It has become common practice today to use the Internet, not only for retrieving information, but also for providing information. Internet users have developed new ways to utilize the Internet. The social web—that is, web applications such as social networking sites, blogs, and wikis—offers opportunities for participation and collaboration, but requires the user’s willingness to reveal private information.
On one hand, the manifold possibilities of the Internet can enhance life in many ways. On the other hand, those very possibilities raise new concerns. The heightened disclosure of personal information on the Internet places one’s privacy at risk. Therefore, the reasonable handling of personal information on the social web has become an important topic in media and society. Privacy and surveillance concerns have increased. These include the competence and ability of users regarding their handling of personal information in the society as well as in the literature, especially in the context of social networking sites and adolescent users (Barnes 2006; Paine et al. 2006; Lampe et al. 2007; Lewis et al. 2008; Krämer and Winter 2008; Thelwall 2008; Tufekci 2008; boyd and Hargittai 2010).
It is reasonable to expect privacy and surveillance concerns to influence the social web user’s behaviour. Recent studies show that social web users ascribe high importance to privacy (Barnes 2006; Tufekci 2008; Debatin et al. 2009). However, considerable uncertainty still exists regarding the notion of privacy on which users base their social web activities. Little is known about the adaptation of privacy concerns to the user’s behaviour. So far, there is relatively little evidence that users translate concerns about data abuse into privacy-enhancing behaviours while online (Acquisti and Gross 2006; Tufekci 2008; Debatin et al. 2009; boyd and Hargittai 2010). This is called the “privacy paradox” (Barnes 2006; Awad and Krishnan 2006; Norberg et al. 2007). Moreover, it is unclear if and in what way concerns about surveillance influence users.
For this reason the explorative method of focus groups was used to examine the perception of privacy by social web users. The findings are presented in this paper and are reviewed in connection with the concepts of surveillance and self-disclosure. To establish a theoretical background, these concepts are first discussed in theory and transferred to the social web, after which the focus groups’ findings are presented.
Privacy can be defined in many different ways. Basically, it can be seen as “the right to be let alone” (Warren and Brandeis 1890). Despite this general definition, various dimensions and perspectives of privacy have been analyzed by researchers of various scientific perspectives (for an overview, see Newell 1995). Although various attempts have been made to create a synthesis of the existing approaches to defining privacy (for example, Parent 1983; Schoeman 1984; Burgoon et al. 1989), a unified single account has yet to emerge (Paine et al. 2007).
Most notable are the works by Westin (1967) and Altman (1975, 1976, 1977). Both researchers focus on control and regulation of access to private information. According to Westin, privacy is “the right to prevent the disclosure of personal information to others” (Westin 1967, 7). The desire to keep personal information out of the hands of others is central to this concept of privacy (Westin 1967). Altman, on the other hand, defines privacy as a “selective control of access to the self or to one’s group” (Altman 1975, 18). According to him, the regulation of privacy is a dynamic process of optimization, which is influenced by two basic psychological needs: On the one hand, the individual has the need to preserve one’s privacy and control access to and distribution of personal information, but on the other hand, one also has the need to interact socially and, therefore, to disclose personal information. Accordingly, privacy is perceived as being at its optimum when both needs can be united and the desired and the actually achieved levels of privacy correspond (Altman 1975, 1976). Consequently, the regulation of privacy is not to be understood as a process of retreat, nor is an optimum degree of privacy equal to the highest possible control over one’s personal information. Individuals, rather, strive for different degrees of self-disclosure in different situations.
Self-disclosure is an integral component of every social interaction and can be described as “any message about the self that a person communicates to another“ (Wheeless and Grotz 1976, 338). Self-disclosure, therefore, is a part of the communication process and has to be considered in relation to specific individuals, namely the communication partners (Wheeless 1976, 47; Cozby 1973, 73). In general, self-disclosure is the basic pre-condition for every social relationship because it is part of every communication, and the passing on of information about oneself, one’s thoughts, and one’s feelings is necessary to create social proximity (Altman and Taylor 1973 Laurenceau et al. 1998). This means that self-disclosure and the perception of privacy are closely related.
Another concept that is strongly connected to this topic is surveillance. Whereas privacy can be seen as a concept that is based on the individual’s perception and the individual’s behaviour, and self-disclosure as a concept that highlights the relevance of social interaction and relationships, the concept of surveillance focuses on the societal phenomenon. Literally, surveillance means “to watch over”, and as such it is an everyday practice in which individuals engage routinely (Lyon 2007, 449). Although it should be noted that some surveillance relies on physical watching, much is nowadays automated and digitized (Lyon 2002, 1). That is why some authors argue that today we have a “surveillance society” (Lyon 2001; Norris and Armstrong 1999). Surveillance can be understood in a neutral way as “any focused attention to personal details for the purpose of influence, management, or control” (Lyon 2007, 449). According to Foucault, surveillance means that someone “is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication” (Foucault 1977, 200). However, surveillance is related to questions of power and social control: Those who hold access to large data sets of personal information have a crucial tool that allows them to influence the behaviour of those whose data is being held (Stalder 2002). Therefore, surveillance can also be defined as “a negative term that denotes the collection [ … ] of data about individuals or groups in order to control and discipline their behaviour by the threat of being targeted by violence or to establish or reproduce domination” (Fuchs 2010, 174; Fuchs 2008, 269).
