-Based Services. In: Bieker, F., Meyer, J., Pape, S., Schiering, I., Weich, A. (eds) Privacy and Identity Management. Privacy and Identity 2022. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 671. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31971-6_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31971-6_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-31970-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-31971-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation