Digital Natives and the Metamorphosis of the European Information Society. The Emerging Behavioral Trends Regarding Privacy and Their Legal Implications

  • Norberto Nuno Gomes de Andrade
  • Shara Monteleone


European society is going through a process of metamorphosis as digital natives are becoming of age. This new generation of individuals, who have grown up immersed in information and communication technologies, reveal interesting behavioural patterns regarding the disclosure of personal information, profiling and protection of personal data. How do these emerging attitudes, expectations and behaviours shape society and how does the current set of normative rules enshrined in the existing European legal framework of data protection influence them? The objective of this article is to analyse how observed behavioural trends of digital natives regarding the protection of personal data should be taken into account in future revisions of the legal regulatory framework.

The research on digital natives is based on Eurobarometer 359, “The State of Electronic Identity and Data Protection in Europe” (published in June 2011), which constitutes the largest survey ever on citizens’ behaviours and attitudes concerning identity management, data protection and privacy.

Taking into account the behaviours of digital natives vis-à-vis the disclosure of personal data, the article argues that European data protection law is running the risk of falling into a legally paternalistic temptation, rigidly protecting citizens from the consequences of their actions and losing touch with the reality of data subjects’ expectations and behaviours. As a consequence, the paper argues that future revisions of the legal framework could take into account the image of the emerging digital natives, recommending the introduction of a higher degree of flexibility in the application of its rules while keeping its core values intact