In modern societies, surveillance is primarily conducted by political and state institutions, such as the police and the military, and by corporations. Whereas the state’s interest in gathering data about their citizens is the effective organization of bureaucracy and the effective prevention of crime, corporations are interested in information about their staff and consumers in order to optimize working processes and maximize profits (Fuchs 2010, 174). But even if surveillance appears justified from a societal perspective, at the individual level it means an invasion of privacy, as the individuals do not have the possibility to control and regulate the access to their monitored personal information.
On a theoretical level, the three concepts of privacy, self-disclosure, and surveillance are strongly interconnected with privacy as the central concept.
Culnan (1993) recommends examining privacy in varying contexts. This seems to be especially true for the context of the Internet. Given the rapid technical and ongoing changes in usage, the Internet has to be acknowledged as a very dynamic medium. In particular, the emergence of the social web may have caused changes in the users’ perceptions of privacy. More than ever, users are required to disclose information about themselves. Typically for the social web, making the self known to other users is critical for being accepted as a part of the community. Self-disclosure can be seen as a part of the functionality of the system itself. It is assumed that the users’ perceptions of privacy affect their self-disclosing behaviours—and vice versa.
According to Etzioni (1999), the first step in analyzing privacy is to determine whether or not there is a problem. Because of the easy availability of private information on the Internet and the seemingly great readiness of social web users to disclose personal data, it seems that the protection of privacy is not a priority for users. Empirical evidence can be found, however, that social web users are actually quite concerned about their privacy (Barnes 2006; Tufekci 2008; Debatin et al. 2009).
Despite these findings, empirical research suggests that the individual need for privacy only has a small influence on online behaviour. This is what is called the “privacy paradox” (Barnes 2006; Awad and Krishnan 2006; Norberg et al. 2007). It means that an extensive concern about the safety of one’s private data does not necessarily coincide with intensified security measures, such as reducing the accessibility of one’s social web profile, changing the privacy settings if possible (Acquisti and Gross 2006; Tufekci 2008; Debatin et al. 2009; boyd and Hargittai 2010), or decreasing one’s self-disclosure (Debatin et al. 2009).
The reasons for this are manifold. On the one hand, they include a lack of problem awareness (Debatin et al. 2009; boyd and Hargittai 2010) or of media competence, such as ignorance of privacy settings (Debatin et al. 2009) and uncertainty about the audience (Acquisti and Gross 2006). On the other hand, it can be assumed that social web usage offers many advantages and gratifications that increase in direct proportion to the degree of self-disclosure. Lampe et al. (2007) confirm that the quantity of disclosed information in social networking sites is linked to the degree of networking. This leads to the conclusion that the revelation of private information is rewarded with social gratification (Taddicken and Jers in press).
An additional reason for the fact that many studies find empirical evidence for a high degree of privacy concerns, but none for corresponding behaviour, could be the difficulty of measuring these attitudes. As explained above, privacy and self-disclosure are subject to situational processes of negotiation. In relation to that, Joinson et al. (2008) showed that situational cues are the main factors influencing the users’ self-disclosures. It can be assumed that the concept of privacy, upon which social web behaviour is based, is likewise influenced by these situational cues.
Furthermore, privacy must be seen as a subjective measure that differs from individual to individual (Buchanan et al. 2007). Recent research has found connections with the individual’s demographics, such as gender (Sheehan 1999; Rodgers and Harris 2003), age (Bellman et al. 2004), and education (Wang and Petrison 1993; Milne and Gordon 1994). Other studies examined the influence on privacy concerns of the individual’s experiences with the Internet (Miyazaki and Fernandez 2001; Singh and Hill 2003; Bellman et al. 2004). Furthermore, it must be assumed that privacy concerns are affected by the individual’s interests, values, and norms (Introna and Pouloudi 1999). Moreover, it was shown that external factors such as nationality and national culture influence Internet users’ privacy concerns (Cho et al. 2009). In summary, privacy concerns on the Internet are a function of a wide and multidimensional variety of an individual’s aspects and characteristics.
