Do-It-Yourself Data Protection—Empowerment or Burden?

Data protection by individual citizens, here labeled do-it-yourself (DIY) data protection, is often considered as an important part of comprehensive data protection. Particularly in the wake of diagnosing the so called “privacy paradox”, fostering DIY privacy protection and providing the respective tools is seen both as important policy aim and as a developing market. Individuals are meant to be empowered in a world where an increasing amount of actors is interested in their data. We analyze the preconditions of this view empirically and normatively: Thus, we ask (1) Can individuals protect data efficiently; and (2) Should individuals be responsible for data protection. We argue that both for pragmatic and normative reasons, a wider social perspective on data protection is required. The paper is concluded by providing a short outlook how these results could be taken up in data protection practices.

[1]  Ralf De Wolf,et al.  Managing privacy boundaries together: Exploring individual and group privacy management strategies in Facebook , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[2]  Leonard Reinecke,et al.  The Social Web as a Shelter for Privacy and Authentic Living , 2011, Privacy Online.

[3]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  Negotiating Privacy Concerns and Social Capital Needs in a Social Media Environment , 2011, Privacy Online.

[4]  T. Lemke.  'The birth of bio-politics': Michel Foucault's lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality , 2001 .

[5]  Bernhard Debatin,et al.  Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences , 2009, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[6]  Tobias Matzner.  Why privacy is not enough privacy in the context of "ubiquitous computing" and "big data" , 2014, J. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc..

[7]  Zeynep Tufekci.  Can You See Me Now? Audience and Disclosure Regulation in Online Social Network Sites , 2008 .

[8]  Nojin Kwak,et al.  Affect, cognition and reward: Predictors of privacy protection online , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[9]  Philipp K. Masur,et al.  Do People Know About Privacy and Data Protection Strategies? Towards the “Online Privacy Literacy Scale” (OPLIS) , 2015 .

[10]  N. Henry,et al.  Beyond the ‘sext’: Technology-facilitated sexual violence and harassment against adult women , 2015 .

[11]  Neil Selwyn,et al.  Reconsidering Political and Popular Understandings of the Digital Divide , 2004, New Media Soc..

[12]  Andrew J. Rohm,et al.  Consumer Privacy and Name Removal across Direct Marketing Channels: Exploring Opt-In and Opt-Out Alternatives , 2000 .

[14]  I. Altman,et al.  Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships , 1973 .

[15]  Airi Lampinen,et al.  We're in it together: interpersonal management of disclosure in social network services , 2011, CHI.

[16]  Suzanne de Castell,et al.  Re-Mediating Research Ethics , 2012 .

[17]  David J. Gunkel.  Second Thoughts: Toward a Critique of the Digital Divide , 2003, New Media Soc..

[18]  Zizi Papacharissi.  A Private Sphere: Democracy in a Digital Age , 2010 .

[19]  Alasdair S. Roberts.  The naked crowd: Reclaiming security and freedom in an anxious age , 2004 .

[20]  Yong Jin Park,et al.  Digital Literacy and Privacy Behavior Online , 2013, Commun. Res..

[21]  S. Trepte,et al.  Online-Privatheitskompetenz und deren Bedeutung für demokratische Gesellschaften , 2017 .

[22]  Jessica Vitak.  The Impact of Context Collapse and Privacy on Social Network Site Disclosures , 2012 .

[23]  Marika Lüders,et al.  Too Many Facebook “Friends”? Content Sharing and Sociability Versus the Need for Privacy in Social Network Sites , 2010, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[24]  Kate Raynes-Goldie,et al.  Aliases, Creeping, and Wall Cleaning: Understanding Privacy in the Age of Facebook , 2010, First Monday.

[25]  Eden Litt,et al.  Understanding social network site users' privacy tool use , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[26]  Monika Taddicken,et al.  The Uses of Privacy Online: Trading a Loss of Privacy for Social Web Gratifications? , 2011, Privacy Online.

[27]  Susan B. Barnes,et al.  A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States , 2006, First Monday.

[28]  Philipp K. Masur,et al.  Disclosure Management on Social Network Sites: Individual Privacy Perceptions and User-Directed Privacy Strategies , 2016 .

[29]  David Lyon,et al.  Surveillance as social sorting : Computer codes and mobile bodies , 2005 .

[30]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[31]  Louise Amoore,et al.  Data Derivatives , 2011 .

[32]  Helen Nissenbaum,et al.  Privacy in Context - Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life , 2009 .

[33]  John Gilliom,et al.  Overseers of the poor , 2001 .

[34]  Colin J. Bennett.  The governance of privacy , 2003 .

[35]  E. Hughes.  A cypherpunk's manifesto , 1997 .

[36]  Miriam J. Metzger.  Communication Privacy Management in Electronic Commerce , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[37]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  What Is Privacy Worth? , 2013, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[38]  A. Strauss,et al.  The Chicago Tradition and Social Change: Thomas, Park And Their Successors , 1978 .

[39]  Sabine Trepte,et al.  Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in‐depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors , 2015 .

[40]  Priscilla M. Regan,et al.  Negotiating With Gender Stereotypes on Social Networking Sites , 2013 .

[41]  D. Garland,et al.  `Governmentality' and the Problem of Crime: , 1997 .

[42]  N. Rose.  Government and control , 2000 .

[43]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[44]  Priscilla M. Regan,et al.  Negotiating With Gender Stereotypes on Social Networking Sites , 2013 .

[45]  S. Jourard,et al.  Some factors in self-disclosure. , 1958, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[46]  A. Strauss.  A SOCIAL WORLD PERSPECTIVE* , 2012 .

[47]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Collective Information Practice: Exploring Privacy and Security as Social and Cultural Phenomena , 2006, Hum. Comput. Interact..