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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The term “DIY data protection” was conceived as translation of the German “Selbstdatenschutz”, which literally translates as self-data-protection. Thus, the usual connotations of DIY as improvised or alternative to a commercial product are not necessarily intended; the connotations of independence and self-reliance, however, are. The results presented in this article build on a German whitepaper concerning “Selbstdatenschutz” issued by the research project “Privacy Forum” which can be found here: https://www.forum-privatheit.de/forum-privatheit-de/texte/veroeffentlichungen-des-forums/themenpapiere-white-paper/Forum_Privatheit_White_Paper_Selbstdatenschutz_2.Auflage.pdf (accessed 06.03.2015).
- 2.
Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion on Innovations (New York: Free Press, 2005), 118.
- 3.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Falling Through the Net: A Survey of the ‘Have-nots’ in Rural and Urban America (Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce), assessed March 10, 2015. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html.
- 4.
For profound critiques of the term “digital divide” and its applications in public discourse, see Neil Selwyn, “Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide,” New Media & Society 6 (2004): 341–362, and David J. Gunkel, “Second Thoughts: Towards a Critique of the Digital Divide,” New Media & Society 5 (2003): 499–522.
- 5.
Susan B. Barnes, “A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States,” First Monday 11 (2006), accessed March 4, 2015, doi:10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394.
- 6.
Lincoln Dahlberg, “Cyber-Libertarianism 2.0: a discourse theory/ critical political economy examination. Cultural Politics 6, no. 3 (2010), doi: 10.2752/175174310X12750685679753: 331–356.
- 7.
Yong J. Park, “Digital Literacy and Privacy Behavior Online,” Communication Research 40, no. 2 (2013).
- 8.
Alessandro Acquisti, Leslie K. John and George Loewenstein. “What is privacy worth?,” The Journal of Legal Studies 42 (2013): 249–274.
- 9.
e.g., Miriam J. Metzger, “Communication Privacy Management in Electronic Commerce,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12 (2007): 351.
- 10.
Petter Bae Brandtzæg, Marika Lüders, and Jan Håvard Skjetne, “Too many Facebook ‘friends’? Content sharing and sociability versus the need for privacy in social network sites,” Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 26 (2010): 1006–1030.
- 11.
Georgia Skouma and Laura Léonard, “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 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2015), 35–62.
- 12.
George R. Milne and Andrew J. Rohm, “Consumer Privacy and Name Removal across Direct Marketing Channels: Exploring Opt-in and Opt-out Alternatives,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 19, no. 2 (2000): 238–49.
- 13.
Zizi A. Papcharissi, A Private Sphere: Democracy in a Digital Age (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010).
- 14.
Katie Raynes-Goldie, “Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning: Understanding privacy in the age of Facebook,” First Monday 15, no. 1 (2010).
- 15.
Ralf De Wolf, Koen Willaert, and Jo Pierson, “Managing privacy boundaries together: Exploring individual and group privacy management strategies on Facebook,” Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014).
- 16.
Airi Lampinen et al., “We’re in It Together: Interpersonal Management of Disclosure in Social Network Sercives,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, USA: ACM, 2011), 3217–3226.
- 17.
Philipp K. Masur and Michael Scharkow, “Disclosure Management on Social Network Sites: Individual Privacy Perceptions and User-Directed Privacy Strategies”, (in prep).
- 18.
Lampinen et al., “We’re in It Together: Interpersonal Management of Disclosure in Social Network Services.“ .
- 19.
Ibid.
- 20.
Raynes-Goldie, “Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning: Understanding privacy in the age of Facebook.”.
- 21.
Zeynep Tufekci, “Can You See Me Now? Audience and Disclosure Regulation in Online Social Network Sites,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 28, no. 1 (2008): 20–36.
- 22.
Tobias Dienlin and Sabine Trepte, “Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in-depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors,” European Journal of Social Psychology (2014).
- 23.
Bernard Debatin et al., “Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15, no. 1 (2009): 83–108.
- 24.
Eden Litt, “Understanding social network site users’ privacy tool use,” Computers in Human Behavior 29, no. 4 (2013): 1649–1656.
- 25.
Jessica Vitak, “The Impact of Context Collapse and Privacy on Social Network Site Disclosures,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, no. 4 (2012): 451–470.
- 26.
