Alex Braunstein
ABSTRACT
The strong emotional reaction elicited by privacy issues is well documented (e.g., [12, 8]). The emotional aspect of privacy makes it difficult to evaluate privacy concern, and directly asking about a privacy issue may result in an emotional reaction and a biased response. This effect may be partly responsible for the dramatic privacy concern ratings coming from recent surveys, ratings that often seem to be at odds with user behavior. In this paper we propose indirect techniques for measuring content privacy concerns through surveys, thus hopefully diminishing any emotional response. We present a design for indirect surveys and test the design's use as (1) a means to measure relative privacy concerns across content types, (2) a tool for predicting unwillingness to share content (a possible indicator of privacy concern), and (3) a gauge for two underlying dimensions of privacy - content importance and the willingness to share content. Our evaluation consists of 3 surveys, taken by 200 users each, in which privacy is never asked about directly, but privacy warnings are issued with increasing escalation in the instructions and individual question-wording. We demonstrate that this escalation results in statistically and practically significant differences in responses to individual questions. In addition, we compare results against a direct privacy survey and show that rankings of privacy concerns are increasingly preserved as privacy language increases in the indirect surveys, thus indicating our mapping of the indirect questions to privacy ratings is accurately reflecting privacy concerns.
- A. Acquisti, L. John and G. Lowenstein. What is privacy worth? Workshop on Information Systems and Economics (WISE), 2009.Google Scholar
- D. Alwin, J. Krosnick. The Measurement of Values in Surveys: A Comparison of Ratings and Rankings. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Winter, 1985), 535--552.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Barabas and J. Jerit. Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid? American Political Science Review 104 (May): 226--42. 2010.Google Scholar
- Blippy. http://blippy.com/Google Scholar
- T. Buchanan, C. Paine, A. Joinson and U-D. Reips. Development of Measures of Online Privacy Concern and Protection for Use on the Internet. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2):157--165, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Brandimarte, A. Acquisti and G. Lowenstein. Misplaced Confidences: Privacy and the Control Paradox. WEIS 2010.Google Scholar
- T. Buchanan, A. Paine, A. Joinson and U. Reips. Development of Meausures of Online Privacy Concern and Protection for Use on the Internet. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2): 157--165, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- {etc} A frustrated user lashes out at Google after being burned by the launch of Buzz and attendant loss of privacy. ArsTechnica, February 12, 2010.Google Scholar
- M. J. Culnan and G. R. Milne. The culnan-milne survey on consumers and online privacy notices, 2001. http://intra.som.umass.edu/georgemilne/pdffiles/culnan-milne.pdf.Google Scholar
- Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/Google Scholar
- S. Egelman, J. King, R. Miller, N. Ragouzis and E. Shehan. Security User Studies: Methodologies and Best Practices. CHI 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Facebook + Husband = grrrrrrrr!. Anonymous post at iVillage. http://forums.ivillage.com/t5/Girl-Talk/Facebook-Husband-grrrrrrrr/td-p/116924103 February 23, 2011.Google Scholar
- R. A. Fisher. The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 52: 399433. (1918).Google Scholar
- D. Freedman, R. Pisani, R. Purves. Statistics. W. W. Norton and Company, 1997.Google Scholar
- J. Gideon, S. Egelman, L. Cranor and A. Acquisti. Power Strips, Prophylactics and Privacy, Oh My! SOUPS 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Goldman. The Internet Privacy Fallacy. http://eric_goldman.tripodxom/articles/privacyfallacy.htmGoogle Scholar
- H. Goldstein. Multilevel Statistical Models, Second Edition, London: Edward Arnold. 1995.Google Scholar
- Harris Interactive. Identity Theft: New Survey & Trend Report, August 2003.Google Scholar
- A-W. Harzing. Rating Versus Ranking: What is the Best Way to Reduce Response and Language Bias in Cross-National Research. International Business Review, Volume 18, Number 4, 2009.Google Scholar
- C. L. Hovland. Reconciling Conflicting Results Derived From Experimental and Survey Studies of Attitude Change. American Psychologist, 14: 8--17. 1959.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. John, A. Acquisti and G. Lowenstein. Strangers on a place: Context-dependent willingness to divulge personal information. Journal of Consumer Research, 2010.Google Scholar
- A. Joinson, C. Paine, T. Buchanan, and U-D. Reips. Measuring self-disclosure online: Blurring and non-response to sensitive items in web-based surveys. Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 24, Issue 5, September 2008, pp. 2158--2171. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. L. Kohn. Reassessment 1977. In Kohn, Class and Conformity: A Study in Values. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- J. Krosnick and D. Alwin. A Test of the Form-Resistant Correlation Hypothesis: Ratings, Rankings and the Measurement of Values. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Winter, 1988), pp. 526--538.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Liu and E. Terzi. A framework for computing the privacy scores of users of online social networks. ICDM 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pew Research Center. http://pewresearch.org/Google Scholar
- J. C. Pinheiro and D. M. Bates Springer. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. ISBN 0-387-98957-9, 2000.Google Scholar
- Ponemon Institute. http://www.ponemon.org/news-2/40Google Scholar
- M. Prior. The Immensely Inflated News Audience: Assessing Bias in Self-Reported News Exposure. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73 (1): 130--143. 2009.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Privacilla.org. Privacy Survey Design is Often Flawed. Available at: http://www.privacilla.org/fundamentals/surveyqs.htmlGoogle Scholar
- Privacy Check. http://www.rabidgremlin.com/fbprivacy/Google Scholar
- Privacy Rights. http://www.privacyrights.org/Google Scholar
- M. Rokeach. The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press, 1973.Google Scholar
- S. R. Searle, R. Casella, and C. E. McCulloch. Variance Components. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1992.Google Scholar
- S. Spiekermann, J. Grossklags, and B. Berendt. E-Privacy in 2nd Generation E-Commerce: Privacy Preferences versus Actual Behavior. In Proceedings of EC01: Third ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 3847, Tampa, Florida, 2001. http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/jensg/research/eprivacyacm.html. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Shaeffer, J. Krosnick, G. Langer and D. Merkle. Comparing the Quality of content Obtained by Minimally Balanced and Fully Balanced Attitude Questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 3, Fall 2005, pp.417--428.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. A. B. Snijders and R. J. Bosker. Multilevel Analysis An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. London: Sage. 1999.Google Scholar
- J. Turow. Americans & Online Privacy: The System is Broken. A report from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. June 2003.Google Scholar
- United Press International/Zogby. UPI Poll: Concern on health privacy. February 21, 2007. http://patientprivacyrights.org/2007/02/upi-poll-concern-on-health-privacy/Google Scholar
Recommendations
De-identification for privacy protection in multimedia content
Privacy is one of the most important social and political issues in our information society, characterized by a growing range of enabling and supporting technologies and services. Amongst these are communications, multimedia, biometrics, big data, cloud ...
Privacy, traceability, and anonymity for content protection
PST '06: Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust: Bridge the Gap Between PST Technologies and Business ServicesIn this paper we are concerned with the privacy, traceability and anonymity for content distribution and protection applications. We believe for many content protection applications, privacy friendly anonymous trust is needed. We argue broadcast ...
Freedom of Privacy: Anonymous Data Collection with Respondent-Defined Privacy Protection
The massive amount of sensitive survey data about individuals that agencies collect and share through the Internet is causing a great deal of privacy concerns. These concerns may discourage individuals from revealing their sensitive information. ...
Comments