2013 Young_ Quan-hase Privacy Protection Strategies on Facebook | Internet Privacy | Social Networking Service

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 23
2 views
PDF
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Document Description
Privacy Protection Strategies on Facebook
Document Share
Document Tags
Document Transcript
  Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rics20 Download by:  [UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL] Date:  16 November 2017, At: 22:31 Information, Communication & Society ISSN: 1369-118X (Print) 1468-4462 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rics20 PRIVACY PROTECTION STRATEGIES ON FACEBOOK Alyson Leigh Young & Anabel Quan-Haase To cite this article:  Alyson Leigh Young & Anabel Quan-Haase (2013) PRIVACY PROTECTIONSTRATEGIES ON FACEBOOK, Information, Communication & Society, 16:4, 479-500, DOI:10.1080/1369118X.2013.777757 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.777757 Published online: 04 Apr 2013.Submit your article to this journal Article views: 6986View related articles Citing articles: 72 View citing articles  Alyson Leigh Young &Anabel Quan-Haase PRIVACY PROTECTION STRATEGIESON FACEBOOKThe Internet privacy paradox revisited The privacy paradox describes people’s willingness to disclose personal informationon social network sites despite expressing high levels of concern. In this study, weemploy the distinction between institutional and social privacy to examine this phenomenon. We investigate what strategies undergraduate students have developed,and their motivations for using specific strategies. We employed a mixed-methodsapproach that included 77 surveys and 21 in-depth interviews. The resultssuggest that, in addition to using the default privacy settings, students have devel-oped a number of strategies to address their privacy needs. These strategies are used  primarily to guard against social privacy threats and consist of excluding contactinformation, using the limited profile option, untagging and removing photographs,and limiting Friendship requests from strangers. Privacy strategies are geared toward managing the Facebook profile, which we argue functions as a front stage. Thisactive profile management allows users to negotiate the need for connecting on Face-book with the desire for increased privacy. Thus, users disclose information, becausethey have made a conscious effort to protect themselves against potential violations.We conclude that there is a tilt toward social privacy concerns. Little concern wasraised about institutional privacy and no strategies were in place to protect againstthreats from the use of personal data by institutions. This is relevant for policy discussions, because it suggests that the collection, aggregation, and utilizationof personal data for targeted advertisement have become an accepted social norm. Keywords  social network sites (SNSs); Facebook; informationrevelation; Internet privacy; privacy protection strategies( Received 29 September 2012; final version received 14 February 2013 ) Information, Communication & Society Vol. 16, No. 4, May 2013, pp. 479–500 # 2013 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.777757    D  o  w  n   l  o  a   d  e   d   b  y   [   U   N   I   V   E   R   S   I   T   Y   O   F   K   W   A   Z   U   L   U  -   N   A   T   A   L   ]  a   t   2   2  :   3   1   1   6   N  o  v  e  m   b  e  r   2   0   1   7  Introduction The concept of Internet privacy has received considerable attention since theincreased collection of personal information online and the enhanced capabilitiesfor searching, tagging, and aggregating this information. One area of study thathas drawn particular attention is the provision of personal information on socialnetwork sites (SNSs). There are two reasons for this increased interest. First,SNSs represent a unique social sphere, where large amounts of personal infor-mation are stored and aggregated (Govani & Pashley 2005). Second, data pro-vided on these sites can easily be copied, forwarded, replicated, and taken outof context (boyd 2006).Internet users express significant concern about the release of personal infor-mation in the online environment (Govani & Pashley 2005; Acquisti & Gross2006). At the same time, and in apparent contradiction, users actively constructtheir identity online through the disclosure of personal information (Sunde´n2003; boyd 2008). Thus, there is a sharp disconnect between the concernpeople express and their willingness to disclose personal information. This isin line with what Barnes (2006) and Norberg  et al.  (2007) have identified asthe privacy paradox, a finding that has shown how despite expressing aconcern about Internet privacy, people often do very little to protect themselves.The privacy paradox has been well-documented in the literature, with research-ers consistently finding a contradiction between the privacy concerns that usersexpress and their disclosure of personal information on SNSs (Govani & Pashley2005; Gross & Acquisti 2005; Tufecki 2008). Acquisti and Gross (2006), forexample, found that Facebook users reported higher levels of concern forissues of privacy than for issues related to terrorism and the environment;despite their concern, users continued to disclose personal information on Face-book, including their birth dates, political views, and sexual orientation.Users, however, are not necessarily naı¨ve in their disclosure practices. Anumber of studies have emerged suggesting that users employ a wide range of privacy protection strategies to address their concerns (Debatin  et al.  2009;Madden & Smith 2010; Stutzman  et al.  2011; Dey  et al.  2012). These strategiesrange from simply untagging photos to more extensive deletion of content, toblocking Friendship requests, and managing default privacy settings. This litera-ture suggests that users are actively engaged in guarding their data and are notpassive users as srcinally suggested. There is, however, a gap in the literatureas to why SNS users choose specific privacy protection strategies over others,and how these strategies address specific privacy needs.To fill this gap, the present study employs Raynes-Goldie’s (2010) distinctionbetween social and institutional privacy to better describe the privacy protectionstrategies that university students have developed to protect themselves frompotential privacy threats. We examine both the strategies made availablethrough the system, as well as those strategies that students have developed, 480  INFORMATION, COMMUNICATION & SOCIETY    D  o  w  n   l  o  a   d  e   d   b  y   [   U   N   I   V   E   R   S   I   T   Y   O   F   K   W   A   Z   U   L   U  -   N   A   T   A   L   ]  a   t   2   2  :   3   1   1   6   N  o  v  e  m   b  e  r   2   0   1   7  as they engage with their online community and become more avid users. Ourgoal is to examine differences in social and institutional privacy in order to illus-trate that a more nuanced understanding of privacy is necessary to help explainwhy people disclose personal information despite their concerns. Literature review SNSs are traditionally defined as ‘spaces on the Internet where users can create aprofile and connect that profile to others to create a personal network’ (Lenhart& Madden 2007, p. 1). While differences exist among the various contemporarySNSs, a set of core features can be identified. First, users construct a profilewithin the site, which provides personal information that can be used to helpthe user find or be found by others to create a personal network. Second,most sites allow anyone to join, while requiring user authorization before friend-ship connections can be made. Finally, upon joining the service, new membersare usually asked to provide personal information, such as name, age, andemail address, as well as a picture of themselves and a self-description. Althoughthere are several different SNSs, some of the most popular include Facebook,LinkedIn, and Google +  (Wasserman 2012).The widespread adoption of SNSs has led many scholars and the media toexamine and raise pragmatic concerns about the disclosure of personal infor-mation associated with participation in these sites (Gross & Acquisti 2005;Barnes 2006; Govani & Pashley 2005; Klien 2006; Michaels 2006; Lenhart &Madden 2007; Debatin  et al.  2009; Young & Quan-Haase 2009; Madden &Smith 2010). By their very nature and design, SNSs encourage users to disclosesubstantial amounts of personal information, such as full name, birth date, andsexual orientation. The popularity of these sites, according to boyd and Jenkins(2006), lies in the users’ ability to converse with friends, develop a personalimage online, share digital cultural artifacts and ideas, and publicly articulatetheir social networks. Despite the benefits accruing from the use of SNSs, thedisclosure of personal information on these sites has raised concerns about poten-tial and real privacy risks.Users actively construct their identity on SNSs through the disclosure of per-sonal information (boyd 2008). Despite this apparent openness, research hassuggested that SNS users may not be completely naı¨ve in their disclosure prac-tices; even though individuals disclose large quantities of personal information,they take measures to protect themselves, and to address their privacy concerns.For example, in 2008 danah boyd found that teenagers frequently used theprivacy settings to prevent parents from unwanted lurking. More recently,research has shown increases in the use of protective measures among SNSusers, including greater use of privacy settings to restrict what information isvisible to others (Debatin  et al  . 2009; Madden & Smith 2010; Stutzman  et al  . PRIVACY PROTECTION STRATEGIES ON FACEBOOK  481    D  o  w  n   l  o  a   d  e   d   b  y   [   U   N   I   V   E   R   S   I   T   Y   O   F   K   W   A   Z   U   L   U  -   N   A   T   A   L   ]  a   t   2   2  :   3   1   1   6   N  o  v  e  m   b  e  r   2   0   1   7
Search Related
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks