Skip to main content

The Cost of Using Facebook: Assigning Value to Privacy Protection on Social Network Sites Against Data Mining, Identity Theft, and Social Conflict

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reloading Data Protection

Abstract

By making use of SNSs, users expose themselves to several potential privacy threats at once, yet little is known in how SNSs users of various ages prioritize their concerns over these different privacy threats. This study makes use of an innovative method will be used to determine the relative importance attributed by SNS users to the protection against three distinct privacy threats they face on SNSs: data mining, identity theft, and social conflict. The results show that even respondents as young as twelve years old appear still attribute most importance to their privacy protection against data mining. Furthermore, the results suggests that respondents generally seek privacy protection that is good enough, avoiding the most obvious privacy violations, as opposed to trying to obtain the best privacy protection. These findings, when considering that participation on SNSs in not necessarily a completely free choice and users generally have little choice or input in their actual privacy protection once participating, indicate that the development of policies to regulate and safeguard SNSs users privacy online may be of prime importance.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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.

    http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/products/cbc/cbc_method

  2. 2.

    www.tns-nipo.com

  3. 3.

    Statistic from newsroom.fb.com

  4. 4.

    New developments like the Google dashboard may give users more control in time in this respect. Google Dashboard promises users more transparency and control concerning the information linked to their google accounts.https://accounts.google.com

  5. 5.

    Brusselsdecleration.net

References

  • Acquisti, A., and R. Gross. 2006. Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the facebook. Paper presented at the 6th Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, L. 2012. Facebook is using you. The New York Times.http://www.nytimes.com. Accessed 5 Jul. 2012.

  • Binder, J., A. Howes, and A. Sutcliffe. 2009. The problem of conflicting social spheres: Effects of network structure on experienced tension in social network sites. Paper presented at the CHI, Boston, M.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boneva, B.S., A. Quinn, R.E. Kraut, S. Kiesler, and I. Shklovski. 2006. Teenage communication in the instant messaging era. In Computers, phones, and the internet: Domesticating information technology, eds. R. Kraut, M. Brynin, and S. Kiesler 201–218. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • boyd, d.m. 2008a. Facebook’s privacy trainwreck: Exposure, invasion and social convergence.Convergence 14 (1): 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • boyd, d.m. 2008b. Taken out of context: American teen sociality in networked publics. Doctoral Diss., Berkeley, University of California.http://www.danah.org/papers/TakenOutOfContext.pdf.

  • boyd, d.m., and A. E. Marwick. 2011. Social privacy in networked publics: Teens’ attitudes, practices, and strategies. A decade in internettime: Symposium on the dynamics of the internet and society.http://ssrn.com/abstract=1925128.

  • Cho, H., M. Rivera-Sánchez, and S.S. Lim. 2009. A multinational study on online privacy: Global concerns and local responses.New Media Society 11 (3): 395–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curry, J. 1996. Understanding conjoint analysis in 15 minutes. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series. Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debatin, B., J. P. Lovejoy, A. Horn, and B. N. Hughes. 2009. Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences.Journal of Computer Media Communication 15 (1): 83–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, N. B., C. Steinfield, and C. Lampe. 2007. The benefits of facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites.Journal of Computer Media Communication 12 (4): 1143–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govani, T., and H. Pashley. 2005. Student awareness of the privacy implications when using facebook.http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=2010.2001.2001.2095.6108&rep=rep2001&type=pdf. Accessed Sep. 2007.

  • Grimmelmann, J. 2009. Saving Facebook.Iowa Law Review 94:1137–1206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, R., and A. Acquisti. 2005. Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. Paper presented at the proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. 2010. Privacy no longer a social norm, says Facebook founder.The Guardian.http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-privacy. Accessed 14 Nov. 2011.

  • Hoofnagle, C., J. King, S. Li, and J. Turow. 2010. How different are young adults from older adults when it comes to information privacy attitudes & policies?http://ssrn.com/abstract=1589864.

  • Lampe, C., N.B. Ellison, and C. Steinfield. 2006. A Face(book) in the crowd: social searching vs. social browsing. Proceedings of CSCW-2006, 161-170. New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lampinen, A., S. Tamminen, and A. Oulasvirta. 2009. “All my people right here, right now”: Management of group co-presence on a social networking site. Paper presented at the International Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP’09), Sanibel Island, Florida, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litt, E. 2012. Privy to privacy on social network sites: Another digital divide. Paper presented at the Amsterdam Privacy Conference, 2012, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S. 2008. Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression.New Media & Society 10 (3): 393–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madden, M., and A. Smith. 2010. Reputation management and social media. Pew Internet and American Life Project report.http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Reputation_Management.pdf.

  • Marwick, A. E., D. M. Diaz, and J. Palfrey. 2010. Youth, privacy and reputation. Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2010–2015; Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 2010–2029.http://ssrn.com/abstract=1588163.

  • Mongold, B. 2010. Facebook Privacy—Can you track who visits your profile?Five Free Apps.http://www.fivefreeapps.com/2010/01/facebook-privacy-can-you-track-who-visits-your-profile.html. Accessed 16 Jul. 2012.

  • Noda, T. S. 2009. Facebook still a hotbed of identity theft, study claims. PCWorld.http://www.pcworld.com. Accessed 5 Jul. 2012.

  • Nowak, G. J., and J. E. Phelps. 1992. Understanding privacy concerns: an assessment of consumers’ information-related knowledge and beliefs.Journal of Direct Marketing 6 (4): 28–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orme, B. 1996. Which conjoint method should I use? Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series. Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orme, B. 2010. Getting started with conjoint analysis: Strategies for product design and pricing research. Madison: Research Publishers LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paine, C., U-D. Reips, S. Stieger, A. Joinson, and T. Buchanan. 2007. Internet users’ perception of ‘privacy concerns’ and ‘privacy actions’.Human-Computer Studies 65:526–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekárek, M., and R. Leenes. 2009. Privacy and social network sites: Follow the money. Paper presented at the W3C workshop on the future of social networking, Barcelona, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petronio, S.2002.Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raynes-Goldie, K. 2010. Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning: Understanding privacy in the age of Facebook.First Monday 15 (1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Skeels, M. M., and J. Grudin. 2009. When social networks cross boundaries: A case study of workplace use of Facebook and LinkedIn. Paper presented at the International Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP’09), Sanibel Island, Florida, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinfield, C., N. B. Ellison, and C. Lampe. 2008. Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis.Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29 (6): 434–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stutzman, F. D., and W. Hartzog. 2009. Boundary regulation in social media.http://ssrn.com/abstract=1566904.

  • Timmer, J. 2009. New algorithm guesses SSNs using date and place of birth. Arstechnica.http://arstechnica.com. Accessed 5 Jul. 2012.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wouter Martinus Petrus Steijn .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Steijn, W. (2014). The Cost of Using Facebook: Assigning Value to Privacy Protection on Social Network Sites Against Data Mining, Identity Theft, and Social Conflict. In: Gutwirth, S., Leenes, R., De Hert, P. (eds) Reloading Data Protection. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7540-4_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics