Surveillance capitalism and privacy. Knowledge and attitudes on surveillance capitalism and online institutional privacy protection practices among adolescents in Poland

• Authors: Grzegorz Ptaszek
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The purpose of the study was to determine the level of knowledge and attitudes towards surveillance capitalism and online institutional privacy protection practices among adolescents in Poland (aged 18–19), as well as to determine the relationships between these variables. Surveillance capitalism has emerged as a result of internet users’ activities and involves the collection of all data about these users by different entities for specific benefits without letting them know about it. The dominant role in surveillance capitalism is played by hi-tech corporations. The aim of the study was to verify whether knowledge, and what kind of knowledge, on surveillance capitalism translates into practices related to the protection of online institutional privacy. The study was conducted on a sample of 177 adolescents in Poland. The main part of the questionnaire consisted of two scales: the scale of knowledge and attitudes on surveillance capitalism, and the scale of online institutional privacy protection practices. The results of the study, calculated by statistical methods, showed that although the majority of respondents had average knowledge and attitudes about surveillance capitalism, which may result from insufficient knowledge of the subject matter, this participation in specialized activities/workshops influences the level of intensification of online institutional privacy protection practices.

Keywords

EN

institutional privacy, surveillance capitalism, Polish adolescents, online privacy protection practices

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej
• Journal: Mediatization Studies
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 2

