Advertisement

Do-It-Yourself Data Protection—Empowerment or Burden?

  • Tobias Matzner
  • Philipp K. Masur
  • Carsten Ochs
  • Thilo von Pape
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 24)

Abstract

Data protection by individual citizens, here labeled do-it-yourself (DIY) data protection, is often considered as an important part of comprehensive data protection. Particularly in the wake of diagnosing the so called “privacy paradox”, fostering DIY privacy protection and providing the respective tools is seen both as important policy aim and as a developing market. Individuals are meant to be empowered in a world where an increasing amount of actors is interested in their data. We analyze the preconditions of this view empirically and normatively: Thus, we ask (1) Can individuals protect data efficiently; and (2) Should individuals be responsible for data protection. We argue that both for pragmatic and normative reasons, a wider social perspective on data protection is required. The paper is concluded by providing a short outlook how these results could be taken up in data protection practices.

Keywords

Do-it-yourself data protection Data protection Responsibilization Data protection advocates Data protection practices Representative study Privacy paradigm 

Bibliography

  1. Acquisti, Alessandro, Leslie K. John, and George Loewenstein. 2013. What is privacy worth? The Journal of Legal Studies 42: 249–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altman, Irwin, and Dalmas Taylor. 1976. Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  3. Amoore, Louise. 2011. Data derivatives: On the emergence of a security risk calculus for our times. Theory, Culture & Society 28: 24–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey, Jane, Valerie Steeves, Jacquelyn Burkell, and Priscilla Regan. 2013. Negotiating with gender stereotypes on social networking sites: From “bicycle face” to facebook. Journal of Communication Inquiry 37: 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnes, Susan B. 2006. A privacy paradox: Social networking in the Unites States. First Monday 11(9). doi: 10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394. Accessed 10 Mar 2015.
  6. Baumann, Max-Otto. 2013. Datenschutz im Web 2.0: Der politische Diskurs über Privatsphäre in sozialen Netzwerken. In Im Sog des Internets. Öffentlichkeit und Privatheit im digitalen Zeitalter, ed. Ulrike Ackermann, 15–52. Frankfurt/M.: Humanities Online.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett, Colin J., and Charles D. Raab. 2006. The governance of privacy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brandtzæg, Petter Bae, Marika Lüders, and Jan Håvard Skjetne. 2010. Too many Facebook ‘friends’? Content sharing and sociability versus the need for privacy in social network sites. Intl. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 26: 1006–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chee, Florence M., T.Taylor Nicholas, and Suzanne de Castell. 2012. Re-mediating research ethics: End-user license agreements in online games. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 32: 497–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Debatin, Bernhard, Jenette P. Lovejoy, Ann-Kathrin Horn, and Brittany N. Hughes. 2009. Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 15: 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deutsches Institut für Vertrauen und Sicherheit im Internet (DIVSI). 2013. DIVSI Studie zur Freiheit versus Regulierung im Internet. Hamburg. https://www.divsi.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/divsi-studie-freiheit-v-regulierung-2013.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2015.
  12. De Wolf, Ralf, Koen Willaert, and Jo Pierson. 2014. Managing privacy boundaries together: Exploring individual and group privacy management strategies in Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 35: 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dienlin, Tobias, and Sabine Trepte. 2014. Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in-depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors. European Journal of Social Psychology.Google Scholar
  14. Dourish, Paul, and Ken Anderson. 2006. Collective information practice: Exploring privacy and security as social and cultural phenomena. Human-Computer Interaction 21: 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellison, Nicole B, Jessica Vitak, Charles Steinfield, Rebecca Grey, and Cliff Lampe. 2011. Negotiating privacy concerns and social capital needs in a social media environment. In Privacy online. Perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web, ed. Sabine Trepte, and Leonard Reinecke, 19–32. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Garland, David. 1997. ‘Governmentality’ and the problem of crime: Foucault, criminology, sociology. Theoretical Criminology 1: 173–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gilliom, John. 2001. Overseers of the poor. Chicaco: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gunkel, David J. 2003. Second thoughts: Towards a critique of the digital divide. New Media & Society 5: 499–522.Google Scholar
  20. Henry, Nicola, and Anastasia Powell. 2014. Beyond the ‘sext’: Technology-facilitated sexual violence and harassment against adult women. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology. doi: 10.1177/0004865814524218. Accessed 10 Mar 2015.
  21. Hughes, Eric. 2015. A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto. http://activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html. Accessed 23 Feb 2015.
  22. Jourard, Sidney M, and Paul Lasakow. Some factors in self-disclosure. some factors in self-disclosure. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 56(1): 91.Google Scholar
