An Empirical Evaluation of the Compliance of Game-Network Providers with Data-Protection Law

  • Karin Leichtenstern
  • Nikolaus Bee
  • Elisabeth André
  • Ulrich Berkmüller
  • Johannes Wagner
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 358)


Game consoles have become ubiquitous, not only for gaming but also as media servers, internet gateways etc. In combination with online networks, consoles feature online gaming in an unprecedented fashion. To participate in the networks and to personalize the services offered, the providers collect, process and forward personal information. This puts user privacy at risk. In this work we analyze the privacy policies of the online networks Playstation-Network, Xbox-Live and Wii, the three major providers. More specifically, we test the compliance of the policies to the current legal situation. We also evaluate if the providers fulfill the fundamental right of a user to obtain information on him. Our results are that all providers commit several violations, and in many cases their practices are not transparent.


privacy study game networks 


  1. 1.
    Spiegel. Playstation 3 im Test – Das sexy Paradox (March 2007),,1518,473311,00.html
  2. 2.
    Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. (SCEA). To offer richer online social experience to playstation®3 computer entertainment system owners with facebook integration (2009),
  3. 3.
    Interactive Advertising Bureau. In-Game Advertising Measurement Guidelines (2009),
  4. 4.
    Gross, R., Acquisti, A.: Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networks. In: WPES (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Microsoft Press Pass. Xbox unveils entertainment experiences that put everyone center stage (2009),
  6. 6.
    IGA Worldwide: Landmark IGA-Nielsen Study: 82% of Consumers React Positively to Receiving Contextual In-Game Ads During Game Play (June 2008),
  7. 7.
    Raabe, O., Dinger, J.: Telemedienrechtliche informationspflichten in p2p-overlay-netzen und bei web-services. Computer und Recht (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhou, B., Pei, J.: Preserving privacy in social networks against neighborhood attacks. In: ICDE (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yang, M., et al.: The effectiveness of ‘in-game’ advertising: Comparing college students? explicit and implicit memory for brand names. Journal of Advertising (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yan, J., et al.: How much can behavioral targeting help online advertising? In: WWW. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haddadi, H., Guha, S., Francis, P.: Not all adware is badware: Towards privacy-aware advertising. In: Godart, C., Gronau, N., Sharma, S., Canals, G. (eds.) I3E 2009. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol. 305, pp. 161–172. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bundesdatenschutzgesetz: Bdsg; kommentar (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein. Datenschutzrechtliche Bewertung des Einsatzes von Google Analytics. ULD (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karin Leichtenstern
    • 1
  • Nikolaus Bee
    • 1
  • Elisabeth André
    • 1
  • Ulrich Berkmüller
    • 1
  • Johannes Wagner
    • 1
  1. 1.Human Centered MultimediaAugsburg

Personalised recommendations