Internet users’ perceptions of ‘privacy concerns’ and ‘privacy actions’

Paine, Carina, Ulf-Deitrich Reips, Stefan Steiger, Adam Joinson, and Tom Buchanan. "Internet Users' Perceptions of 'Privacy Concerns' and 'Privacy Actions'." International Journal of Human Computer Studies 65, no. 6 (June 2007): 526-536.

This article outlines a study conducted on online privacy to identify users’ privacy concerns while using the internet; to determine how they protect themselves while on the internet; and to assess their attitudes towards internet privacy. The study was done using a DIP (Dynamic Interviewing Programme (DIP)) which is an online survey program that asks users questions simultaneously while they’re online. The sample was extracted from a population of ICQ users worldwide, which is an instant messaging program, and 530 people responded to the survey.

The article first attempts to define the meaning of privacy, citing definitions from several academic papers, and then concluding that there isn’t one final definition of the concept. The other factor they pointed out regarding the definition of internet privacy is that it falls outside of the traditional definitions of privacy and therefore should be reexamined and properly redefined.

The lack of a common understanding of what internet privacy means is one of the reasons the authors determined they wanted to approach their study differently. They felt previous studies gave respondents’ choices for their answers on surveys and did not probe deeply enough to find out the respondents’ individual opinions, knowledge of, and thoughts about the questions being asked. So the survey was designed with a portion of open ended questions that allowed the participants to fill in responses in their own words.

The authors felt they would be able to better understand the participants’ knowledge of privacy and real concerns this way. The authors found their results reflected the study participants had greater concerns about privacy than previous studies revealed in addition to a wider range of concerns about privacy. One of the interesting correlations they made was that the older the study participant was, the more concerned about privacy they were. They also discovered a lack of understanding of what internet privacy means. For example, many of the participants’ equated receiving spam to privacy concerns. Another aspect of the study was to review what people did to protect their online privacy and draw correlations between those variables. It was discovered that the more experience with computers and the internet the respondents’ had, the more they protected themselves from privacy threats, and in some cases, the less worried they were about privacy issues as a result.

The authors’ conclusions lead them to recommend doing more specific studies about internet users’ privacy concerns as well as expanding their sample to reach other populations in the future.

This study was a valid approach to assess internet users’ privacy concerns, and their usage of DIP was a good way to get instant feedback from users while they were on line. Although the study appeared to be relatively unbiased from the authors’ point of view, there were some shortcomings in the methodology that they used to conduct the study. First of all, although they attempted to segment the respondents into age groups and draw correlations based on age, the average age of the respondents was 24.6 years old. Secondly, the survey was sent out to a global population with the majority of respondents located in Russia and Germany. The authors didn’t seem to take these two factors into account in their analysis pertaining to the limitations they may have injected into the results of their study including: results slanted towards one age group; global participants whose individual cultures may influence their ideas about privacy; language barriers, etc. In addition, the questions on their survey, which they have screenshots of in the article, seem to cover too much ground to allow them to make specific conclusions regarding their research. They did admit, however, that additional and more specifically targeted research needs to be done on the subject.

This article would fit in well with one aspect of my research question relative to finding out the importance of privacy to internet users. Although it only addresses a narrow sample of people, it does address some of the issues that are present in doing a research study like this. The most challenging aspect of researching this issue, as the authors have highlighted, is the lack of a common definition of what internet privacy is. This relates to suspicions that I have pertaining to peoples’ apathy about internet privacy being more related to their lack of knowledge about it. Although the article does confirm my objectives and theories regarding the subject matter, my research needs to include other points of view and studies derived from a wider sample of people.