Current concerns in digital economy era. Lessons learnt form Polish advanced internet users

• Autorzy: Rudnicka Agata , Kaczorowska-Spychalska Dominika , Reichel Janusz , Kulik Monika

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2023.169.38

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: Digital Economy development is influenced by many factors, including the users' acceptance of the technology. The interesting group of users are technologically advanced and may shape the technology's use and enhance its development. The purpose of the study is to explore the way customers are present on the Internet, and their attitudes to ethics and responsibility in the virtual environment. Design/methodology/approach: The study was conducted on a representative group of 1002 adult Internet users from Poland. The CAVI method on the research consumer panel was used. The authors empirically examine the developed research hypotheses using statistical tests. Findings: The study results show that advanced technology users have a more conscious approach to their presence on the Internet. Technology advanced users are familiarised with the tools and applications that may supper them with everyday activities and ease their professional duties. They are also more concerned about ethical and safety issues. At the same time, as consumers of technology, they are ready to disclose personal data if some benefits are seen. Originality/value: Research results support the development of understanding online activities of Internet users. They indicate some crucial points for a technology provider in designing and improving new tools and applications. Technology advanced users as testers can spread the technology appliances and support their acceptance if they find them ethical and safe. It leads to the development of the digital economy and benefits the whole society.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

digital technology; advanced technology user; online consumer; ethical concerns; customers responsibility; safety of technology

PL

technologia cyfrowa; użytkownik zaawansowanych technologii; konsument online; obawy etyczne; odpowiedzialność klientów; bezpieczeństwo technologii

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej
• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska
• Rocznik: 2023
• Tom: z. 169
• Strony: 637--654
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 80 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Rudnicka Agata