Dates

published

2018

online

2019-06-26

Contributors

author

Grzegorz Ptaszek

References

• Acquisti A., Gross R. (2006). Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. https://dataprivacylab.org/dataprivacy/projects/facebook/facebook2.pdf, 23.03.2018.
• Andrejevic M. (2012). Exploitation in the data-mine. In C. Fuchs, K. Boersma, A. Albrechtslund, M. Sandoval (Eds.), Internet and Surveillance: The Challenges of Web 2.0 and Social Media. Routledge: New York, pp. 71–88.
• Andrejevic M. (2014). Big Data divide. International Journal of Communication, 8, pp. 1673–1689.
• Barnes S. B. (2006). A privacy paradox: social networking in the United States, First Monday. Journal on the Internet, Vol. 11(9). http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_9/barnes/index.html, 03.02.2018.
• Blank G., Bolsover G., Dubois E. (2014). New Privacy Paradox: Young people and privacy on social networks sites. Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre: Oxford. https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/A%20New%20Privacy%20Paradox%20April%202014.pdf, 12.12.2018.
• boyd d. (2014). It’s complicated. The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press: New Haven, London.
• boyd d., Crawford K. (2011). Six provocations for Big Data. Retrieved from http://softwarestudies.com/cultural_analytics/Six_Provocations_for_Big_Data.pdf, 12.12.2018.
• boyd d., Hargittai E. (2010). Facebook privacy settings: who cares?, First Monday. Journal on the Internet, Vo. 15(8), http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3086/2589, 21.03.2018.
• Büchi M., Just N., Latzer M. (2016). Caring is not enough: the importance of Internet skills for online privacy protection, Information, Communication & Society, 20(8), 1261–1278. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1229001, 21.03.2018.
• Citron D. K., Pasquale F. A. (2014). The Scored Society: Due Process for Automated Predictions, Washington Law Review, Vol. 89, p. 1–33.
• Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2018). Data colonialism: Rethinking Big Data’s Relation to the Contemporary Subject, Television & New Media.
• Culver, H. S., & Grizzle, A. (2017). Survey on Privacy in Media and Information Literacy with Youth Perspectives. Paris, France: UNESCO. Retrived from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002589/258993e.pdf, 21.03.2018.
• Debatin B., Lovejoy J. P., Horn A.-K., Hughes B. N. (2009). Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 15(1), pp. 83–108.
• Degli Esposti, S. (2014). What big data meets dataveillance: The hidden side of analytics. Surveillance and Society, Vol. 12 (2), pp. 209–225, www.surveillance-and-society.org, 07.04.2018.
• Digital in 2018. (2018). We are social. Retrieved from https://digitalreport.wearesocial.com/Dijck van J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, Vol. 12(2), pp. 197–208.
• European Union, DG COMM. (2016). Flash Eurobarometer 443. Raport e-Privacy. European Union: Brussels, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/eurobarometer-eprivacy, 07.01.2018.
• Halavais A. (2009) Search Engine Society. Polity Press.
• Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C., & Ranzini, G. (2016). Privacy cynicism: A new approach to the privacy paradox. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 10(4), article 7.
• Jernigan C., Mistree F.T. B. (2009). Gaydar: Facebook frendships expose sexual orientation, First Monday, 14 (10)/ https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2611/2302.7, 21.03.2018.
• Kennedy H., Poell T., Dijck van J. (2015). Data and agency, Big Data & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715621569, 12.01.2019.
• Kokolakis S., 2017, Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon, Computers&Security, vo. 64, pp. 122–134.
• Kosinski M., Stillwell D., Graepel T., Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior, „Proceedings of the National Academy of Science” 2013, vol. 110, pp. 5802–5805.
• Latour B. (2007). Beware, you imagination leaves digital traces, http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/P-129-THES-GB.pdf, 07.10.2017.
• Litt E. (2013). Understanding social network site users’ privacy tool use. Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 29, pp. 1649–1656.
• Lutz C., Ranzini G. (2017). Where Dating Meets Data: Investigating Social and Institutional Privacy Concerns on Tinder. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117697735
• Lyon D., Bauman Z. (2013). Liquid surveillance. A conversation. Cambridge: Polity Press: Cambridge.
• Matzner T., Masur P. K., Ochs C., von Pape T. (2016). Do-It-Yourself Data Protection – Empowerment or Burden? In S. Gutwirth, R. Leenes, P. De Hert (Eds.), Data Protection on the Move. Law, Governance and Technology Series 24. Springer: Dordrecht, pp. 277–305.
• Mayer-Schonberger V., Cukier K. (2013). Big Data: A Revolution that Will Transform how We Live, Work, and Think. Boston, New York: An Eamon Dolan Book/ Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
• Milanesi C. (2018). US Consumers Want More Transparency from Facebook; https://techpinions.com/us-consumers-want-more-transparency-from-facebook/52653, 21.03.2018.
• Newman N, Fletcher R., Kalogeropoulos A., Levy D. A. L., Nielsen R. K. (2017). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017. Oxford, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Digital%20News%20Report%202017%20web_0.pdf, 21.03.2018.
• Nadler A., Crain M., Donovan J. (2018). Weaponizing the Digital Influence Machine: The Political Perils of Online Ad Tech. Data&Society Research Institute; https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10DS_Digital_Influence_Machine.pdf, 21.03.2018.
• Nissenbaum H. (2011). A contextual approach to privacy online. Daedalus, Vol. 140 (4), pp. 32–48, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2567042, 04.03.2018.
• Nissenbaum H. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford Law Books: Palo Alto, CA.
• Raynes-Goldie K. (2010). Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning: Understanding privacy in the age of Facebook, First Monday, Vol. 15 (1–4), http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i1.2775, 04.04.2018.
• Sundar S. S., Marathe S. S. (2010). Personalization versus Customization: The Importance of Agency, Privacy, and Power Usage, Human Communication Research, vol. 36(3), pp. 298–322.
• Taddicken M. (2014). The ‘Privacy Paradox’ in the Social Web: The Impact of Privacy Concerns, Individual Characteristics, and the Perceived Social Relevance on Different Forms of Self Disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 19(2), pp. 248–273.
• Tamir D.I., Mitchell J.P. (2012). Disclosing information about the self is intrinsically rewarding, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 109 (21), pp. 8038–8043.
• Trepte S., Dienlin T., Reinecke L. (2014). