Privacy on the Internet: An Empirical Study of Poles’ Attitudes

• Autorzy: Mider Daniel

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5604/01.3001.0016.1459

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The value system of Poles in terms of the phenomenon of privacy on the Internet was analysed. The following aspects were taken into account: privacy on the Internet as a moral value, privacy on the Internet as a subject of legal regulations (current or future) and actual actions taken by users to protect privacy. The differentiation of Polish society in terms of the three above-mentioned areas was also examined. Results were obtained on the basis of a quantitative empirical study conducted on a representative sample (N=1001) of adult Poles. The method of computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI) was used. Descriptive statistics and selected inductive statistics were used in the analyses. Intra-group differentiation was investigated using a method called two-step cluster analysis. Poles have low technical competences in the field of Internet privacy protection. This value is appreciated; however, it rarely translates into active protection of one’s own identity and information. A strong polarization of Poles’ attitudes towards the requirement to disclose their identity on the Internet was identified, as well as ensuring access to any user information by law enforcement agencies. Poles are willing to accept legal regulations preventing their profiling. We note a moderately strong negative attitude towards state institutions as a factor limiting privacy on the Internet and a significantly lower (but still negative) attitude towards Internet service providers. Poles differ in terms of attitudes towards privacy on the Internet (IT competences, age, education, gender, socioeconomic status and size of the place of residence).

Słowa kluczowe

EN

online behavior; online freedom; privacy paradox; privacy perceptions

PL

zachowanie w sieci; wolność w sieci; paradoks prywatności; postrzeganie prywatności

• Wydawca: NASK – National Research Institute
• Czasopismo: Applied Cybersecurity & Internet Governance
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: Vol. 1, No. 1
• Strony: 1--16
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 37 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Mider Daniel

• Faculty of Political Science and International Studies, University of Warsaw, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2223-5997

