David Harborth
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Due to an increasing collection of personal data by internet companies and several data breaches, research related to privacy gained importance in the last years in the information systems domain. Privacy concerns can strongly influence users' decision to use a service. The Internet Users Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC) construct is one operationalization to measure the impact of privacy concerns on the use of technologies. However, when applied to a privacy enhancing technology (PET) such as an anonymization service, the original rationales do not hold anymore. In particular, an inverted impact of trusting and risk beliefs on behavioral intentions can be expected. We show that the IUIPC model needs to be adapted for the case of PETs. In addition, we extend the original causal model by including trusting beliefs in the anonymization service itself as well as a measure for privacy literacy. A survey among 124 users of the anonymization service Tor shows that trust in Tor has a statistically significant effect on the actual use behavior of the PET. In addition, the results indicate that privacy literacy has a negative impact on trusting beliefs in general and a positive effect on trust in Tor.
- Angst, C. M., & Agarwal, R. (2009). Adoption of electronic health records in the presence of privacy concerns: The elaboration likelihood model and individual persuasion. MIS Quarterly, 33(2), 339--370.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Bartsch, M., & Dienlin, T. (2016). Control your Facebook: An analysis of online privacy literacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 147--154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.022Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bédard, M. (2016). The underestimated economic benefits of the internet. In Regulation series, The Montreal Economic Institute.Google Scholar
- Benenson, Z., Girard, A., & Krontiris, I. (2015). User acceptance factors for anonymous credentials: An empirical investigation. 14th Annual Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS), 1--33.Google Scholar
- Blome, C., & Paulraj, A. (2013). Ethical climate and purchasing social responsibility: A benevolence focus. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(3), 567--585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012--1481--5Google ScholarCross Ref
- Borking, J. J., & Raab, C. (2001). Laws, pets and other technologies for privacy protection. Journal of Information, Law and Technology, 1, 1--14.Google Scholar
- Brecht, F., Fabian, B., Kunz, S., & Mueller, S. (2011). Are you willing to wait longer for internet privacy? In ECIS 2011 Proceedings. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2011/236Google Scholar
- Brecht, F., Fabian, B., Kunz, S., & Müller, S. (2012). Communication anonymizers: Personality, internet privacy literacy and their influence on technology acceptance. In ECIS 2012 Proceedings (pp. 1--13). Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2012/214Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. HillsDale, NJ.Google Scholar
- David, E. E., & Fano, R. M. (1965). Some thoughts about the social implications of accessible computing. In Proceedings 1965 Fall Joint Computer Conference.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dienlin, T., & Trepte, S. (2015). Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in-depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3), 285--297. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2049Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61--80. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.0080Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. https://doi.org/10.2307/2065853Google Scholar
- Hair, J., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
- Hair, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139--152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069--6679190202Google ScholarDigital Library
- Harborth, D., Cai, X., & Pape, S. (2019). Why do people pay for privacy-enhancing technologies? The case of Tor and JonDonym. In G. Dhillon, F. Karlsson, K. Hedström, & A. Zúquete (Eds.), ICT Systems Security and Privacy Protection. SEC 2019. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 56, 253--267, Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3-030--22312-0_18Google Scholar
- Harborth, D., & Pape, S. (2018a). Examining technology use factors of privacy-enhancing technologies: The role of perceived anonymity and trust. In Twenty-fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems. New Orleans, USA.Google Scholar
- Harborth, D., & Pape, S. (2018b). JonDonym users' information privacy concerns. In L. Janczewski & M. Kuty?owski (Eds.), ICT systems security and privacy protection. SEC 2018. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 52, 170--184. Poznan, Poland: Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--319--99828--2_13Google Scholar
- Harborth, D., & Pape, S. (2019). How privacy concerns and trust and risk beliefs influence users' intentions to use privacy-enhancing technologies - The case of Tor. In Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) Proceedings (pp. 4851--4860). Hawaii, US.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Heales, J., Cockcroft, S., & Trieu, V.-H. (2017). The influence of privacy, trust, and national culture on internet transactions. In G. Meiselwitz (Ed.), Social computing and social media. Human Behavior (pp. 159--176). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
- Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115--135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403--8Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hoofnagle, C. J., King, J., Li, S., & Turow, J. (2010). How different are young adults from older adults when it comes to information privacy attitudes and policies? https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/399. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1589864Google Scholar
- Joeckel, S., & Dogruel, L. (2019). Default effects in app selection: German adolescents' tendency to adhere to privacy or social relatedness features in smartphone apps. Mobile Media & Communication, 1--20. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157918819616Google Scholar
- JonDos Gmbh. (2018). Official Homepage of JonDonym. Retrieved January 16, 2018, from https://www.anonym-surfen.deGoogle Scholar
- Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121--1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022--3514.77.6.1121Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lankton, N. K., Mcknight, D. H., & Tripp, J. (2015). Technology, humanness, and trust: Rethinking trust in technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 16(10), 880--918.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lee, L., Fifield, D., Malkin, N., Iyer, G., Egelman, S., & Wagner, D. (2017). A usability evaluation of Tor launcher. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, (3), 90--109. https://doi.org/10.1515/popets-2017-0030Google ScholarCross Ref
- Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users' information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336--355. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1040.0032Google ScholarDigital Library
- Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in is research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science, 52(12), 1865--1883. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0597Google ScholarCross Ref
- Masur, P. K., Teutsch, D., & Trepte, S. (2017). Entwicklung und validierung der online-privatheitskompetenzskala (OPLIS) [Development and validation of the Online Privacy Literacy Scale (OPLIS)]. Diagnostica, 63(4), 256--268. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012--1924/a000179Google ScholarCross Ref
- McKnight, D. H., Carter, M., Thatcher, J. B., & Clay, P. F. (2011). Trust in a specific technology: An investigation of its components and measures. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS), 2(2), 1--25. https://doi.org/10.1145/1985347.1985353Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mineo, L. (2017). On internet privacy, be very afraid (Interview with Bruce Schneier). Retrieved February 20, 2018, from https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/08/when-it-comes-to-internet-privacy-be-very-afraid-analyst-suggests/Google Scholar
- Morrison, B. (2013). Do we know what we think we know? An exploration of online social network users' privacy literacy. Workplace Review, April 2013.Google Scholar
- Naeini, P. E., Bhagavatula, S., Habib, H., Degeling, M., Bauer, L., Cranor, L., & Sadeh, N. (2017). Privacy expectations and preferences in an IOT world. In Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS).Google Scholar
- Park, Y. J. (2013). Digital literacy and privacy behavior online. Communication Research, 40(2), 215--236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211418338Google Scholar
- Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101--134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275Google ScholarCross Ref
- Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879--903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021--9010.88.5.879Google ScholarDigital Library
- Raber, F., & Krueger, A. (2017). Towards understanding the influence of personality on mobile app permission settings. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 62--82).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH, http://www.smartpls.com. Retrieved from http://www.smartpls.comGoogle Scholar
- Rosen, L. D., Whaling, K., Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., & Rokkum, J. (2013). The Media and technology usage and attitudes scale: An empirical investigation. Computer Human Behavior, 29(6), 2501--2511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2011.02.012.InvestigationsGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- Rossnagel, H. (2010). The market failure of anonymity services. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Incl. Subseries Lecture Notes in AI and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 6033 LNCS, 340--354. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--642--12368--9_28Google Scholar
- Schmitz, C. (2015). LimeSurvey Project Team. Retrieved from http://www.limesurvey.orgGoogle Scholar
- Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325--343.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Singh, T., & Hill, M. E. (2003). Consumer privacy and the Internet in Europe: A view from Germany. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(7), 634--651.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Slyke, C. V., Johnson, R., Jiang, J., & Shim, J. T. (2006). Concern for information privacy and online consumer purchasing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(6), 415--444.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., & Xu, H. (2011). Theory and review information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 989--1015.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Straub, D., Boudreau, M. C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Validation guidelines for is positivist research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 380--427.Google ScholarCross Ref
- The Tor Project. (2018). Tor. Retrieved February 20, 2018, from https://www.torproject.orgGoogle Scholar
- Trepte, S., & Masur, P. K. (2017). Privacy attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors of the German population. Forum Privatheit Und Selbstbestimmung in Der Digitalen Welt.Google Scholar
- Trepte, S., Teutsch, D., Masur, P. K., Eicher, C., Fischer, M., Hennhöfer, A., & Lind, F. (2015). Do people know about privacy and data protection strategies? Towards the "Online Privacy Literacy Scale" (OPLIS). In S. Gutwirth, R. Leenes, & P. de Hert (Eds.), Reforming European Data Protection Law 20, Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--94-017--9385--8Google Scholar
- Weinberger, M., Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M., & Bouhnik, D. (2017). Factors affecting users' online privacy literacy among students in Israel. Online Information Review, 41(5), 582--597. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-05--2016-0127Google ScholarCross Ref
Recommendations
Privacy-enhancing technologies: approaches and development
In this paper, we discuss privacy threats on the Internet and possible solutions to this problem. Examples of privacy threats in the communication networks are identity disclosure, linking data traffic with identity, location disclosure in connection ...
The Role of Risk Perceptions in Privacy Concerns Evaluation
TRUSTCOM '15: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Trustcom/BigDataSE/ISPA - Volume 01The collection of information on individual persons for personal data intensive systems and services poses the risk of privacy violations and raises privacy concerns. Individuals' privacy concerns and risk perceptions affect their decision-making on ...
The Role of Risk Perceptions in Privacy Concerns Evaluation
TRUSTCOM '15: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Trustcom/BigDataSE/ISPA - Volume 01The collection of information on individual persons for personal data intensive systems and services poses the risk of privacy violations and raises privacy concerns. Individuals' privacy concerns and risk perceptions affect their decision-making on ...
Comments