No description available.

People make a range of everyday decisions about how and whether to share content with different people, across different platforms and services, during a variety of tasks. These sharing decisions can encompass complex preferences and a variety of access-control dimensions. In this thesis I examine potential methods for improving sharing mechanisms by better understanding the everyday online sharing environment and evaluating a potential sharing tool. I first present two studies that explore how current sharing mechanisms may fall short on social networking sites, leading to suboptimal outcomes such as regret or self censorship. I discuss the implications of these suboptimal outcomes for the design of behavioral nudging tools and the potential for improving the design of selective-sharing mechanisms. I then draw on a third study to explore the broader “ecosystem” of available channels created by the services and platforms people move between and combine to share content in everyday contexts. I examine the role of selective-sharing features in the broader audience-driven and task-driven dynamics that drive sharing decisions in this environment. I discuss the implications of channel choice and dynamics for the design of selective-sharing mechanisms. Using insights from current shortfalls and ecosystem-level dynamics I then present a fourth study examining the potential for adding topic-driven sharing mechanisms to Facebook. I use design mockups and a lab-based interview to explore participants’ hypothetical use cases for such mechanisms. I find that these mechanisms could potentially be useful in a variety of situations, but successful implementation would require accounting for privacy requirements and users’ sharing strategies.

The right to be let alone has been developing throughout history to offset the seemingly relentless encroachments by government in efforts to regulate "morality," and by governmental and/or business uses of technological advancements to control the individuals privacy. Thus, the espoused constitutional right of privacy has come to be the way for individuals (and groups) to stave off society's attempts to control or divert the individual from his right to be let alone. This work examines both state and federal court cases in an attempt to show that privacy has come to be a basic, constitutional right to be used against society's intrusions in areas of personal and sexual privacy.

Communications-related investigatory powers are ostensibly regulated within the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000, under the descriptive headings: 'interception of communications'; 'acquisition and disclosure of communications data' and 'investigation of data protected by encryption'. The scope, legality and extent of these hitherto infrequently examined powers experienced increased scrutiny following the controversial 2013 disclosures of fugitive United States National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, scrutiny generally founded on subjective conceptions of 'privacy', 'intrusiveness' or 'security'. This research however, adopts 'communications' as its conceptual common denominator. It comprehensively explores the separate politico-legal evolution of RIPA's communications-related investigatory powers, whilst identifying and critically analysing alternative statutory provisions that permit circumvention of RIPA's purported human rights-centric integrity. The detailed chronology provides conclusive evidence that current UK Secretaries of State and their executive agencies possess virtually unlimited communications-related information acquisition powers bequeathed by their predecessors. Perhaps more importantly, its simultaneous exposure of an executive culture of secrecy and deference to the UK's intelligence community assists in explaining why any fettering of the current powers will be so difficult to achieve. Drawing from Intelligence Studies, Information Science and Computer Science, this research logically deconstructs RIPA's communications-related powers, finding them more accurately describable as narrowly defined techniques facilitating the acquisition of communications-related data. Consequently, RIPA fails to envisage or regulate all types of acquisition, such as that obtained extra-jurisdictionally or via Computer Network Exploitation, thus partially legitimizing the status quo. The research also examines RIPA's seemingly all-encompassing definition of 'communication', finding it under-utilised, in that communications from the mind into electronic storage ('expression-related data') are not included. Consequently, the boundaries between 'communication', 'expression' and 'property,' and between RIPA's powers and those enabling Computer Network Exploitation are currently unnecessarily complicated. It concludes by recommending the enactment of a single statute regulating all investigative expression-related data acquisition.

Companies offering services on the Internet have led corporations to shift from the high cost of owning and maintaining stand-alone, privately-owned-and-operated infrastructure to a shared infrastructure model. These shared infrastructures are being offered by infrastructure service providers which have subscription, or pay-on-demand, charge models presenting compute and storage resources as a generalized utility. Utility based infrastructures that are run by service providers have been defined as "cloud computing" by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. In the cloud computing model the concerns of security and privacy protections are exacerbated due to the requirement for an enterprise to allow third parties to own and manage the infrastructure and be custodians of the enterprises information. With this new architectural model, there are new hybrid governance models designed to support complex and uncertain environments. The cloud also requires a common infrastructure that integrates originally separate computing silos. Privacy and security policy awareness during provisioning and computing orchestration about data locality across domains and jurisdictions must be able to obey legal and regulatory constraints. Commercial use of the Internet for electronic commerce has been growing at a phenomenal rate while consumer concern has also risen about the information gathered about them. Concern about privacy of data has been rated as the number one barrier by all industries. The purpose of this dissertation is to perform an empirical study to determine if existing privacy assessment instruments adequately assess privacy risks when applied to cloud infrastructures. The methodology for determining this is to apply a specific set of privacy risk assessments against a three cloud environments. The assessments are run in the context of a typical web based application deployed against cloud providers that have the five key cloud tenets - on-demand/self-service, broad network access, resource pooling, rapid elasticity, and measured service.

This research examines the role of geospatial and ancillary technologies in the erosion of privacy in contemporary society. The development of Remote Sensing, GIS, and GPS technologies are explored as a means of understanding both their current and predicted uses and capabilities. Examination is also made of the legal basis and current status of privacy rights in the United States. Finally, current and predicted uses and capabilities of geospatial and ancillary technologies are critically examined in light of existing privacy protections as a means of determining the ways in which these technologies are impacting privacy currently and what their effects may be in the future.

This study tested a conceptual model of adolescents’ feelings of privacy invasion derived from CPM. Specifically, goals were to describe adolescents’ expectations of privacy, to describe how often adolescents are exposed to behaviors that threaten privacy, and to test privacy beliefs, potentially invasive behaviors, and having things to hide as predictors of individual differences in feelings of privacy invasion. Furthermore, each question and hypothesis was examined across four privacy domains and four relationships to determine whether privacy functions similarly or uniquely across domains and relationships. Participants were 118 adolescents (59% female), ranging from age 15 to 18 years of age (M age = 16.4 years, SD = .78). Results indicate that adolescents expect more privacy around their personal information than they expect around domains more aligned with parental monitoring. Sharing personal information elicited the greatest feelings of privacy invasion. The present study found some support the CPM based conceptual model. Adolescents expect information contained within the boundaries to remain private and intrusions into these boundaries elicit feelings of privacy invasion. Additionally, the current study found evidence to support the alternative model that the threat of discovery also elicits feelings of privacy invasion.

Smartphones continue to grow increasingly ubiquitous for a variety of reasons. This study employed an online survey experiment in order to determine whether perceptions of environmental/locational privacy or individual levels of self-monitoring have any effect on smartphone uses and gratifications. While perceptions of locational privacy did indeed have a modest effect on smartphone gratifications sought, self-monitoring did not, and no interactions were detected between locational privacy and self-monitoring. Implications for these findings as well as avenues for future research are discussed.

No description available.