Bibliografia

• 1. LeakLookup, Data Breach Search Engine. [Online]. Available: https://leak-lookup.com/. [Accessed: Oct. 28, 2022].
• 2. A. Florek, “The problems with PRISM: How a modern definition of privacy necessarily protects privacy interestsin digital communications,” UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law, vol. 30, no. 3, pp.571–606, 2014.
• 3. L. Rainie, J. Anderson. (2014). The Future of Privacy. [Online]. Available: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/12/18/future-of-privacy/. [Accessed: Oct. 29, 2022].
• 4. D. J. Solove, Understanding privacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.
• 5. H. Nissenbaum, Privacy in context: technology, policy, and integrity of social life. Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityPress, 2010.
• 6. L. Rainie, S. Kiesler, R. Kang, M. Madden. (2013). Anonimity, Privacy, and Security Online. [Online]. Available:https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2013/09/05/anonymity-privacy-and-security-online/. [Accessed: Oct. 29,2022].
• 7. Dell. (2022). Dell Technologies Global Data Protection Index. [Online]. Available: https://www.dell.com/en-sg/dt/data-protection/gdpi/index.htm. [Accessed: Oct. 29, 2022].
• 8. Surfshark. (2021). Wyniki ogólnopolskiego badania wskazują, że Polacy nie doceniają wartości swoich danych.[Online]. Available: https://surfshark.com/pl/blog/polacy-nie-doceniaja-wartosci-swoich-danych. [Accessed: Oct.29, 2022].
• 9. M. Sadurski. (2022). Wolność przede wszystkim, potem równość – to dla Polaków podstawowe wartości.[Online]. Available: https://www.newsweek.pl/biznes/co-polacy-mysla-o-swoim-panstwie-wolnosc-przedewszystkim-potem-rownosc/21hrn6q. [Available: Oct. 29, 2022].
• 10. M. G. Hoy, G. Milne, “Gender Differences,” in “Privacy-related measures for young adult Facebook users,” Journalof Interactive Advertising, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 28–45, 2010, doi: 10.1080/15252019.2010.10722168.
• 11. K. Christopherson, “The positive and negative implications of anonymity in Internet social interactions: ‘On theInternet, nobody knows you’re a dog’,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 3038–3056, 2007, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.09.001.
• 12. K. B. Sheenan, “An investigation of gender differences in on-line privacy concerns and resultant behaviors,”Journal of Interactive Marketing, vol. 13, no. 4, 1999, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6653(199923)13:4<24::AIDDIR3>3.0.CO;2-O.
• 13. Y. Feng, W. Xie, “Teens’ concern for privacy when using social networking sites: an analysis of socializationagents and relationships with privacy protecting behaviours,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 33, pp. 153–162,2014, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.009.
• 14. V. Steeves, P. Regan, “Young people online and the social value of privacy,” Journal of Information, Communicationand Ethics in Society, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 298–313, 2014, doi: 10.1108/JICES-01-2014-0004.
• 15. E.-M. Schomakers, Ch. Lidynia, L. Vervier, A. Gadeib, M. Ziefle, “Online privacy perceptions of older adults,”International Conference on Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population, 2017, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-58536-9_16.
• 16. A. Acquisti, „Privacy in electronic commerce and the economics of immediate gratification,” Proceedings of the5th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, 2004, pp. 21–29, doi: 10.1145/988772.988777.
• 17. S. Barth, M. D. T. de Jong, M. Junger, “Lost in privacy? Online privacy from a cybersecurity expert perspective,”Telematics and Informatics, vol. 68, 2022, doi:10.1016/j.tele.2022.101782.
• 18. A. Deuker, “Addressing the privacy paradox by expanded privacy awareness: The example of context-awareservices,” in Privacy and identity management for life, M. Bezzi, P. Duquenoy, S. Fischer-Hüber, M. Hansen, G. Zhang,Eds. Berlin: Springer, vol. 320, 2010, pp. 275–283.
• 19. Z. Benenson, O. Kroll-Peters, M. Krupp, “Attitudes to IT security when using a smartphone,” Proceedings of theFederated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, 2012, pp. 1179–1183.
• 20. I. Shklovski, S. D. Mainwaring, H. H. Skúladóttir, H. Borgthorsson, “Leakiness and creepiness in app space:Perceptions of privacy and mobile app use,” Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in ComputingSystems, 2014, pp. 2347–2356, doi: 10.1145/2556288.2557421.
• 21. S. Barth, M. D. T. De Jong, M. Junger, P.H. Hartel, J.C. Roppelt, “Putting the privacy paradox to the test. Onlineprivacy and security behaviors among users with technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources,”Telematics and Informatics, vol. 41, pp. 55–69, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2019.03.003.
• 22. S. D. Warren, L. D. Brandeis, “The right to privacy,” Harvard Law Review, no. 5, pp. 193–220, 1890.
• 23. Y. Tsukada, K. Mano, H. Sakurada, Y. Kawabe, “Anonymity, privacy, onymity, and identity: A modal logicapproach,” Transactions on Data Privacy, no. 39, pp. 177–198, 2010.
• 24. J. Assange, J. Appelbaum, M.-M.J. Zimmermann, Cypherpunks: Freedom and the future of the Internet. NewYork, London: OR Books, 2016.
• 25. J. Waksberg, “Sampling methods for random digit dialling,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol.73, pp. 40–46, 1973.
• 26. R. F. Potthoff, “Some generalisation of the Mitofsky-Waksberg technique for Random Digit Dialling,” Journal ofthe American Statistical Association, vol. 82, pp. 409–418, 1982.
• 27. H. E. Driver, A. L. Kroeber, “Quantitative expression of cultural relationships,” University of California Publicationsin Amer. Archaeology, vol. 31, pp. 211–256, 1932.
• 28. J. Czekanowski, “Objectiv kriterien in der ethnologie,” Korrespondenzblatt der Deutschen Gesselschaft furAnthropologie, Ethnologie, und Urgeschichte, vol. 47, pp. 1–5, 1911.
• 29. R. B. Cattell, “The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters,” Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, vol. 38, pp. 476–506, 1943, doi:10.1037/h0054116.
• 30. R. R. Sokal, P. H. Sneath, Principles of numerical taxonomy. San Francisco-London: Freeman 1963.
• 31. R. K. Blashfield, “The growth of cluster analysis: Tryon, ward, and johnson,” Multivariate Behavioral Research,vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 439–458, 1980.
• 32. CBOS. (2020). Wartości w czasach zarazy, no. 160. [Online]. Available: https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2020/K_160_20.PDF. [Accessed: Oct. 30, 2022].
• 33. CBOS. (2021). Młodzi Polacy o zasadach demokracji, no. 120. [Online]. Available: https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2021/K_120_21.PDF. [Accessed: Oct. 30, 2022].
• 34. N. Demertzis, K. Mandenaki, Ch. Tsekeris, “Privacy attitudes and behaviors in the age of post-privacy: Anempirical approach,” Journal of Digital Social Research, vol. 3 no. 1, pp. 119–152, 2021, doi:10.33621/jdsr.v3i1.75.
• 35. T. Dienlin, S. Trepte, “Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in-depth analysis of privacy attitudes andprivacy behaviours,” European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 285–297, 2015.
• 36. S. Barth, M.D.T. de Jong, “The privacy paradox – Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacyconcerns and actual online behavior – A systematic literature review,” Telematics and Informatics, vol. 34, no. 7, pp.1038–1058, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013.
• 37. C. Neill. (2021). Politics of Privacy: The Role of Individual Political Views in Consumer Data Privacy Concerns,Honor Theses. [Online]. Available: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/hon_thesis/1697. [Accessed: Oct. 30, 2022].

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).