• University of Lodz, Faculty of Management

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9151-4263

autor

Kaczorowska-Spychalska Dominika

• University of Lodz, Faculty of Management

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2566-0297

autor

Reichel Janusz

• University of Lodz, Faculty of Management

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7594-380X

autor

Kulik Monika

• Orange Polska SA

Bibliografia

• . Acquisti, A., John, L.K., Loewenstein, G. (2013). What Is Privacy Worth? The Journal of Legal Studies, 42(2), pp. 249-274. doi:10.1086/671754.
• 2. Ahmed, U., Chander, A. (2015). Information Goes Global: Protecting Privacy, Security, and the New Economy in a World of Cross-border Data Flows. E15 Initiative. Geneva, Switzerland: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and World Economic Forum.
• 3. Algorithm Watch (2019). The AI Ethics Guidelines Global Inventory. Available at: https://algorithmwatch.org/en/project/ai-ethics-guidelines-global-inventory/, 20.10.2020.
• 4. Allen, A.L. (2019). Debating ethics and digital life. European Data Protection Law Review, 5(1), pp. 7-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2019/1/4.
• 5. Ally, M., Toleman, M. (2005). A framework for assessing payment security mechanisms and security information on e-commerce web sites. Paper presented at the 9th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), Bangkok, Thailand. http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2005, 20.10.2020.
• 6. Amoroso, D.L., Hunsinger, S. (2009). Measuring the Acceptance of Internet Technology by Consumers. International Journal of E-Adoption, 1(3), pp. 48-81. doi:10.4018/ jea.2009092903.
• 7. Ariffin, S.K., Mohan, T., Goh, Y.-N. (2018). Influence of consumers’ perceived risk on consumers’ online purchase intention. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 12(3), pp. 309-327. doi:10.1108/jrim-11-2017-0100.
• 8. Belanger, F., Hiller, J.S., Smith, W.J. (2002). Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: the role of privacy, security, and site attributes. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), pp. 245-270. doi:10.1016/s0963-8687(02)00018-5.
• 9. Boone, T., Ganeshan, R., Jain, A., Sanders, N.R. (2019). Forecasting sales in the supply chain: Consumer analytics in the big data era. International Journal of Forecasting, 35(1), pp. 170-180. doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast 2018.09.003.
• 10. Buchanan, T., Paine, C., Joinson, A.N., Reips, U.-D. (2006). 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), pp. 157-165. doi:10.1002/ asi.20459.
• 11. Buchanan, T., Paine, C., Joinson, A.N., Reips, U. (2007). 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), pp. 157-165. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/asi.20459.
• 12. Chang, H.H., Chen, S.W. (2009). Consumer perception of interface quality, security, and loyalty in electronic commerce. Information & Management, 46(7), pp. 411-417. doi:10.1016/j.im.2009.08.002.
• 13. Chellappa, R.K., Pavlou, P.A. (2002). Perceived information security, financial liability and consumer trust in electronic commerce transactions. Logistics Information Management, 15(5/6), pp. 358-368. doi:10.1108/09576050210447046.
• 14. CIGI-Ipsos (2019). Global Survey on Internet Security & Trust, Social Media, Fake News & Algorithms. Centre for International Governance Innovation. Available from: https://www.cigionline.org/cigi-ipsos-global-survey-internet-security-and-trust/, 20.07.2021.
• 15. Ciuriak, D. (2018). Digital Trade: Is Data Treaty-Ready? CIGI Paper, NO. 162. Waterloo: Center for International Governance Innovation. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3110785.
• 16. Couldry, N., Mejias, U.A. (2018). Data Colonialism: Rethinking Big Data’s Relation to the Contemporary Subject. Television & New Media, 20(4), pp. 336-349. doi:10.1177/ 1527476418796632.
• 17. Digital Economy and Society Index for Poland, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/ policies/desi-poland, February 2022.
• 18. Digital Economy and Society Index, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/desi, February 2022.
• 19. European Commission (2021b). Open Data Maturity. EU.
• 20. European Commission (2019). Liability for Artificial Intelligence and other emerging digital technologies, EU.
• 21. European Commission (2020a). Shaping Europe’s Digital Future. EU.
• 22. European Commission (2020b). White Paper On Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust. EU.
• 23. European Commission (2021a). The Digital Economy and Society Index - Poland. EU.
• 24. European Commission: Factsheet (November 2020). New Consumer Agenda, New Consumer Program. Measures to protect European consumers 2020-2025.
• https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_2069, 20.07.2021.
• 25. European Union Agency For Fundamental Rights (2020). Artificial Intelligence and fundamental rights. EU.
• 26. Ferracane, M. (2017). Restrictions on Cross-Border Data Flows: A Taxonomy. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3089956.
• 27. Floridi, L. (2019). Translating Principles into Practices of Digital Ethics: Five Risks of Being Unethical. Philosophy & Technology, 32(2), pp. 185-193. doi:10.1007/s13347-019- 00354-x.
• 28. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People— An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), pp. 689-707. doi:10.1007/s11023-018- 9482-5.
• 29. Fortes, N., Rita, P., Pagani, M. (2017). The effects of privacy concerns, perceived risk and trust on online purchasing behaviour. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, 11(4), p. 307. doi:10.1504/ijima.2017.087269.
• 30. Goyens, M. (2019). Effective Consumer Protection Frameworks in a Global and Digital World. Journal of Consumer Policy. doi:10.1007/s10603-019-09423-2.
• 31. Green, B.P. (2018). Ethical reflections on Artificial Intelligence. Scientia et Fides, 6(2), pp. 9-31. DOI: https ://doi.org/10.12775 /setf.2018.015.
• 32. Gupta. M.P., Dubey, A. (2016). E-commerce-study of privacy, trust and security from consumer’s perspective. International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing, 5(6). pp. 224-232.
• 33. Gurung, A., Raja, M.K. (2016). Online privacy and security concerns of consumers. Information and Computer Security, 24(4), pp. 348-371. doi:10.1108/ics-05-2015-0020.
• 34. GUS (2020). Information society in Poland in 2020. Warszawa- Szczecin.
• 35. Hesselman, C., Grosso, P., Holz, R., Kuipers, F., Xue, J.H., Jonker, M., de Ruiter, J., Sperotto, A., van Rijswijk-Deij, R., Moura, G.C.M., Pras, A., de Laat, C. (2020). A Responsible Internet to Increase Trust in the Digital World. Journal of Network and Systems Management, 28(4), pp. 882-922. doi:10.1007/s10922-020-09564-7.
• 36. Hofacker, C.F., Malthouse, E.C., Sultan, F. (2016). Big Data and consumer behavior: imminent opportunities. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 33(2), pp. 89-97. doi:10.1108/jcm-04-2015-1399.
• 37. Hong, W., Thong, J.Y.L. (2013). Internet Privacy Concerns: An Integrated Conceptualization and Four Empirical Studies. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), pp. 275-298. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43825946.
• 38. Ipsos Global Trends. Data dilemmas (2020). Ipsos Global Trends Survey. https://www.ipsosglobaltrends.com/2020/02/data-dilemmas/, 19.07.2021.
• 39. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., Vayena, E. (2019). Artificial Intelligence: The global landscape of ethics guidelines. Health Ethics & Policy Lab. Zurich, Preprint version. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.11668, 22.02.2021.
• 40. Kerber, W. (2016). Digital markets, data, and privacy: competition law, consumer law and data protection. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 11(11), p.jpw150. doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpw150.
• 41. Kim, B.-H., Kim, K.-C., Hong, S.-E., Oh, S.-Y. (2016). Development of cyber information security education and training system. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 76(4), pp. 6051-6064. doi:10.1007/s11042-016-3495-y.
• 42. Kim, C., Tao, W., Shin, N., Kim, K.-S. (2010). An empirical study of customers’ perceptions of security and trust in e-payment systems. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(1), pp. 84-95. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2009.04.014.
• 43. Kirillova, E.A., Shergunova, E.A., Ustinovich, E.S., Nadezhin, N.N., Sitdikova, L.B. (2016). The Principles of the Consumer Right Protection in Electronic Trade: A Comparative Law Analysis. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(2S), pp. 117-122. Available at: https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/ijefi/article/ view/2540, 7.09.2022.
• 44. Kokolakis, S. (2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & Security, 64, pp. 122-134. doi:10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002.
• 45. KPRM (2021). Polityka dla rozwoju sztucznej inteligencji w Polsce od 2020 roku. Uchwała nr 96 Rady Ministrów, Dz.U. 12.01.2021, poz. 23.
• 46. Kshetri, N. (2014). Big data's impact on privacy, security and consumer welfare. Telecommunications Policy, 38(11), pp. 1134-1145. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2014.10.002.
• 47. Linck, K., Pousttchi, K., Wiedemann, D.G. (2006). Security Issues in Mobile Payment from the Customer Viewpoint, pp. 1-11. 14th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Göteborg/Schweden, https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/2923.
• 48. Martin, K.D. Murphy, P.E. (2017). The role of data privacy in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(2), pp. 135-155. DOI 10.1007/s11747-016-0495-4.
• 49. Mayer-Schönberger, V., Ramge, T. (2018). A Big Choice for Big Tech. Share Data or Suffer the Consequences. Foreign Affairs, 97(5), pp. 48-54.
• 50. McDonald, A.D., Cranor, L.F. (2008). The cost of reading privacy policies. Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, Vol. 4, pp. 540-565.
• 51. McGeveran, W. (2018). The Duty of Data Security, 103 MINN. L. REV. pp. 1135 103, https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/mnlr103&div=33&id=&p age=.
• 52. McKinsey & Company (2020). Digital Challengers in the next normal. Central and Eastern Europe on a path to digitally-led growth.
• 53. Meek, T., Barham, H., Beltaif, N., Kaadoor, A., Akhter, T. (2016). Managing the ethical and risk implications of rapid advances in artificial intelligence: A literature review. 2016 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET). doi:10.1109/picmet.2016.7806752.
• 54. Milne, G.R. (2000). Privacy and Ethical Issues in Database/Interactive Marketing and Public Policy: A Research Framework and Overview of the Special Issue. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), pp. 1-6. doi:10.1509/jppm.19.1.1.16934.
• 55. Milne, G.R., Culnan, M.J. (2004). Strategies for reducing online privacy risks: Why consumers read (or don’t read) online privacy notices. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), pp. 15-29. doi:10.1002/dir.20009.
• 56. Miyazaki, A.D., Fernandez, A. (2000). Internet Privacy and Security: An Examination of Online Retailer Disclosures. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), pp. 54-61. doi:10.1509/jppm.19.1.54.16942.
• 57. Miyazaki, A.D., Fernandez, A. (2001). Consumer Perceptions of Privacy and Security Risks for Online Shopping. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), pp. 27-44. doi:10.1111/j.1745- 6606.2001.tb00101.x.
• 58. Mosteller, J., Poddar, A. (2017). To Share and Protect: Using Regulatory Focus Theory to Examine the Privacy Paradox of Consumers’ Social Media Engagement and Online Privacy Protection Behaviors. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 39, pp. 27-38. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2017.02.003.
• 59. Mukherjee, A., Nath, P. (2003). A model of trust in online relationship banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 21(1), pp. 5-15. doi:10.1108/02652320310457767.
• 60. OECD (2016). Consumer protection in E-commerce: OECD recommendation. OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255258-en.
• 61. Oxborough, C., Cameron, E., Rao, A., Birchall, A., Townsend, A., Westermann, C. (2018). Explainable AI: Driving business value through greater understanding. PWC. https://www.pwc.co.uk/audit-assurance/assets/explainable-ai.pdf, 15.10.2020.
• 62. PAYBACK Poland (2021). Polacy entuzjastami nowych technologii? - Opinion Poll. https://brief.pl/polacy-entuzjastami-nowych-technologii-wyniki-payback-opinion-poll- badanie/, 19.07.2021.
• 63. PwC (2021). A new image of the Polish consumer. Global Consumer Insights Survey 2020.
• 64. Reidenberg, J.R., Russell, N.C., Callen, A.J., Qasir, S., Norton, T.B. (2015). Privacy harms and the effectiveness of the notice and choice framework. Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, Vol. 11(2), pp. 543-568, https://heinonline.org/HOL/ LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/isjlpsoc11&div=19&id=&page=.
• 65. Reisdorf, B.C., Groselj, D. (2015). Internet (non-)use types and motivational access: Implications for digital inequalities research. New Media & Society, 19(8), pp. 1157-1176. doi:10.1177/1461444815621539.
• 66. Reyna, A., Helberger, N., Borgesius, F.Z. (2017). The perfect match?a closer look at the relationship between eu consumer law and data protection law. Common Market Law Review, 54(5), pp. 1427-1465. doi:10.54648/cola2017118.
• 67. Riquelme, P.I., Román, S. (2014). Is the influence of privacy and security on online trust the same for all type of consumers? Electronic Markets, 24(2), pp. 135-149. doi:10.1007/s12525-013-0145-3.
• 68. Royakkers, L., Timmer, J., Kool, L., van Est, R. (2018). Societal and ethical issues of digitization. Ethics and Information Technology, 20(2), pp. 127-142. doi:10.1007/s10676- 018-9452-x.
• 69. Salisbury, W.D., Pearson, R.A., Pearson, A.W., Miller, D.W. (2001). Perceived security and World Wide Web purchase intention. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 101(4), pp. 165-177. doi:10.1108/02635570110390071.
• 70. Saltz, J.S., Dewar, N. (2019). Data science ethical considerations: a systematic literature review and proposed project framework. Ethics and Information Technology, 21. doi:10.1007/s10676-019-09502-5.
• 71. Sheehan, K.B., Hoy, M.G. (2000). Dimensions of Privacy Concern among Online Consumers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), pp. 62-73. doi:10.1509/jppm.19.1.62.16949.
• 72. Smith, H.J., Milberg, S.J., Burke, S.J. (1996). Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals’ Concerns about Organizational Practices. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), p. 167.
• doi:10.2307/249477.
• 73. Speicher, T., Ali, M., Venkatadri, G., Ribeiro, F.N., Arvanitakis, G., Benevenuto, F., Mislove, A. (2018). Potential for discrimination in online targeted advertising. Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. PMLR. pp. 5-19.
• 74. Stahl, B.C., Timmermans, J., Mittelstadt, B.D. (2016). The Ethics of Computing. ACM Computing Surveys, 48(4), pp. 1-38. doi:10.1145/2871196.
• 75. Tawalbeh, L., Muheidat, F., Tawalbeh, M., Quwaider, M. (2020). IoT Privacy and Security: Challenges and Solutions. Applied Sciences, 10(12), p. 4102. doi:10.3390/app10124102.
• 76. Tsiakis, T., Stephanides, G. (2005). The economic approach of information security. Computers & Security, 24(2), pp. 105-108. doi:10.1016/j.cose.2005.02.001.
• 77. Uchwała Nr 196 RADY MINISTRÓW z dnia 28 grudnia 2020 r. w sprawie ustanowienia Polityki dla rozwoju sztucznej inteligencji w Polsce od roku 2020.
• 78. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2016). Data Protection Regulations and International Data Flows: Implications for Trade and Development. Geneva Switzerland: UNCTAD. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/dtlstict2016d1_ en.pdf, 15.07.2021.
• 79. Xu, H., Teo, H.-H., Tan, B.C.Y., Agarwal, R. (2012). Research Note—Effects of Individual Self-Protection, Industry Self-Regulation, and Government Regulation on Privacy Concerns: A Study of Location-Based Services. Information Systems Research, 23(4), pp. 1342-1363. doi:10.1287/isre.1120.0416.
• 80. Yang, Z., Jun, M. (1970). Consumer Perception of E-Service Quality: From Internet Purchaser and Non-Purchaser Perspectives. Journal of Business Strategies, 25(2), pp. 59-84. doi:10.54155/jbs.25.2.59-84.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2024).