Classical sociology has seen various discussions on the tension between individuality and social solidarity. Some thought that increasing individuality may ruin the foundation of traditional society and may lead to social disintegration, while others believed that modern society is built on mutual dependence and legal-rational authority. An increase in individuality may not lead to social disintegration. The debate on personal privacy is an extension of this sociological concern. / The individual concern for privacy was said to be derived from selfishness and individualism, and led to social isolation. According to this view, people who have high concerns for their information privacy are only concerned with their own interests and would not like to sacrifice their own interests for the common good. They are also social isolates who would not like to take part in social activities. This social concern for privacy is derived from individualism in culture. However, these views are purely speculations with no empirical evidence for support. The purpose of this study is to provide an empirical test of three core questions: First, does individual concern for privacy indicate social isolation? Second, does individual concern for privacy indicate selfishness at the expense of common good? Third, does individual concern for privacy derive from cultural individualism? / To address the first question, this study used the 1990 Harris Poll and found a positive association between privacy concern and social participation. For the second question, this study used the General Social Survey and found that privacy concerns were associated with willingness to pay more tax to improve social welfare programs. As to the third question, this study used the International Social Survey Program to demonstrate that there was no association between individualism and privacy concerns. From all these findings, individual concerns regarding information privacy do not mean selfishness, do not lead to social isolation and are not derived from individualism. The results of the study call for a positive evaluation of individual privacy concerns and a thorough protection of individual autonomy. The findings of the study clarified the long-term misunderstanding of individual privacy and may be useful for policy and legal research on privacy protection. / 經典社會學的討論注意到現代社會中個人自主性的增加與社會團結之間的矛盾。由於傳統社會的團結力量逐漸減弱，有看法認為個人主義的傾向有可能會導致社會解體。同時也有看法認為，現代社會的團結是基於人與人之間功能上的相互依賴或者基於法理權威，個人主義的傾向並非一定帶來社會解體。有關於個人私隱的討論正是這個社會學所關心問題的延伸。 / 個人對私隱的關注曾經普遍被認為是來自於自私自利的個人主義傾向，關注個人私隱的人是脫離社會的孤僻者。這種看法認為個人對私隱的關注是對社會不負責任的表現，這種傾向源自於文化中的個人主義。但是這種看法忽視了當代社會公共權力愈來愈多侵入私人領域的作法。人們對私隱的關注是對私人領域遭到威脅的反應。關注個人私隱的人相反可能更加關注公民的社會權利和個人空間，也有可能更加積極參與社會事務，而不是一個自私自利的孤僻者。私隱的關注度更有可能受到制度因素，經濟因素的影響，未必一定源自於個人主義。另外，將個人對私隱的關注認為是自私自利和個人主義傾向的看法也是沒有任何實證資料證實的猜想。本研究的目的在於通過實證研究揭示三個關於私隱的核心問題。第一，關注私隱是否意味著脫離社會？第二，關注私隱是否是一種自私的傾向？第三，關注私隱是否源於個人人主義的文化？ / 為了回答第一個問題，本研究透過分析美國1990年哈里斯民意調查（Harris Poll 1990）發現個人私隱關注度與社會參與度有正向的相關關係。第二個問題則是透過分析美國社會綜合調查（GSS），本研究發現，私隱關注度與個人為提升社會福利而繳納更多稅項的意願有關。第三個問題的回答是透過分析國際社會調查項目（ISSP），本研究發現國家的個人主義文化價值觀與個人對私隱關注度之間沒有關聯。綜合以上發現，本研究認為對個人私隱關注度需要一個正面的看法，關注個人私隱的人是社會的積極參與者，也是公共利益的維護者，她們並不是自私自利的孤僻者。要降低個人對私隱的關注需要從政治制度和經濟發展角度入手而不是一味地批評個人主義傾向。本研究澄清了一個有關個人私隱的長期爭論，對相關的立法和政策研究有一定的參考價值。 / Classical sociology has seen various discussions on the tension between individuality and social solidarity. Some thought that increasing individuality may ruin the foundation of traditional society and may lead to social disintegration, while others believed that modern society is built on mutual dependence and legal-rational authority. An increase in individuality may not lead to social disintegration. The debate on personal privacy is an extension of this sociological concern. / The individual concern for privacy was said to be derived from selfishness and individualism, and led to social isolation. According to this view, people who have high concerns for their information privacy are only concerned with their own interests and would not like to sacrifice their own interests for the common good. They are also social isolates who would not like to take part in social activities. This social concern for privacy is derived from individualism in culture. However, these views are purely speculations with no empirical evidence for support. The purpose of this study is to provide an empirical test of three core questions: First, does individual concern for privacy indicate social isolation? Second, does individual concern for privacy indicate selfishness at the expense of common good? Third, does individual concern for privacy derive from cultural individualism? / To address the first question, this study used the 1990 Harris Poll and found a positive association between privacy concern and social participation. For the second question, this study used the General Social Survey and found that privacy concerns were associated with willingness to pay more tax to improve social welfare programs. As to the third question, this study used the International Social Survey Program to demonstrate that there was no association between individualism and privacy concerns. From all these findings, individual concerns regarding information privacy do not mean selfishness, do not lead to social isolation and are not derived from individualism. The results of the study call for a positive evaluation of individual privacy concerns and a thorough protection of individual autonomy. The findings of the study clarified the long-term misunderstanding of individual privacy and may be useful for policy and legal research on privacy protection. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Guo, Hua. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2012. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 133-139). / Electronic reproduction. Hong Kong : Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2012] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. / Abstract also in Chinese. / Chapter Chapter 1. --- Introduction --- p.1 / Chapter 1.1. --- Modernity and Privacy --- p.1 / Chapter 1.2. --- The Rise of Privacy Concern --- p.5 / Chapter 1.3. --- Concepts of Privacy --- p.8 / Chapter 1.4. --- Two Competing Views --- p.10 / Chapter 1.5. --- Purpose of This Study --- p.14 / Chapter Chapter 2. --- Data and Method --- p.20 / Chapter 2.1. --- Datasets --- p.20 / Chapter 2.2. --- Measurement --- p.22 / Chapter 2.3. --- Method --- p.26 / Chapter Chapter 3. --- Concern for Privacy and Social participation --- p.27 / Chapter 3.1. --- Introduction --- p.27 / Chapter 3.2. --- Literature review --- p.29 / Chapter 3.3. --- Model Specification --- p.36 / Chapter 3.4. --- Data and Method --- p.38 / Chapter 3.5. --- Results --- p.44 / Chapter 3.6. --- Conclusion --- p.50 / Chapter Chapter 4. --- Concern for Privacy and Common Good --- p.53 / Chapter 4.1. --- Introduction --- p.53 / Chapter 4.2. --- Literature Review --- p.55 / Chapter 4.3. --- Hypotheses and Model Specification --- p.68 / Chapter 4.4. --- Data and Method --- p.72 / Chapter 4.5. --- Results --- p.77 / Chapter 4.6. --- Conclusion --- p.82 / Chapter Chapter 5. --- Concern for Privacy and Culture Values --- p.85 / Chapter 5.1. --- Introduction --- p.85 / Chapter 5.2. --- Literature review --- p.89 / Chapter 5.3. --- Conceptual framework and Hypotheses --- p.98 / Chapter 5.4. --- Dataset and method --- p.101 / Chapter 5.5. --- Results --- p.110 / Chapter 5.6. --- Conclusion --- p.115 / Chapter 5.7. --- Limitations --- p.118 / Chapter Chapter 6. --- Conclusion --- p.121 / Annex --- p.128 / References --- p.133