Information Privacy Violations in Ephemeral Communications

  • Maryam S. AlOshanEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 797)


Snapchat, by its ephemeral nature, has always portrayed itself as a service in which users can securely send messages that can vanish after viewing. The research examined Snapchat’s recent updates in light of Helen Nissenbaum’s theory of privacy as “contextual integrity.” Users’ profiling, replay feature, third-party apps tracking, and privacy policy have serious violation to the information and distribution norm that is considered a breach which results in contextual integrity being violated. There are many questions about the alleged false sense of privacy Snapchat is publicizing since users can only have a very low expectation of privacy in any electronic messaging. Snapchat have been accused of denying its users even the most basic privacy protection by failing to provide an adequate level of encryption (end-to-end) as a default. Privacy issues identified could be tackled by making a better job in its architectural design decisions.


Internet privacy Social networks Contextual integrity Snapchat Ephemeral communications 


  1. 1.
    Khatibloo F (2013) The new privacy: it’s all about context. Vision: the customer trust and privacy playbook. [online] Forrester Research, Inc, pp 1–26. Available at: Accessed 23 March 2015
  2. 2.
    Riphagen D (2008) The online Panopticon. Privacy risks for users of social network sites. Centre for Ethics and Technology, The Netherlands, 4TUGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Felt A, Greenwood K, Wagner D (2011) The effectiveness of application permissions. In: 2nd USENIX conference on Web application development (WebApps’11). USENIX Association, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Solove DJ (2006) A taxonomy of privacy. Uni Pennsylvania Law Rev 154(3):477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Acquisti A, Gross R (2006) Imagined Communities: awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the facebook. Robinson College, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Available at: (Accessed 3 Nov 2016)
  6. 6.
    Colao JJ (2014) The hackers who revealed Snapchat’s security flaws received one response from the company four months later. Available at: (Accessed 3 Nov 2016)
  7. 7.
    Gross D (2014) Millions of accounts compromised in Snapchat hack. Available at: (Accessed 7 Nov 2016)
  8. 8.
    Gellman R (2014) Fair information practices: a basic history. SSRN Electron JGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van den Hoven M (2008) ‘Information technology, privacy and the protection of personal data. In: van den Hoven M, Weckert J (eds) Information technology and moral philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frier S (2016) Snapchat user ‘stories’ fuel 10 billion daily video views. (21 Jun 2016). Bloomberg technology blogs URL
  11. 11.
    Litt E, Hargittai E (2014) ‘Smile, snap, and share? A nuanced approach to privacy and online photo-sharing’, Poetics 42:1–21Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Piwek L, Joinson A (2016) What do they snapchat about? Patterns of use in time-limited instant messaging service. Comput Hum Behav 54:358–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wohlsen M (2015) I’m too old for Snapchat, which is exactly why it should be worth $19B (23 Feb 2015). Wired Online URL
  14. 14.
    Cook J (2014b) Snapsaved admits it was the source of 100,000 leaked snapchat photos and videos (13 Oct 2014). Business insider URL http://uk.businessinsider. com/snapsaved-admits-it-was-source-of-leaked-snapchat-photos-2014-10
  15. 15.
    Notopoulos K (2012) How anybody can secretly save your snapchat videos forever (21 Jun 2016). BuzzFeed URL
  16. 16.
    Nissenbaum H (2009) Privacy in context. Stanford Law Books, Stanford, CalifGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nissenbaum H (2011) A contextual approach to privacy online. Daedalus 140(4):32–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nissenbaum H (2015) “Respect for context”: fulfilling the promise of the white house report. In: Rotenberg M, Horwitz J, Scott J (eds) Privacy in the modern age: the search for solutions. The New Press, United States, pp 152–164Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jonas J (2015) The surveillance society and transparent you. In: Rotenberg M, Horwitz J, Scott J (eds) Privacy in the modern age: the search for solutions. The New Press, United States, pp 93–103Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nakanishi L (2014) The big data dilemma: balancing privacy and utility. Available at: (Accessed 20 Sept 2016)
  21. 21.
    O’Kane S (2015) Snapchat now lets you pay to replay snaps (23 Jun 2016). The verge URL
  22. 22.
    Angwin J, Singer-Vine J (2012) Selling you on Facebook. Available at: (Accessed 7 Dec 2016)
  23. 23.
    Huber M, Mulazzani M, Schrittwieser S, Weippl E (2013) App inspect large-scale evaluation of social networking apps. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Boston, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krishnamurthy B, Wills CE (2009) On the leakage of personally identifiable information via online social networks. WOSN’09. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Barcelona, Spain. Available at: (Accessed 7 Dec 2016)
  25. 25.
    Milne G (2015) Digital privacy in the marketplace: perspectives on the information exchange. Business Expert PressGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chewae M, Hayikader S, Hasan MH, Ibrahim J (2015) How much privacy we still have on social network? Int J Sci Res Publ 5(1), Jan 2015Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kerr Ian (2001) The legal relationship between online service providers and users. Can Bus Law J 35:1–40Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Good NS, Grossklags J, Mulligan DK, Konstan JA (2007) Noticing notice: a large-scale experiment on the timing of software license agreements. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, San Jose, pp. 607–616Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smith O (2013) Facebook terms and conditions: why you don’t own your online life. Available at: (Accessed 24 Oct 2016)
  30. 30.
    Snapchat (2016) Privacy policy. Available at: (Accessed 20 Oct 2016)
  31. 31.
    Goel V, Wyatt E (2013) Facebook privacy change is subject of F.T.C. inquiry. The New York Times. Retrieved from Google (n.d.). Privacy policy. Retrieved from
  32. 32.
    Kravets D (2013) Judge approves $20 M Facebook ‘sponsored stories’ settlement. Wired. Retrieved from
  33. 33.
    Federal Trade Commission (2000) Privacy online: fair information practices in the electronic marketplace. Retrieved from Ghostery, n.d.,
  34. 34.
    Federal Trade Commission (2014) Snapchat settles FTC charges that promises of disappearing messages were false. Retrieved from
  35. 35.
    Gross R, Acquisti A (2005) Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on privacy in the electronic society (WPES). ACM, pp 71–80Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stutzman F, Gross R, Acquisti A (2012) Silent listeners: the evolution of privacy and disclosure on facebook. J Priv Confidentiality 4(2):7–41Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chin E, Porter Felt A, Sekar V, Wagner D (2012) Measuring user confidence in smartphone security and privacy. SOUPS, Washington, DC, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tsai JY, Egelman S, Cranor L, Acquisti A (2011) The effect of online privacy information on purchasing behavior: an experimental study. Inf Syst Res 22(2):254–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Angulo J, Fischer-Hübner S, Wästlund E, Pulls T (2011) Towards usable privacy policy display and management. Inf Manage Comput Secur 20(1):4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Steinfeld N (2016) ‘“I agree to the terms and conditions”: (how) do users read privacy policies online? An eye-tracking experiment’. Comput Human Behav 55:992–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations