• 沒有找到結果。

This research was inspired by the observations that social media users concern about privacy but still disclose information on the platform, i.e., privacy paradox on FB.

Researchers are also interested in the definitions of privacy with the development of social media. Beginning with these enquires, this research delineated the nuanced definition of

“privacy”—static and dynamic, to investigate participants’ concerns with online privacy.

Following these two categories of privacy, we selected three dimensions and five variables to develop a privacy risk index, say PRI, to understand participants’ attitudes and behaviors while encountering with online privacy invasion. The findings show that participants care less about static privacy than dynamic ones. It also shows that people with low PRI are more intentional than those with high PRI to take action to prevent their privacy from invasion.

From our PRI test, we found that nearly 42 percent of our respondents (high-risk group) exposed much information on Facebook, resulting in their static and dynamic privacy were easy to be tracked and collected by a third party. It implies that college students in this study had lower sensitivity to privacy risk. Compared to their counterparts, the low PRI group (26% of student samples) showed that they tended to protect themselves from the potential damage of privacy leakage. From the self-evaluation of exposing online privacy risk, we demonstrated that the PRI is a simple and straightforward tool to assess online users’

sensitivity to their privacy risk.

As to examining the contradiction of the “privacy paradox,” we found that no significant association between participants’ privacy concerns and behaviors in terms of providing real name and personal information and joining fan pages (static privacy in this paper). It indicates that most respondents did not express concern about their personal information to be disclosed on Facebook regardless of their PRI levels. This may imply that personal information is not considered as one of the privacy issues among the student samples. It may also indicate that personal information is part of basic information to leave on social media as a means of making new friends and keeping in touch with old friends. Some of the

participants did mention in the semi-structured questionnaire that personal information does not account for privacy for them. Furthermore, this may also correspond to what the existing literature argues that joining SNS is a kind of tradeoffs (Dourish & Anderson, 2006; Chen, 2018). Although users judge that they can obtain more than their privacy being invaded, they would make the deal to disclose their privacy on FB. Our participants did mention that leaving personal information on social media is beneficial to their job-hunting since employers would search for applicants’ personal information on FB. These abovementioned reasons may explain that the privacy paradox does not appear in our findings.

Then, what type of privacy issues is college students in this exploratory study concern and pay more attention to avoid themselves exposing on privacy risk? We found check-in (dynamic privacy check-in the paper) with the PRI test reflect the consistency between attitude toward privacy risk and their risk behaviors. That is, from this study, we found that people who concern about the information on check-in will be leaked tended to act at a low risk of privacy leakage. This tendency rejects the hypothesis of the privacy paradox. A possible reason provided in the questionnaire infers that dynamic privacy would be a tool to track users’ destinations and activities at that time, which is not good for those taking excuses to reject other invitations. This finding also tells another story that the definition of privacy is subject to change and depends on what users in this research decide to disclose or not. If the users want to disclose, it may not be considered as privacy, and vice versa.

Apart from what is aforementioned, we synthesize some suggested explanations for the findings. Firstly, Facebook adopts a real-name registration policy that is one possible explanation for this high percentage of signing up using real names. Secondly, most Facebook users build their online friends’ list based on their real/offline friends, so that issues of anonymity on the Internet are less of a concern among friends, or to friends of friends.

Thirdly, our participants reported that they don’t care whether their personal information will be invaded since they trust the fan pages management, and there is not really very much if any, private information they disclose. Fourthly, the participants reported that they did not intend to reveal their mobility information (check-in, dynamic privacy); for them, this

seems to be stalked by their Facebook friends. These findings provide nuanced differences in privacy perceptions of Facebook users.

However, the findings and creation of the PRI index cannot be implied without limitations. The aim of this research is to explore the relationship between attitude and behavior on the privacy of FB users and experimentally create a preliminary index for investigation. Since there is currently not such an index in the literature, as pioneers, we tried to design a semi-structured questionnaire to collect data from the participants. As preliminary research, we tended to collect a convenience sample from college students, who were recruited from a private college in northern Taiwan. We suggested that more diverse backgrounds of participants being considered in future research (e.g., participants from national or public universities, universities from non-northern part of Taiwan, or technology/

professional colleges students, etc.).

As an exploratory study, we also tended to simplify the content of the index. Thus, we only grasped three main dimensions and five variables to develop the PRI index, though we found participants mentioned what literature indicates as limiting profile visibility and cost-benefit trade-offs. Now with the advent of PRI index, the authors encourage researchers to add more new and mediated variables (e.g., such privacy management strategy as limiting profile visibility) in the PRI to make this index more suitable for different spatial (cultural) and temporal (time period) settings with new privacy management tools developed by FB.

For future research, we also suggest considering more deliberately about each variable.

Taking “tag” for example, researchers can delineate different situations of tagging with a friend’s name or photos, tagged by friends or friends’ friends, etc. These are the limitations an exploratory research encounters and could be advanced by future research.

Furthermore, the existing literature on Facebook privacy concerns comes mainly from the younger generation and from the English-speaking regions. This study also has the limitation of collecting data from the young generation, which is more convenient for creating an unprecedented index. However, regarding the region, we chose an Asian country Taiwan to be our case study. Some researchers are also starting to conduct comparative

studies between Asian and Western countries (e.g., Chen, 2018). More data collecting from inter/intracultural settings are needed to implement social media privacy literature.

Despite the limitations, this research extends the privacy paradox by delineating online privacy activities to deliberate the situations the privacy paradox appears. This further provides a relatively comprehensive understanding of online privacy. This research also took an Asian country Taiwan as the case study to create an index to test the attitudes and behaviors of FB users on privacy. Researchers actively encouraged and very welcomed to adopt the PRI to conduct intercultural and intergenerational research in the future. Finally, the PRI variables are related to the subjective attitudes and behaviors of the users on the one hand. On the other hand, they are also limited by the open function settings of social platforms such as FB. Therefore, as the function settings of the FB platform become more complicated, the related variables of the PRI are also more diverse. Apart from FB, different social platforms, such as Instagram, are springing up. The privacy settings of these new social platforms can also be taken into consideration in the future. It is expected that follow-up research will develop a more comprehensive and general privacy risk index for all online social platforms.

References

Aysem, D. V., & Mehemt Bilal, Ü. (2017). The right to data portability in the GDPR and EU competition law: odd couple or dynamic dou? European Journal of Law and Technology, 8(1). Available at https://arro.anglia.ac.uk/701565/1/Diker%20 Vanberg_2017.pdf. Access on 2019/05/24.

Acquisti A., Gross R. (2006) Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and Privacy on the Facebook. In: Danezis G., Golle P. (eds) Privacy Enhancing Technologies. PET 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4258. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Acquisti, Q., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and Human Behavior in the Age of Information. Science, 347(6221): 509-514. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa1465 Altman, I. (1975). The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, ;

Territory, and Crowding. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole.

Barnes, S. B. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, 11(9). Available at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/1394/1312. Access on 2019/05/24. doi: 10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394

Birnholtz, J., Burke, M., & Steele, A. (2017). Untagging on social media: Who untags, what do they untag, and why? Computers in Human Behavior, 69: 166-173. doi: 10.1016/

j.chb.2016.12.008

boyd, d., & Hargittai E. (2010). Facebook privacy settings: Who cares? First Monday, 15(8).

Available at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3086/2589. Access on 2019/05/24. doi:

10.5210/fm.v15i8.3086

Campbell, J., Sherman, R.C., Kraan, E., & Birchmeier, Z (2001). Internet Privacy Awareness and Concerns among College Students. Paper presented to APS, Toronto.

June 2001. Available at http://www.users.miamioh.edu/shermarc/aps01.htm. Access on 2019/05/24.

Chen, H.-T., Chen, W. (2015). Couldn’t or wouldn’t? The influence of privacy concerns

and self-efficacy in privacy management on privacy protection. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(1): 13-19. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0456

Chen, H.-T. (2018). Revisiting the privacy paradox on social media with an extended privacy calculus model: The effect of privacy concerns, privacy self-efficacy, and social capital on privacy management. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(10), 1392-1412. doi: 10.1177/0002764218792691

Child, J. T., & Petronio, S. (2011). Unpacking the paradoxes of privacy in CMC relationships: the challenges of blogging and relational communication on the internet.

In Kevin, B. Wright, & Lynne, M. Webb. (eds.), Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships, chapter 2. Peter Lang: International Academic Publishers.

Child, J. T., & Haridakis, P. M., & Petronoi, S. (2012). Blogging privacy rule orientations, privacy management, and content deletion practices: the variability of online privacy management activity at different stages of social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5): 1859-1872. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.004

Christofides, E., Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2010). Privacy and Disclosure on Facebook:

Youth and adults’ information disclosure and perceptions of privacy risks. University of Guelph. Available at https://www.ontariosciencecentre.ca/Uploads/researchlive/

documents/OPC-FinalReport-FacebookPrivacy.pdf. Access on 2019/05/24.

Culnan, M. J., & Armstrong, P. (1999). Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organization Science, 10, 104-115.

doi: 10.1287/orsc.10.1.104

Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17, 61-80. doi: 10.1287/isre.1060.0080 Dourish, P. & Anderson, K. (2006). Collective information practice: Exploring privacy and

security as social and cultural phenomena. Human-Computer Interaction, 21(3): 319-342. doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci2103_2

Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S.R. and Passerini, K. (2007) Trust and Privacy Concern within Social Networking Sites: A Comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Proceedings of AMCIS

2007, Keystone. http://csis.pace.edu/~dwyer/research/DwyerAMCIS2007.pdf

Govani, T. & Pashley, H. (2005). Student awareness of the privacy implications when using Facebook. Available at http://lorrie.cranor.org/courses/fa05/tubzhlp.pdf. Access on 2019/05/24.

Gross, R. & Acquisti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. Paper presented at ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES). https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/papers/privacy-facebook-gross-acquisti.pdf

Hartmann, M. (2013). From domestication to mediated mobilism. Mobile Media and Communication, 1(1): 42-49. doi: 10.1177/2050157912464487

Heravi, A., Mubarak, S., & Choo, K-K. (2018). Information privacy in online social networks: Use and gratification perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 84: 441-459. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.016

Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., Christakis, N. (2008). The taste for privacy: An analysis of college student privacy settings in an online social network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1): 79-100. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01432.x

Marsoof, A. (2011). Online social networking and the right to privacy: the conflicting rights of privacy and expression. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 19(2): 110-132. doi: 10.1093/ijlit/eaq018

Norberg, P. A., Horne, D. R., & Horne, D. A. (2007). The privacy paradox: personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1): 100-126. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00070.x

Oliver, P. (2006) Purposive sampling. In V. Jupp (Ed.), The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods. Sage, pp. 244-245.

Ortiz, J., Chih, W-H., Tsai, F-S. (2018). Information privacy, consumer alienation, and lurking behavior in social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 80: 143-157. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.005

Osatuyi, B., Passerini, K., Ravarini, A., & Grandhi, S. A. (2018). “Fool me once, shame on

you…then, I learn.” An examination of information disclosure n social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 83: 73-86. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.018 Raynes-Goldie, K. (2010). Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning: Understanding privacy in

the age of Facebook. First Monday, 15(1). Available at https://firstmonday.org/article/

viewArticle/2775/2432. Access on 2019/05/24. doi: 10.5210/fm.v15i1.2775

Raynes-Goldie, K. (2011). Annotated bibliography: Digitally mediated surveillance, privacy and social network sites. Proceedings from Cybersurveillance and Everyday Life: An International Workshop, Toronto.

Romanou, A. (2018). The necessity of the implementation of privacy by design in sectors where data protection concerns arise. Computer Law and Security Review, 34(1): 99-110. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2017.05.021

Spiekermann, Sarah and Korunovska, Jana and Bauer, Christine (2012) Psychology of Ownership and Asset Defense: Why People Value their Personal Information Beyond Privacy. In: International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2012), 16-19 December 2012, Orlando Florida, USA.

Stutaman, F., Vitak, J., Elission, N. B., Gray, R., & Lampe, C. (2012). Privacy in interaction: Exploring disclosure and social capital in Facebook. Available at http://

fredstutzman.com/papers/ICWSM2012_Stutzman.pdf. Access on 2019/05/24.

Toch, E., Wang, Y., & Cranor, L. F. (2012). Personalization and privacy: A survey of privacy risk and remedies in personalization-based systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 22: 203-220. doi: 10.1007/119574543

Tufekci, Z. (2008). Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science, Techonlogy, & Society, 28(1): 20-36. doi:

10.1177/0270467607311484

Young, A. L., & Quan-Haase, A. (2013). Privacy protection strategies on Facebook: The Internet privacy paradox revisited. Information, Communication & Society, 16: 479-500. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.777757

相關文件