  23. Lampinen, Airi, Vilma Lehtinen, Asko Lehmuskallio, and Sakari Tamminen. 2011. We’re in it together: Interpersonal management of disclosure in social network services. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 3217–3226. New York, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  24. Lemke, Thomas. 2001. ‘The birth of bio-politics’: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society 30: 190–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Litt, Eden. 2013. Understanding social network site users’ privacy tool use. Computers in Human Behavior 29(4): 1649–1656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lyon, David. 2003. Surveillance as social sorting. In Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk, and digital discrimination, ed. David Lyon, 13–30. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Masur, Philipp K, and Michael Scharkow. Disclosure management on social network sites: Individual privacy perceptions and user-directed privacy strategies. (in prepartion).Google Scholar
  28. Masur, Philipp K., Doris Teutsch and Sabine Trepte. Entwicklung der Online-Privatheitskompetenz-Skala. (in preparation).Google Scholar
  29. Matzner, Tobias. 2014. Why privacy is not enough privacy in the context of ‘ubiquitous computing’ and ‘big data.’ Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society 12(2):93.Google Scholar
  30. Milne, George R., and Andrew J. Rohm. 2000. Consumer privacy and name removal across direct marketing channels: Exploring opt-in and opt-out alternatives. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 19(2): 238–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Metzger, Miriam J. 2007. Communication privacy management in electronic commerce. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12: 351–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). 2015. Falling through the net: A survey of the ‘have-nots’ in Rural and Urban America. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html. Accessed 10 Mar 2015.
  33. Nissenbaum, Helen. 2010. Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford: Stanford Law Books.Google Scholar
  34. O’ Mailey, Pat. 2009. Responsibilization. In The SAGE dictionary of policing, ed. Alison Wakefield and Jenny Fleming, 276–278. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  35. Papacharissi, Zizi A. 2010. A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  36. Park, Yong J., Scott W. Campbell, and Nojin Kwak. 2012. Affect, cognition and reward: Predictors of privacy protection online. Computers in Human Behavior 28(3): 1019–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raynes-Goldie, Katie. 2010. Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning: Understanding privacy in the age of Facebook. First Monday 15(1). http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2775/2432. Accessed 10 Mar 2015.
  38. Reißmann, Ole. 2012 Cyptoparty-Bewegung: Verschlüsseln, verschleiern, verstecken. Spiegel-Online. http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/cryptoparty-bewegung-die-cypherpunks-sind-zurueck-a-859473.html. Accessed 23 Feb 2015.
  39. Rogers, Everett M. 2005. Diffusion on innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rose, Nikolas. 2000. Government and control. British Journal of Criminology 40: 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosen, Jeffrey. 2005. The naked crowd: Reclaiming security and freedom in an anxious age. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  42. Selwyn, Neil. 2004. Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society 6: 341–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Skouma, Georgia, and Laura Léonard. 2015. On-line behavioral tracking: What may change after the legal reform on personal data protection. In Reforming European Data Protection Law, ed. Serge Gutwirth, Ronald Leenes, and Paul de Hert, 35–62. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Steeves, Valerie. 2009. Data protection versus privacy: Lessons from Facebook’s Beacon. In The contours of privacy, ed. David Matheson. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. Strauss, Anselm. 1978. A social world perspective. Symbolic Interaction 1: 119–128.Google Scholar
  46. Taddicken, Monika, and Cornelia Jers. 2011. The uses of privacy online: Trading a loss of privacy for social web gratifications. In Privacy online. Perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web, ed. Sabine Trepte, and Leonard Reinecke, 143–156. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Trepte, Sabine, Tobias Dienlin, and Leonard Reinecke. 2014. Risky behaviors: How online experiences influence privacy behaviors. In Von Der Gutenberg-Galaxis Zur Google-Galaxis. From the Gutenberg Galaxy to the Google Galaxy. Surveying old and new frontiers after 50 years of DGPuK, ed. Birgit Stark, Oliver Quiring, and Nikolaus Jackob, 225–246. Wiesbaden: UVK.Google Scholar
  48. Trepte, Sabine, Doris Teutsch, Philipp K. Masur, Carolin Eicher, Mona Fischer, Alisa Hennhöfer, and Fabienne Lind. 2015. do people know about privacy and data protection strategies? Towards the ‘Online Privacy Literacy Scale’ (OPLIS). In Reforming European Data Protection Law, ed. Serge Gutwirth, Ronald Leenes, and Paul de Hert, 333–366. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Trepte, Sabine, and Leonard Reinecke. 2011. The social web as a shelter for privacy and authentic living. In Privacy online. Perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web, ed. Sabine Trepte, and Leonard Reinecke, 143–156. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Tufekci, Zeynep. 2008. Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 28(1): 20–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vitak, Jessica. 2012. The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56(4): 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Matzner
    • 1
  • Philipp K. Masur
    • 2
  • Carsten Ochs
    • 3
  • Thilo von Pape
    • 2
  1. 1.Universität Tübingen, Internationales Zentrum für Ethik in den WissenschaftenTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Universität Hohenheim Lehrstuhl Für Medienpsychologie (540 F)Stuttgart (Hohenheim)Germany
  3. 3.Universität Kassel Fachbereich 05 Soziologische TheorieKasselGermany

Personalised recommendations