How Privacy Concerns, Trust and Risk Beliefs, and Privacy Literacy Influence Users' Intentions to Use Privacy-Enhancing Technologies: The Case of Tor

Due to an increasing collection of personal data by internet companies and several data breaches, research related to privacy gained importance in the last years in the information systems domain. Privacy concerns can strongly influence users' decision to use a service. The Internet Users Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC) construct is one operationalization to measure the impact of privacy concerns on the use of technologies. However, when applied to a privacy enhancing technology (PET) such as an anonymization service, the original rationales do not hold anymore. In particular, an inverted impact of trusting and risk beliefs on behavioral intentions can be expected. We show that the IUIPC model needs to be adapted for the case of PETs. In addition, we extend the original causal model by including trusting beliefs in the anonymization service itself as well as a measure for privacy literacy. A survey among 124 users of the anonymization service Tor shows that trust in Tor has a statistically significant effect on the actual use behavior of the PET. In addition, the results indicate that privacy literacy has a negative impact on trusting beliefs in general and a positive effect on trust in Tor.

[1]  Ioannis Krontiris,et al.  User Acceptance Factors for Anonymous Credentials: An Empirical Investigation , 2015, WEIS.

[2]  Joseph F. Hair,et al.  Partial Least Squares Strukturgleichungsmodellierung (PLS-SEM): Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung , 2017 .

[3]  Jason Bennett Thatcher,et al.  Trust in a specific technology: An investigation of its components and measures , 2011, TMIS.

[4]  Constantin Blome,et al.  Ethical Climate and Purchasing Social Responsibility: A Benevolence Focus , 2013 .

[5]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[6]  Larry D. Rosen,et al.  The Media and Technology Usage and Attitudes Scale: An empirical investigation , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

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

[8]  J. Kruger,et al.  Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  Heiko Rossnagel,et al.  The Market Failure of Anonymity Services , 2010, WISTP.

[10]  Jennifer Carlisle The privacy paradox , 2002, UBIQ.

[11]  Nancy K. Lankton,et al.  Technology, Humanness, and Trust: Rethinking Trust in Technology , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[12]  Jon Heales,et al.  The Influence of Privacy, Trust, and National Culture on Internet Transactions , 2017, HCI.

[13]  J. Turow,et al.  How Different are Young Adults from Older Adults When it Comes to Information Privacy Attitudes and Policies? , 2010 .

[14]  Antonio Krüger,et al.  Towards Understanding the Influence of Personality on Mobile App Permission Settings , 2017, INTERACT.

[15]  Ganesh Iyer,et al.  A Usability Evaluation of Tor Launcher , 2017, Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol..

[16]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Validation Guidelines for IS Positivist Research , 2004, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[17]  Sebastian Pape,et al.  JonDonym Users' Information Privacy Concerns , 2018, SEC.

[18]  R. M. Fano,et al.  Some thoughts about the social implications of accessible computing , 1899, AFIPS '65 (Fall, part I).

[19]  M. Sarstedt,et al.  A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling , 2015 .

[20]  Tamara Dinev,et al.  An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[21]  Maayan Zhitomirsky-Geffet,et al.  Factors affecting users' online privacy literacy among students in Israel , 2017, Online Inf. Rev..

[22]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[23]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  Adoption of Electronic Health Records in the Presence of Privacy Concerns: The Elaboration Likelihood Model and Individual Persuasion , 2009, MIS Q..

[24]  Sebastian Pape,et al.  Why Do People Pay for Privacy-Enhancing Technologies? The Case of Tor and JonDonym , 2019, SEC.

[25]  Bobbi Morrison Do we know what we think we know? An exploration of online social network users' privacy literacy , 2012 .

[26]  Lujo Bauer,et al.  Privacy Expectations and Preferences in an IoT World , 2017, SOUPS.

[27]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research , 2014 .

[28]  Naresh K. Malhotra,et al.  Internet Users' Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model , 2004, Inf. Syst. Res..

[29]  Heng Xu,et al.  Information Privacy Research: An Interdisciplinary Review , 2011, MIS Q..

[30]  BartschMiriam,et al.  Control your Facebook , 2016 .

[31]  Kirsty Williamson,et al.  How Do Online Investors Seek Information, And What Does This Mean for Regulation? , 2004, Journal of Information, Law and Technology.

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

[33]  Blair H. Sheppard,et al.  The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research , 1988 .

[34]  Paul A. Pavlou,et al.  Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model , 2003, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[35]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[36]  Richard D. Johnson,et al.  Concern for Information Privacy and Online Consumer Purchasing , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[37]  Sebastian Pape,et al.  How Privacy Concerns and Trust and Risk Beliefs Influence Users' Intentions to Use Privacy-Enhancing Technologies - The Case of Tor , 2019, HICSS.

[38]  Leyla Dogruel,et al.  Default effects in app selection: German adolescents’ tendency to adhere to privacy or social relatedness features in smartphone apps , 2020, Mobile Media & Communication.

[39]  M. Hill,et al.  Consumer privacy and the Internet in Europe: a view from Germany , 2003 .

[40]  Steffen Kunz,et al.  Are you willing to wait longer for internet privacy? , 2011, ECIS.

[41]  Tobias Dienlin,et al.  Control your Facebook: An analysis of online privacy literacy , 2016, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[42]  Charles D. Raab,et al.  Laws, PETs and Other Technologies for Privacy Protection , 2001, J. Inf. Law Technol..

[43]  D. Kuhn How do People Know? , 2001, Psychological science.

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

[45]  Naresh K. Malhotra,et al.  Common Method Variance in IS Research: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[46]  Steffen Kunz,et al.  Communication Anonymizers: Personality, Internet Privacy Literacy and their Influence on Technology Acceptance , 2012, ECIS.

[47]  S. Trepte,et al.  Entwicklung und Validierung der Online-Privatheitskompetenzskala (OPLIS) , 2017 .

[48]  Sebastian Pape,et al.  Examining Technology Use Factors of Privacy-Enhancing Technologies: The Role of Perceived Anonymity and Trust , 2018, AMCIS.

[49]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet , 2011 .