Debatin et al., “Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences.”.
- 27.
Dienlin and Trepte, “Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in-depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors.”.
- 28.
Debatin et al., “Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences.”.
- 29.
Masur and Scharkow, “Disclosure Management on Social Network Sites: Individual Privacy Perceptions and User-Directed Privacy Strategies”.
- 30.
Sabine Trepte, Tobias Dienlin, and Leonard Reinecke, “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 (Wiesbaden: UVK, 2014), 225–246.
- 31.
Debatin et al., “Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences.”.
- 32.
Philipp K. Masur, Doris Teutsch, and Sabine Trepte, “Entwicklung der Online-Privatheitskompetenz-Skala” (in prep).
- 33.
Park, “Digital Literacy and Privacy Behavior Online,” 217.
- 34.
Sabine Trepte et al., “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 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2015), 333–366.
- 35.
Deutsches Institut für Vertrauen und Sicherheit im Internet (DIVSI), “DIVSI Studie zur Freiheit versus Regulierung im Internet,” (Hamburg, 2013), accessed March 10, 2015. https://www.divsi.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/divsi-studie-freiheit-v-regulierung-2013.pdf.
- 36.
Trepte et al., “How Skilled Are Internet Users When it Comes to Online Privacy and Data Protection? Development and Validation of the Online Privacy Literacy Scale (OPLIS).”.
- 37.
Helen Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life (Stanford: Stanford Law Books, 2010).
- 38.
Monika Taddicken and Cornelia Jers, “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 (Berlin: Springer, 2011), 143–156.
- 39.
Trepte et al., “Do People Know About Privacy and Data Protection Strategies? Towards the ‘Online Privacy Literacy Scale’ (OPLIS),” 338.
- 40.
Sidney M. Jourard and Paul Lasakow, “Some Factors in Self-Disclosure,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 56, no. 1 (1958).
- 41.
Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor, Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston: 1976).
- 42.
Nicole B. Ellison et al., “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 (Berlin: Springer, 2011), 19–32.
- 43.
Trepte et al., “Do People Know About Privacy and Data Protection Strategies? Towards the ‘Online Privacy Literacy Scale’ (OPLIS),” 338.
- 44.
Sabine Trepte and Leonard Reinecke, “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 (Berlin: Springer, 2011), 143–156.
- 45.
Paul Dourish and Ken Anderson, “Collective Information Practice: Exploring Privacy and Security as Social and Cultural Phenomena,” HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION 21 (2006): 319–342.
- 46.
In the sense of: Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984).
- 47.
Anselm Strauss, “A Social World Perspective,” Symbolic Interaction 1 (1978): 119–128.
- 48.
Eric Hughes, “A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto”, accessed February 23, 2015. http://activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html.
- 49.
More precisely speaking, cryptography did not spread globally as an everyday practice of average users for the sake of individual privacy protection, though it was, and is, in fact, harnessed by large corporations (business, public authorities) on a global scale to serve IT security ends.
- 50.
Ole Reißmann, “Cyptoparty-Bewegung: Verschlüsseln, verschleiern, verstecken,” Spiegel-Online, October 9, 2012, accessed February 23, 2015, http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/cryptoparty-bewegung-die-cypherpunks-sind-zurueck-a-859473.html.
- 51.
Obviously, I am talking about ideal types here that nevertheless coin the discourse on DIY data protection most profoundly.
- 52.
I will omit here that to a certain degree data protectionists are caught up in a specific double bind: while they are public authorities and thus subject to the state’s agency, they at the same time are bound to protect citizens from illegitimate interventions effected by this very state.
- 53.
Max-Otto Baumann, “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 (Frankfurt/M.: Humanities Online, 2013), 47.
- 54.
In this respect, the infamous statement of the former Minister of the Interior, Hans-Peter Friedrich, speaks volumes: On 16th of July 2013, Friedrich, at the time German Minister of the Interior, was interrogated by the parliamentary board that is supposed to supervise the intelligence service. Friedrich was asked about his state of knowledge concerning the so-called “NSA scandal”. After having been interrogated by the board's members he faced the media. In this context Friedrich turned to German citizens, reminding them of their duties, asking them to assume their responsibilities, stating that they were supposed to learn by themselves how to cater for secure internet communication; in particular, Friedrich emphasized that cryptographic techniques and anti-virus software must be brought much more into focus. Also, the by-then Minister stated that people must become aware of the fact that also internet communications need to be protected. Thus we have here a perfect example for the shifting of the focus away from the extremely well-organized collective dimension of the civil rights attack carried out by the intelligence services to the individual’s responsibility: DIY data protection serves as a way to individualize the social conflict, and to neglect the collective nature of the practices in question.
- 55.
This is not to say that, say, email service providers did not make use of encryption at all; German webmail service gmx, for example, provides encryption between end user and the company’s mail servers, as well as among all the servers belonging to the so-called “E-Mail made in Germany”-network (an association of several Germany based email service providers, such as T-Online and WEB.DE). However, this may be interpreted as a rather superficial strategy to put the minds of worried users at rest, and not at all as the implementation of strong DIY data protection practices. More generally speaking, what I am referring to is the fact that in contemporary socio-technical assemblages it is players belonging to the surveillance economy that provide for the infrastructures enabling people to build up sociality. In modern societies, at least as far as European ones are concerned, the state used to be the agency that provided populations with the means to construct social structures (telegraph, mail, cable networks, you name it) and it also used to be the state that in turn observed the sociality thus built; in recent years, private corporations have become the main providers of key infrastructures of sociality (Online Social Networks serve as a paradigmatic case in point), as well as the main observers of the latter. As return on investment for most of these corporations is fundamentally, totally, absolutely grounded on the observation of the sociality built by “users” (who uses whom here?), the wide-spread emergence of strong DIY data protection practices is not in their interest as a matter of principle.
- 56.
For example, they could issue laws, install regulating bodies, strengthen relevant education (the state), or develop privacy friendly systems, make their techno-economic structure transparent, and effectively follow suitable business ethics.
- 57.
This, however, does not mean that the use of data protection tools cannot conflict with legal provisions. This can be seen in repeated calls to regulate the use of encryption as well as the legal constraints of the right to privacy, e.g. for the purpose of criminal investigations.
- 58.
Louise Amoore, “Data Derivatives: On the Emergence of a Security Risk Calculus for Our Times,” Theory, Culture & Society 28 (2011).
- 59.
Nissenbaum, “Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life”.
- 60.
Tobias Matzner, “Why Privacy is not Enough Privacy in the Context of ‘Ubiquitous Computing’ and ‘Big Data,’” Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society 12 (2014).
- 61.
Pat O’ Mailey, “Responsibilization,” in The SAGE Dictionary of Policing, ed. Alison Wakefield and Jenny Fleming (London: SAGE, 2009), 276.
- 62.
David Garland, “‘Governmentality’ and the Problem of Crime: Foucault, Criminology, Sociology,” Theoretical Criminology 1 (1997).
- 63.
Thomas Lemke, “‘The birth of bio-politics’: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality,” Economy and Society 30 (2001): 201.
- 64.
Colin J. Bennett and Charles D. Raab, The Governance of Privacy (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006), 4.
- 65.
Bennett and Raab, The governance of privacy, 14.
- 66.
On the problematic pragmatics of license agreements, see for example Debatin et al.: “Facebook and online privacy for social networking sites,” or Chee et al., “Re-Mediating Research Ethics” concerning games.
- 67.
See for example Apple’s “iPad in Education” website: https://www.apple.com/education/ipad/ (accessed February 19, 2015).
- 68.
In Europe, more than half of all persons already own a smartphone, with a continually growing market predicted: http://www.statista.com/statistics/203722/smartphone-penetration-per-capita-in-western-europe-since-2000/ (accessed March 4, 2015).
- 69.
Bennett and Raab, The Governance of Privacy, 53 et seqq.
- 70.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/att-charges-29-more-for-gigabit-fiber-that-doesnt-watch-your-web-browsing/ (accessed February 19, 2015).
- 71.
Of course, providing competence and time is usually more or less directly related to monetary costs as well.
- 72.
John Gilliom, Overseers of the Poor (Chicaco: Chicago University Press, 2001), 130 et seqq.; Nikolas Rose, “Government and Control,” British Journal of Criminology 40 (2000).
- 73.
More on this in Sect. 3.5.
- 74.
See also Sect. 2.
- 75.
Valerie Steeves, “Data Protection Versus Privacy: Lessons from Facebook’s Beacon,” in The contours of privacy, ed. David Matheson (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009), 187.
- 76.
This, of course is the rationale of Nissenbaum’s approach in “Privacy as Contextual Integrity” that she has developed from reflections on “privacy in public.”
- 77.
Steeves, “Data protection vs. Privacy,” 189.
- 78.
Jane Bailey et al., “Negotiating With Gender Stereotypes on Social Networking Sites: From ‘Bicycle Face’ to Facebook,” Journal of Communication Inquiry 37 (2013): 91.
- 79.
See for example the problems of legislating revenge porn without reproducing the logic of victim blaming or infringing the sexual liberty of women in Henry and Powell, “Beyond the ‘sext’”.
- 80.
Rose, “Government and control.”
- 81.
David Lyon, “Surveillance As Social Sorting,” in Surveillance As Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk, and Digital Discrimination, ed. David Lyon (New York: Routledge, 2003).
- 82.
See the quote above in note 50 as an example.
- 83.
- 84.
Jeffrey Rosen, The naked crowd: Reclaiming security and freedom in an anxious age (New York: Random House, 2005), Chap. 3.
Bibliography
Acquisti, Alessandro, Leslie K. John, and George Loewenstein. 2013. What is privacy worth? The Journal of Legal Studies 42: 249–274.
Altman, Irwin, and Dalmas Taylor. 1976. Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Amoore, Louise. 2011. Data derivatives: On the emergence of a security risk calculus for our times. Theory, Culture & Society 28: 24–43.
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.
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.
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.
Bennett, Colin J., and Charles D. Raab. 2006. The governance of privacy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dourish, Paul, and Ken Anderson. 2006. Collective information practice: Exploring privacy and security as social and cultural phenomena. Human-Computer Interaction 21: 319–342.
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.
Garland, David. 1997. ‘Governmentality’ and the problem of crime: Foucault, criminology, sociology. Theoretical Criminology 1: 173–214.
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gilliom, John. 2001. Overseers of the poor. Chicaco: Chicago University Press.
Gunkel, David J. 2003. Second thoughts: Towards a critique of the digital divide. New Media & Society 5: 499–522.
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.
Hughes, Eric. 2015. A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto. http://activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html. Accessed 23 Feb 2015.
Jourard, Sidney M, and Paul Lasakow. Some factors in self-disclosure. some factors in self-disclosure. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 56(1): 91.
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.
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.
Litt, Eden. 2013. Understanding social network site users’ privacy tool use. Computers in Human Behavior 29(4): 1649–1656.
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.
Masur, Philipp K, and Michael Scharkow. Disclosure management on social network sites: Individual privacy perceptions and user-directed privacy strategies. (in prepartion).
Masur, Philipp K., Doris Teutsch and Sabine Trepte. Entwicklung der Online-Privatheitskompetenz-Skala. (in preparation).
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.
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.
Metzger, Miriam J. 2007. Communication privacy management in electronic commerce. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12: 351–361.
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.
Nissenbaum, Helen. 2010. Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford: Stanford Law Books.
O’ Mailey, Pat. 2009. Responsibilization. In The SAGE dictionary of policing, ed. Alison Wakefield and Jenny Fleming, 276–278. London: SAGE.
Papacharissi, Zizi A. 2010. A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
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.
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.
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.
Rogers, Everett M. 2005. Diffusion on innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rose, Nikolas. 2000. Government and control. British Journal of Criminology 40: 321–339.
Rosen, Jeffrey. 2005. The naked crowd: Reclaiming security and freedom in an anxious age. New York: Random House.
Selwyn, Neil. 2004. Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society 6: 341–362.
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.
Steeves, Valerie. 2009. Data protection versus privacy: Lessons from Facebook’s Beacon. In The contours of privacy, ed. David Matheson. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Strauss, Anselm. 1978. A social world perspective. Symbolic Interaction 1: 119–128.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Vitak, Jessica. 2012. The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56(4): 451–470.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Matzner, T., Masur, P.K., Ochs, C., von Pape, T. (2016). Do-It-Yourself Data Protection—Empowerment or Burden?. In: Gutwirth, S., Leenes, R., De Hert, P. (eds) Data Protection on the Move. Law, Governance and Technology Series(), vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7376-8_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7376-8_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-7375-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-7376-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)