Awareness of Indirect Information Disclosure on Social Network Sites

Abstract

This research investigates user awareness and attitudes toward potential inferences of information posted on social network sites (SNSs). The study reports how user attitudes change after exposure to inferences made based upon information they have disclosed on an SNS, namely, on Facebook. To demonstrate this, two sub-studies involving three focus group sessions were conducted with Facebook users. In the first sub-study, the users received a general introduction to information that can be inferred from posts by using a prototypical privacy-enhancement tool called DataBait. Then, the second sub-study allowed the users to witness the potential inferences of their own Facebook photos and posts by using the DataBait tool. Next, qualitative content analysis was conducted to analyze the results, and these showed that the participants' attitudes toward privacy on SNSs changed from affective to cognitive when they became aware of potential inferences from actual information posted on their own Facebook accounts. The results imply that end users require more cognitive awareness regarding their genres of disclosure and the effect of their disclosures on their privacy. Moreover, as privacy awareness is contextual, there is a need for more research and development of online tools that will allow users to manage and educate themselves.

“This is capitalism. It is not illegal”: Users’ attitudes toward institutional privacy following the Cambridge Analytica scandal

“…Since earlier research has indicated that users are unaware of institutional privacy (Padyab et al 2016(Padyab et al , 2019, we were especially intrigued by its mention in interviews conducted before the scandal. The first series of interviews revealed that although young adults do not have a full understanding of how economic surveillance actually operates, about two-thirds of the participants did appear to be aware of its occurrence even before the CA scandal broke out.…”

“…In other words, they tend to be concerned about their social visibility-privacy from peers, family, employers, and others (Sujon 2018). But sharing information with family, friends, and others on social media also allows companies providing the service to access their data (Andrejevic 2013;Fisher 2018;Fuchs 2012;Jansson 2012;Padyab et al 2019). The latter constitutes institutional privacy-"how institutions such as governments, banks and businesses, use or misuse the personal information" (Raynes-Goldie 2010).…”

“…In effect, they are capable of perceiving only bits and pieces of the information their social media profiles actually contain. Consequently, they have very little understanding of the level of profiling third-party companies can perform on the data social media companies collect on their platforms (Padyab et al 2016(Padyab et al , 2019.…”

Das Privacy Paradox aus psychologischer Perspektive

“…(Mittlerweile scheint es sogar möglich zu sein, auf Fotos die sexuelle Orientierung eines Menschen mit Algorithmen automatisch ablesen zu können; Wang & Kosinski, 2018. ) Sobald Menschen allerdings ein Einblick in solche latenten Profile ermöglicht wird, erhöht dies hingegen ihre Privatheitssorgen (Padyab et al, 2016). Zweitens könnte es auch daran liegen, dass Menschen selten tatsächlich negative Erfahrungen sammeln: Zum Beispiel gaben 2011 nur 2% aller Europäer an, dass schon einmal ihre Identität geklaut worden wäre (European Commission, 2011).…”

Geofence Warrants, Geospatial Innovation, and Implications for Data Privacy

“…Data privacy management is largely placed on the shoulders of the individual, typically through the acceptance of (2015) approach to gauge public perception of privacy values and how individuals protect their digital information. Empirical studies on privacy and user agency within systems and networks have been conducted to understand the privacy paradox and counterproductive calculations of a privacy calculus or cost-benefit analysis (Acquisiti et al, 2016; Barnes, 2006;Gerber et al, 2018;Marwick & Hargittai, 2019;Padyab et al, 2019). In these examples, the individuals are assessed for their understanding of how their digital privacy can be invaded, but these tests do not aid in the issue with technology that anonymously produces data and knowledge about them.…”