Personal Data Data Protection Social Networking Site Privacy Risk Digital Native 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alessandro Acquisti and Ralph Ross. 2006. Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing and privacy on the facebook. Proceedings of Privacy Enhancing Technologies Workshop(PET) 2006, LNCS 4258, Springer: 36–58.Google Scholar
  2. Allio, Lorenzo. 2007. Better regulation and impact assessment in the European Commission. InRegulatory impact assessment. Towards better regulation? ed. C. Kirkpatrick and D. Parker. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  3. Allio, Lorenzo. 2010. Keeping the centre of gravity work: Impact assessment, scientific advice and regulatory reform.European Journal of Risk Regulation.Google Scholar
  4. Allio, Lorenzo. 2011. On the smartness of smart regulation – A brief comment on the future reform agenda.European Journal of Risk Regulation 1: 19–20.Google Scholar
  5. Amichai-Hamburger, Yair, and Gideon Vinitzky. 2011. Social network use and personality.Computers in Human Behavior 26: 1289–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andrade, Norberto. 2010. Technology and metaphors: From cyberspace to ambient intelligence.Observatorio (OBS*) Journal 4: 121–146.Google Scholar
  7. Article 29 Working Party. 2009a. The future of privacy. Joint contribution to the consultation of the European Commission on the legal framework for the fundamental right to protection of personal data.
  8. Article 29 Working Party. 2009b. Opinion 5/2009 on online social networking.
  9. Bennett, Sue, Karl Maton, and Lisa Kervin. 2008. The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence.British Journal of Educational Technology 39: 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyd, Danah and Alice Marwick. 2011. Social privacy in network publics: Teens’ attitudes, practices and strategies.. Paper presented at Oxford Internet Institute’s “A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society”. Accessed 22 Sept 2011.
  11. Brown, Ian. 2010. Data protection: The new technical and political environment.Computers and Law 20(6): 40–42.Google Scholar
  12. Buckingham, David. 2008.Youth, identity and digital media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Calo, Ryan. 2011. The boundaries of privacy harm.Indiana Law Journal 86: 1131.Google Scholar
  14. Center for Democracy and Technology Policy Post. 2009. The dawn of the location-enabled.
  15. Denvir, Catrina, Nijel J. Balmer, and Pascoe Pleasence. 2011. Surfing the web – Recreation or resource? Exploring how young people in the UK use the internet as an advice portal for problems with a legal dimension.Interacting with Computers 23: 96–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission. 2006.Better regulation – simply explained. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission. 2009.Impact Assessment Guidelines. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  18. Eynon, Rebecca, and L.E. Malmberg. 2011. A typology of young people’s internet use: Implications for education.Computers in Education 56(3): 585–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gehl, Robert W. 2011. The archive and the processor: The internal logic of web 2.0.New Media and Society 13(8): 1228–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gordon, Hull, Heather R. Lipford, and Celine Latulipe. 2011. Contextual gaps: Privacy issues on Facebook.Ethics and Information Technology 13(4): 289–302. Scholar
  21. Grimmelman James. 2010. Privacy as product safety.Widener Law Journal 19: 793.Google Scholar
  22. Gross, Ralph and Alessandro Acquisti. 2005. Information revelation and privacy in online social network (The Facebook case). InProceedings of the ACM workshop on privacy in the electronic society (WPES), New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  23. Hoofnagle, Chris, Jennifer King, Su Li, and Joseph Turow. 2010. How different are young adults from older adults when it comes to information privacy attitudes and policies?. Survey. Accessed 14 Apr 2010.
  24. Karyda, Maria, and Spyros Kokolakis. 2008. Privacy perceptions among members of online communities. InDigital privacy, theries, technologies and practices, ed. Alessandro Acquisti, Stefanos Gritzalis, Costas Lambrinousakis, and Sabrina De Capitani di Vecemercati. New York: Auerbach Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Le Métayer, Daniel, and Shara Monteleone. 2009. Automated consent through privacy agent: Legal requirements and technical architecture.Computer Law Security Review 25(2): 136–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lusoli, Wainer, Margherita Bacigalupo, Francisco Lupiañez, Norberto Andrade, Shara Monteleone, and Ioannis Maghiros. 2012.Pan-European Survey of practices, attitudes & policy preferences as regard personal identity data management. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, EUR 25295.Google Scholar
  27. Margaryan, Anoush, Allison Littlejohn, and Gabrielle Vojt. 2011. Are digital natives a myth or reality?Computers in Education 56: 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marwick, Alice, Diego Murgia-Díaz, and John Palfrey. 2010. Youth, privacy and reputation.Berkman Center Research Publications No. 2010-5. Harvard: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  29. Mateus, Alexandre. M., and Jon. M. Peha. 2011. Quantifying global transfers of copyrighted content using BitTorrent. In39th telecommunications policy research conference (TPRC) 2011. Arlington: George Mason University School of Law.Google Scholar
  30. Mccolm, Helen. 2011. Smart regulation: The European Commission’s updated strategy.European Journal of Risk Regulation.Google Scholar
  31. Meuwese, Anne. 2008.Impact assessment in EU lawmaking. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Last accessed June 2012.Google Scholar
  32. Nissenbaum, Helen. 2004. Privacy as contextual integrity.Washington Law Review 79(1): 119–158.Google Scholar
  33. Palfrey, John, and Urs Grasser. 2008.Born digital. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  34. Pascu, Corina, David Osimo, Geomina Turlea, Martin Ulbric, Yves Punie, and Jean-Claude Burgelman. 2008. Social computing – Implications for the EU innovation landscape.Foresight 10(1): 37–52. Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Poullet, Yves. 2010. About the E-privacy directive: Towards a third generation of data protection legislation? InData protection in a profiled world, ed. Serge Gutwirth, Yves Poullet, and Paul De Hert. Dordrecht/London: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Prensky, Marc. 2001. Digital natives, digital immigrants.On The Horizon 9(5): 1–6. MCB University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Purtova, Nadezhda. 2012.Property rights in personal data. A European perspective. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  38. Reed, C. 2010. How to make bad law: Lessons from the computing and communications sector. Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 40/2010.Google Scholar
  39. Riva, Giuseppe. 2005. The psychology of ambient intelligence: Activity, situation and presence. InAmbient intelligence: The evolution of technology, communication and cognition towards the future of human-computer interaction, ed. Giuseppe Riva, F. VItalaro, F. Davide, and M. Alcaniz. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rochelandet, Fabrice, and Silvio H. T. Tai. 2012. Do privacy laws affect the location decisions of internet firms? Evidence for privacy havens. Available:
  41. Rouvroy, Antoinette. 2008. Privacy, data protection, and the unprecedented challenges of ambient inteligence.Studies in ethics, law, and technology. Berkeley: Berkeley Electronic Press.Google Scholar
  42. Shah, Nishant and Fieke Jansen. 2011.Digital alternatives with a cause? Book one: To Be. Bangalore: The Center for Internet and Society, available at
  43. Shmidt, Aernout. 2009. Radbruch in cyberspace: About law-system quality and ICT innovation.Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology 3(2): 195–218.Google Scholar
  44. Solove, Daniel. 2008.Understanding privacy. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Swire, Peter. 2012. Social networks, privacy, and freedom of association: Data empowerment vs. data protection.North Carolina Law Review, 2012; Ohio State Public Law Working Paper 165; 2011 TPRC Conference. Google Scholar
  46. Tene, Omer. 2011. Privacy: The new generations.International Data Privacy Law 1(1): 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thomas, Micheal. 2001.Deconstructing digital natives. Young people and new literacy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Vandoninck, Sofie, Leen d’Haenens, and Veronica Donoso. 2010. Digital literacy among Flemish adolescents: How do they handle with online risks?Communications 35(4): 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. West, Heather 2009. Is online privacy a generational issue?.GeekDad,
  50. Wong, Rebecca. 2009. Social networking: A conceptual analysis of a data controller.Communications Law 14(5): 142–149.Google Scholar
  51. Wong, Rebecca. 2011. Data protection: The future of privacy.Computer Law and Security Review 27(1): 53–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norberto Nuno Gomes de Andrade
    • 1
  • Shara Monteleone
    • 1
  1. 1.IPTSJRCSevilleSpain

Personalised recommendations