To make it even more complex, the user’s privacy concerns are additionally connected with the user’s behaviour. Buchanan et al. (2007) suggest that attitudes and behaviour in this field are related (159). An example they give is providing false or incomplete personal information when registering on some websites instead of giving a real name and address. Additionally, Paine et al. (2007) present empirical findings that privacy concerns are related to behaviour regarding privacy protection. They found that some people reported that they were not concerned about privacy, and when asked why, they stated that they had taken action to protect their privacy in the Internet.
Given that social web applications have become an integral part of the Internet—and will most likely continue to be—it is vital to explore the user’s perception of privacy in this context. In this context the concept of surveillance and its awareness have to be considered as well. In the social web, problems, such as state surveillance after 9/11, or economic surveillance, such as the commodification of personal data in the form of spam and advertising, are important in this context. So far, however, the corporate surveillance mechanisms of for example social networking sites, such as targeted advertising, have hardly been studied (Fuchs 2010, 173). This assumption makes it all the more necessary to employ explorative methods to study social web users’ understanding of privacy and surveillance as well as the aspects that influence self-disclosure on the Internet.
To answer these questions, five qualitative focus group discussions were conducted. This qualitative approach provides the opportunity to measure the subject’s individual opinions and perceptions in detail. Furthermore, focus groups allow interaction. With this method, even subliminal attitudes and motives may be accessed and verbalized. Moreover, repressions, fears, and resistance can be reduced by virtue of group dynamics. The qualitative method of focus groups thus provides deep insight into the users’ perceptions and evaluations as well as their attitudes and thought processes. Therefore, this method is promising for investigating users’ awareness of privacy and surveillance issues as well as perceived benefits and risks of self-disclosure.
The composition of the groups was varied. The users’ levels of activity were taken into account. For this, the concept of social web activity of Shao (2008) and Taddicken and Jers (in press) was applied (see also: Jers et al. 2009; Taddicken et al. 2009): According to this concept, producing users (active users) are people who use at least one kind of social web application actively, meaning that they produce content, such as running their own blog or writing blog articles. Consuming users (passive users) are people who use the social web as regular web content, meaning that they are only consumers and merely read or watch the social web content. People who make use of the active possibilities of the social web by evaluating things or writing comments are called participating users (semi-active users); they are participating in an active way but not generating new, original, and elaborate content. For this study, producing and participating users were interviewed in separate focus groups.
The participants of the focus groups were selected on the basis of their activity level as well as their sex, age, and education. Thirty males and sixteen females, aged 18 to 44, with different levels of education participated in the study. For recruitment, flyers were distributed in many households in Stuttgart, Germany. Additionally, the study was promoted in blogs and web forums that were somehow related to Stuttgart. In total, 961 people were interested. They had to answer a Web survey that was used as a screener to find out about their socio-demographics and their Internet activities in order to classify them as producing, participating, or consuming users.
The group size was about eight to ten. Each focus group lasted approximately two hours. Two females were moderating with a flexible questionnaire routine, meaning the participants were mostly able to discuss the aspects they preferred.
Each discussion was transcribed in three stages via audio and video records. The transcripts were then analyzed via qualitative content analysis. As the idea of this study was to learn about the social web users’ attitudes towards privacy, surveillance, and self-disclosure on the Internet, the following tactics were used for generating meaning: noting patterns and themes, seeing plausibility, and clustering (Miles and Huberman 1994, 245). The categories were derived inductively. The MAXQDA software was used for this process.
The participants started talking about the privacy topic directly in the beginning of each focus group, although the moderator’s introduction did not even broach the issue of privacy. After this first phase, however, the participants only returned to this topic periodically. It seemed to be important for the participants to have talked about this issue, but during the discussions privacy issues became less salient. The topic of surveillance was only occasionally the subject of the discussion.
The participants mainly reported general, unspecific concerns regarding privacy on the Internet and the social web. They showed great uncertainty about how their online revealed data might be used or misused by others.
One just doesn’t know what happens to one’s data. And who uses them. (Female, 25, producing user)
This uncertainty was expressed and regarded as important by many participants. At the same time, only a few participants were aware that the Internet “does not forget” and that the revealed information is available online for a long time.
Specific concerns in relation to this problem were reported only by a few participants. Some of these were, for example, that e-mail providers would scan private e-mails. Also, some participants reported being afraid that their personal content was stored somewhere on the Internet and could be viewed by unauthorized people. This concern was especially true for photographs.
Some of the participants, though, were not aware of privacy and surveillance risks beforehand. It was during the discussions they thought about the possibilities of data abuse on the Internet and the social web for the first time.
One does that because one does not even get the idea that it could have such consequences, and that is why one is willing to use things even though one takes a certain risk which one is not even aware of at that moment. [ … ] I feel like my eyes are being opened right now. (Female, 43, producing user)
A few participants even explained that they found it stressful to worry about the privacy of their personal data or to think about the consequences of disclosing their information. They clearly displayed a low awareness concerning the problem of disclosure of personal information. Some persons expressed the opinion that there was nothing bad about full disclosure because they had nothing to hide.
I think it is silly to pay attention to that. I just think if someone is interested in my life, I don’t care, because I have nothing to hide. (Male, 23, producing user)
Many participants did not have a deep knowledge about data abuse and threats to privacy and, therefore, did not realize the risks of self-disclosure.
I, too, think that the thing with the pictures is overrated. If one posts normal pictures, I mean one does not post nude pictures or something like that on the Internet, like of the last vacation leaning against a palm tree and one wants people to see those, what’s the harm? I mean what bad can even be done with pictures like that? (Female, 29, participating user)
Moreover, concerns that something bad could be done with the disclosed information were sometimes classified as exaggerated and excessive compared with other problems of data protection.
Maybe I’m a bit naive but I thought that hype, ‘oh my God, they want to steal our data,’ was completely exaggerated. [ … ] I don’t think anything like that could happen to me. (Female, 22, participating user)
However, those judgments were assessed as being poor and naive by those participants who were more careful. They mentioned a lack of the ability to reflect and, most importantly, a lack of life experience as possible reasons for the carelessness of others.
I believe that younger people disclose more information about themselves because they don’t think about the possibility that when they start working, someone from the human resource department might take a look at what they do in their private time. A 17 or 18 year old who is still in school or has just started studies at a university does not think about something like that because it does not concern him yet. I have witnessed that among my friends. When the students started doing internships or something like that, they blocked their names in studiVZ [M.T.: a popular German social networking site] or made it more anonymous somehow. Only then did they realize how much of themselves they had presented online. (Male, 25, participating user)
In relation to other Internet users, this phenomenon was described as an effect of “dis-inhibition. Some speculated that persons who disclose a lot of information about themselves on the Internet have lost control.
I find it fascinating what the Internet can do to people. One loses control, I think. (Female, 25, producing user)
In fact, most of the participants stated that their self-disclosing behaviour on the Internet had changed over the course of time. One participant explained how he had learned to protect his privacy. In cases like this, personal experiences as well as the experiences of friends and relatives, seem to be relevant regarding interference with privacy on social websites.
Accordingly, participants explained that they used the technical options for privacy settings more often than before. Still, some reported to feel helpless in regard to the disclosure of their personal information by others. One participant brought an interesting argument into the discussion by explaining how he would stay in control of his privacy:
I post pictures and I sometimes even post pictures that are not suitable for being found by, for example, a staff manager. Because [ … ] if I post that picture then hopefully no one else does, but others can just link to it. This means, if I delete it, it’s gone. (Male, 19, participating user)
He tried to preserve the right over his own information and, with that, the control over who received that information by self-disclosing his information, which is indeed accompanied by a loss of control. In fact, this is a case of paradoxical behaviour that gives the actor a feeling of control, which he does not actually possess since the saving, duplication, and distribution of the disclosed contents by others cannot be ruled out.
Another cluster of comments focused on people’s privacy concerns in daily life. Among these, many participants emphasized their need for privacy in general. They often referred to having similar caution in “real life”, for example, in talking with strangers, using ATMs, or similar situations. This shows that the participants were sensitive when it came to their personal data in general but not specifically in connection with social web activities. For example, one participant claimed that he would only disclose information on the social web that he would tell a stranger he met while waiting at the train station. These participants did not differentiate between disclosing personal information on the Internet and disclosing personal information in an offline context, such as when participating in a sweepstakes.
In general, participants focused on the individual perspective of privacy during discussions. Privacy as a social or cultural value was almost never mentioned. Some participants expressed concern about the fact that there is so much easily accessible personal information on social websites, but even those participants thought that the individual advantages outweigh the risks. A change in perception and importance of the concept of privacy over time is stated but not critically assessed.
It is just part of the time that it is not as private anymore as it used to be. (Male, 23, participating user)
Some few remarks regarding criminal activities on the social web provide an exception. They show a perceived helplessness towards the social web mechanisms of circulation. These participants noted that personal information on the social web cannot be easily removed from the Internet and can, therefore, threaten individual privacy or reputation. Concurrently, the mechanisms and institutions of supervision are perceived as powerless. Users do not perceive state surveillance but rather the state’s inability to fulfil its duty of preventing and investigating crime.
Yes, I think that there are a lot of pictures showing violent acts on YouTube and elsewhere. They just spread in [ … ] the video is not even online for an hour and already 10,000 people have watched it and it is suddenly displayed on 500 other websites. And one can never know what happens to the pictures. Principally, everyone could copy the desktop information [ … ] even if you protect your pictures, they are very quickly online, either way. (Female, 25, producing user)
I think false information or information that should not be online is one of the biggest problems. But if there are enough people or enough criminal energy to keep it there, then it is impossible to erase anymore. (Male, 19, producing user)
Concerns about surveillance were reported regarding economic information. The participants were aware of the need of commercial social web providers to make profits with their services, but on the whole they were still unsure of the purposes for which the providers would use that information. This lack of transparency was considered the biggest problem.
I think the problems regarding studiVZ [M.T.: a popular German social networking site] are not limited to the disclosure of information. I am always asking myself who is behind this project and what do they want this information for. [ … ] you have to ask yourself what those people want to do with it and to what purpose they gather all that information. (Male, 21, participating user)
The gathering of information by social web providers was compared to loyalty card systems like Miles and More or Payback, but individual views concerning participation in such commerce-oriented voluntary revelations of information differed: Some participants described a vague feeling of uneasiness regarding becoming a “glass human”.
It has nearly become common standard to disclose private data, even if one orders on the Internet, it does not matter if it is from a mail-order house or somewhere else, everyone can access the private data and can see what one buys so that one even gets swamped with advertisings according to one’s preferences. (Female, 29, participating user)
Others, however, even viewed the commercial purposes of data usage, such as placing of personalized advertising, as an advantage. This view changed, though, as soon as pull-communication developed into push-communication. The latter is regarded as an interference with one’s individual privacy.
If it is just one commercial that is shown on the browser, okay, but if it goes further and one would get sent mails or get a call and … things like that, [ … ] that would just be too much. (Male, 22, participating user)
Advertising can still be ignored somehow [ … ], but if somebody calls you or writes you an e-mail, [ … ] that would be a clear interference with privacy. (Female, 22, participating user)
Some participants reported conducting surveillance themselves. They brought up the point that the social web gives users the opportunity to observe other people, whether known (e.g., friends) or unknown (strangers).
One visits a site of a person one does not even know but still gets a pretty good idea of this person just by looking at their site. What do they like and dislike. Partly even political views or something like that. I think that is reason for concern, but still [ … ] this is a good platform for exchange. (Male, 23, participating user)
This quotation also shows that the perceived benefits of the social web are, in fact, a decisive aspect of self-disclosure on social websites. Accordingly, many participants, especially producing users, stated that they know about problems concerning data protection and other social web risks by now, but that the advantages that come with use are more important to them.
But I mean everybody produces such a vast quantity of data on the Internet, probably, at least someone who is not that careful, but surfs relatively free, produces a lot of data and maybe even a lot of contradictory data, but I don’t know. I don’t think that is good, I don’t like it, but I think the service and the functions are so good, that I am willing to partly give up my privacy. (Male, 30, producing user)
In this case, users made deliberate decisions and chose benefits over privacy, as opposed to those who worried vaguely about endangerment of privacy through self-disclosure. Only a few participants, however, and exclusively producing ones, voiced their decision this clearly. Many users indirectly admitted that the services and benefits they can enjoy while using social websites outweigh that vague feeling of insecurity concerning their privacy.
The perceived gratification for the individual user seems to be closely tied to aspects of the social context. The participants reported that the usage and self-disclosing behaviour of their social offline context are one of the main drivers in their use of social websites. They explained that they register for and use the same social web applications as their peer group. Many participants indicated worries about not being socially integrated if they were to be the only one not using a social website. For example, one participant explained that he would feel socially excluded if he did not use the same social networking site as his friends and colleagues.
If you’re not a member in a social networking site you are completely socially excluded, well, I can talk about myself. [ … ] That’s where the whole life takes place. (Male, 24, participating user)
Networking and social integration were reported as the main gratifications in using social websites.
It’s these contacts with people you don’t see very often or you actually are hardly in contact with. Then you can write short messages back and forth. To attend friendships a little bit. (Female, 24, participating user)
An important part of that interaction is the exchange of information. The social web is perceived as an enormous help in gathering information. That is the reason why so many users are willing to post their problems on the Internet in order to discuss their options with other users. The possibility to simplify and bundle communication processes through social websites is also an important reason to display personal information on these sites.
I was abroad for three months last year and everyone has always asked me: Can you post some new pictures? I want to see what it looks like there. It was also a question of communication. I did not have to write everyone an e-mail. I just said I have been here and there and the police already busted me on the first day and then I just posted some pictures and that was it. Everyone just took a look at it. (Male, 23, producing user)
Purposes like documentation or archiving were also given as reasons for disclosure of personal information. This was most true for archiving pictures and experiences. It was likewise seen as a gratification that the contact details of one’s social acquaintances can be archived on social websites. It was also acknowledged that this service can only be used sensibly if users state their contact details honestly. The building and maintenance of social relationships also requires the disclosure of personal contacts. Most participants named that as the main reason to post their own contact details.
Moreover, there are social norms that dictate how a member of a certain social web application has to act, especially regarding the level of self-disclosure. This rule of conduct is perceived as such, even before registering, and is respected by the users if they decide to register.
Yes, one certainly takes a look at how other users are registered. I mean, if I enter a forum and let’s say most of the users are registered under nicknames then I am also going to register under a nickname. If I want to use Xing I don’t have to register before being able to look at certain things, okay there everybody uses his real name and has posted a basic level of information. I think to take a look at that would be my guideline to determine how much to reveal. (Male, 27, producing user)
Another important aspect concerning the question of self-disclosure seems to be the perception of the respective social web application. In this context respectability of an application was given as a reason, but none of the participants could articulate which concrete criteria they used to judge it. An indefinite feeling of security due to a familiar atmosphere, as well as widespread popularity of the website, was mentioned. An unclear design and layout and a lack of trustworthiness in atmosphere, on the other hand, led to a decrease in activity and information disclosure.
Starting from the fact that a lot of personal information about users is revealed on social websites, one has to wonder how and if users can combine that with the protection of their privacy. In the theoretical part of this paper, it was assumed that control over and regulation of access to personal information is the core characteristic of privacy. However, it must further be assumed that the perception of privacy is subject to certain processes of negotiation between the individual need for privacy and the concurrent need for self-disclosure and social interaction. Accordingly, social web users have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages. It has been the aim of this study to look at the perception of this process against the backdrop of privacy, surveillance, and self-disclosure.
The conducted focus groups delivered a deep user insight about these questions. To summarize, the findings present proof that social web users perceive privacy as an important issue. Most users are concerned about privacy invasion, but their fears and concerns are mostly on a general level. Therefore, the perceptions of online privacy concerns are linked with privacy concerns in general. Users translate their general concerns about information security in everyday life into the online context. A high level of uncertainty and a lack of knowledge about concrete risks are shown. Accordingly, some users feel helpless or overstrained by worry about their personal data. Participants exhibit different ways of managing the dilemma of partaking in the social web, with its required self-disclosure and its risk of compromising one’s privacy. For example, some users trivialize the perceived risk. Others report that they have changed their usage behaviour and value technical privacy options more. Again others take the privacy risk consciously because of the gratifications.
During the discussions, the issue of privacy became less salient for the participants. Each discussion started with this topic, but the participants then began focusing more and more on the different ways of using social web services and the perceived benefits of usage. Although the privacy risks are perceived somewhat vaguely, participants report that the usage of, and the self-disclosure on, the social web provide gratification in a multitude of forms. Socially oriented gratifications are perceived as especially important. Users feel strong social pressure to participate in social web applications like others do. It can be assumed that for many users, refusal to participate in the social web is not perceived as a possible alternative. For example, to decide which social web application to use, participants often relied on the recommendations of their social context. A high degree of popularity for a specific social website among one’s personal social context is generally equated with high respectability and credibility in the social web provider. Objective criteria like displaying privacy policies or technical options to secure privacy (privacy settings) are not that important.
Surveillance issues were discussed seldom, but more concretely than privacy aspects. Users do not perceive a state surveillance; they rather perceive state institutions as helpless and overstrained when it comes to their connection with the social web. Mechanisms of economic surveillance were discussed differently. Non-invasive instruments such as targeted advertising banners are tolerated or even evaluated positively whereas invasive instruments such as spam mails are clearly not. The lack of transparency in the corporate usage of data seems to be the biggest problem in this context. Further, participants highlighted the possibility to observe other users via social web applications. This can be seen as a private mode of surveillance, or as Albrechtslund (2008) puts it, as “participatory surveillance.”
The users’ low level of knowledge and awareness about the utilizations of personal information by social web providers can be seen as one of the main problems. It is not surprising that users rate the gratifications higher than the privacy risks because the perceived benefits are far more concrete than the very general and somewhat vague perceived privacy risks. Further, a lack in media competence and, accordingly, a perceived helplessness, become apparent. Additionally, the social orientation seems to be the main driver for the usage of social websites. Users perceive strong social pressure to participate.
This study provided users’ insights by choosing a qualitative approach. The results are important for society and politics because they provide understanding of which aspects must be regulated to protect social web users’ privacy. Users have to manage a dilemma, which is called the “privacy paradox”. It was shown that the lack of knowledge of users concerning the use and the possibilities of misuse of their personal information can be seen as the most important starting point in terms of persuasive and educational campaigns. The individual’s level of media competence must be increased. Further, social web providers should offer mechanisms to raise their users’ awareness of the fact that their disclosed information is (more or less) open to the public. Users should be asked during the revealing process about who should actually have access to it.
Providers, too, should increase their credibility by making their utilizations of users’ data more transparent (Awad and Krishnan 2006). For example, providers could explain how they make use of their users’ information in detail. Even, this could be subject of the terms of use.
Still more research about privacy and especially surveillance concerns and self-disclosure in the social web is needed to understand the users’ behaviours. It was shown that social circumstances play an important role in the process of negotiation about privacy versus self-disclosure. Those circumstances should assume a more prominent role in future scholarly discussion about this topic. In addition, it was shown that users feel helpless because of the social pressure for usage. Because users need to self-disclose at least some personal information for using most social web platforms (Staksrud and Lobe 2010, 36), it must be emphasized that both the economic actors, such as the providers, and political institutions need to meet their responsibility, for example, by making utilizations of users’ personal data more transparent and by solving the problems of online data security by law.
This research was supported by the German Research Foundation and conducted at the University of Hohenheim, Germany.
Acquisti, Alessandro and Ralph Gross. 2006. Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. Paper presented at the 6th Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, June 28–June 30, 2006, Cambridge, ???.
Albrechtslund, Anders. 2008. Online social networking as participatory purveillance. First Monday 13 (3). http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2142/1949 (accessed August 3, 2010).
Altman, Irwin. 1975. The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Altman, Irwin. 1976. Privacy: a conceptual analysis. Environment and Behavior 8 (1): 7–29.
Altman, Irwin. 1977. Privacy regulation: culturally universal or culturally specific. Journal of Social Issues 33 (3): 67–83.
Altman, Irwin and Dalmas A. Taylor. 1973. Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Awad, Naveen Farag and M.S. Krishnan. 2006. The personalization privacy paradox: an empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Quarterly 30 (1): 13–28.
Barnes, Susan B. 2006. A privacy paradox: social networking in the United States. First Monday 11 (9). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1394/1312 (accessed on August 3, 2010).
Bellman, Steven, Eric J. Johnson, Stephen J. Kobrin, and Gerald L. Lohse. 2004. International differences in information privacy concerns: a global survey of consumers. The Information Society 20 (5): 313–324.
boyd, danah and Eszter Hargittai. 2010. Facebook privacy settings: who cares? First Monday 15 (8). http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3086/2589 (accessed on August 3, 2010).
Buchanan, Tom, Carina Paine, Adam N. Joinson, and Ulf-Dietrich Reips. 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): 157–165.
Burgoon, Judee K., Roxanne Parrott, Beth A. LePoire, Douglas L. Kelley, Joseph B. Walther, and Denise Perry. 1989. Maintaining and restoring privacy through communication in different types of relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 6 (2): 131–158.
Cho, Hichang, Milagros Rivera-Sanchez, and Sun Sun Lim. 2009. A multinational study on online privacy: global concerns and local responses. New Media and Society 11 (3): 395–416.
Cozby, Paul C. 1973. Self-disclosure: a literature review. Psychological Bulletin 79 (2): 73–91.
Culnan, Mary J. 1993. “How did they get my name?” An exploratory investigation of consumer attitudes toward secondary information use. MIS Quarterly 17 (3): 341–363.
Debatin, Bernhard, Jennette P. Lovejoy, Ann-Kathrin Horn, and Brittany N. Hughes. 2009. Facebook and online privacy: attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (1): 83–108.
Etzioni, Amitai. 1999. The limits of privacy. New York: Basic Books.
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and punish. New York: Vintage.
Fuchs, Christian. 2008. Internet and society: Social theory in the information age. New York: Routledge.
Fuchs, Christian. 2009. Social networking sites and the surveillance society: A critical case study of the usage of studiVZ, Facebook, and MySpace. Salzburg: Unified Theory of Information Research Group. http://fuchs.icts.sbg.ac.at/SNS_Surveillance_Fuchs.pdf (accessed on August 3, 2010).
Fuchs, Christian. 2010. StudiVZ: social networking in the surveillance society. Ethics and Information Technology 12 (2): 171–185.
Introna, Lucas D. and Athanasia Pouloudi. 1999. Privacy in the information age: stakeholders, interests and values. Journal of Business Ethics 22: 27–38.
Jers, Cornelia, Monika Taddicken, and Michael Schenk. 2009. “Why do I use the social web?” exploring the motives of active and passive users via focus groups. Paper presented at the General Online Research Conference (GOR), April 4–April 5, 2009, Vienna.
Joinson, Adam N. 2001. Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: the role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology 31 (2): 177–192.
Joinson, Adam N., Carina Paine, Tom Buchanan, and Ulf-Dietrich Reips. 2008. Measuring self-disclosure online: blurring and non-response to sensitive items in Web-based surveys. Computers in Human Behavior 24: 2158–2171.
Krämer, Nicole C. and Stephan Winter. 2008. Impression management 2.0: the relationship of self-esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social networking sites. Journal of Media Psychology 20 (3): 106–116.
Lampe, Cliff, Nicole B. Ellison, and Charles Steinfield. 2007. A familiar Face(book): Profile elements as signals in an online social network. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, 435–444. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
Laurenceau, Jean-Philippe, Lisa Feldman Barrett, and Paula R. Pietromonaco. 1998. Intimacy as an interpersonal process: the importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (5): 1238–1251.
Lewis, Kevin, Jason Kaufman, and Nicholas Christakis. 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.
Lyon, David. 2001. Surveillance society: Monitoring everyday life. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Lyon, David. 2002. Editorial. Surveillance studies: understanding visibility, mobility and the phenetic fix. Surveillance & Society 1 (1): 1–7.
Lyon, David. 2007. Surveillance, power, and everyday life. In The Oxford handbook of information and communication technologies, ed. Robin Mansell, Chris Anthi Avgerou, Danny Quah, and Roger Silverstone, 449–472. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage.
Milne, George R. and Mary Ellen Gordon. 1994. A segmentation study of consumers’ attitudes toward direct mail. Journal of Direct Marketing 8 (2): 45–52.
Miyazaki, Anthony D. and Ana Fernandez. 2001. Consumer perceptions of privacy and security risks for online shopping. Journal of Consumer Affairs 35 (1): 27–44.
Newell, Patrica Brierley. 1995. Perspectives on privacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15 (2): 87–104.
Norberg, Patricia A., Daniel R. Horne, and David A. Horne. 2007. The privacy paradox: personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 41 (1): 100–126.
Norris, Clive and Gary Armstrong. 1999. The maximum surveillance society: The rise of CCTV. Oxford: Berg.
Paine, Carina, Ulf-Dietrich Reips, Stefan Stieger, Adam Joinson, and Tom Buchanan. 2006. Internet users’ perceptions of ‘privacy concerns’ and ‘privacy actions’. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65 (6): 526–536.
Parent, William A. 1983. Privacy, morality and the law. Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (4): 269–288.
Rodgers, Shelly and Mary Ann Harris. 2003. Gender and e-commerce: an exploratory study. Journal of Advertising Research 43 (3): 322–329.
Schoeman, Ferdinand David. 1984. Privacy and intimate information. In Philosophical dimensions of privacy, ed. Ferdinand David Schoeman, 403–417. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shao, Guosong. 2008. Understanding the appeal of user-generated media: a uses and gratifications perspective. Internet Research 19 (1): 7–25.
Sheehan, Kim Bartel. 1999. An investigation of gender difference in online privacy concerns and resultant behaviors. Journal of Interactive Marketing 13 (4): 24–38.
Singh, Tanuja and Mark E. Hill. 2003. Consumer privacy and the Internet in Europe: a view from Germany. Journal of Consumer Marketing 20 (7): 634–651.
Staksrud, Elisabeth and Bojana Lobe. 2010. Evaluation of the implementation of the safer social networking principles for the EU. Part I: General Report. Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/social_networking/docs/final_report/first_part.pdf (accessed August 10, 2010).
Stalder, Felix. 2002. Opinion. Privacy is not the antidote to surveillance. Surveillance & Society 1 (1): 120–124.
Suler, John L. 2004. The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology and Behavior 7 (3): 321–326.
Taddicken, Monika and Cornelia Jers. (in press). Uses and gratifications of privacy issues online: obtaining social web gratifications = taking a loss of privacy? In Privacy online: Theoretical approaches and research perspectives on the role of privacy in the social web, ed. Sabine Trepte and Leonard Reinecke. New York: Springer.
Taddicken, Monika, Cornelia Jers, and Michael Schenk. 2009. Social web and self-disclosure = participation vs. privacy? Exploring how users manage this dilemma via focus groups. Paper presented at the General Online Research Conference (GOR), April 4–April 5, Vienna.
Tidwell, Lisa C. and Joseph B. Walther. 2002. Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research 28 (3): 317–348.
Tufekci, Zeynep. 2008. Can you see me now? audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 28 (1): 20–36.
Utz, Sonja. 2009. Resolving the privacy paradox? How privacy concerns, strategic selfpresentation, and norms influence the choice of privacy settings. Paper presented at the General Online Research Conference (GOR), April 4–April 5, 2009, Vienna.
Wang, Paul and Lisa A. Petrison. 1993. Direct marketing activities and personal privacy: a consumer survey. Journal of Direct Marketing 7 (1): 7–19.
Warren, Samuel D. and Louis Brandeis. 1890. The right of privacy. Harvard Law Review 4 (5). http://www.lawrence.edu/fast/boardmaw/Privacy_brand_warr2.html (accessed October 29, 2009).
Westin, Alan. 1967. Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum.
Wheeless, Lawrence R. 1976. Self-disclosure and interpersonal solidarity: measurement, validation, and relationships. Human Communication Research 3 (1): 47–61.
Wheeless, Lawrence. R. and Janis Grotz. 1976. Conceptualization and measurement of reported self-disclosure. Human Communication Research 2 (4): 338–346.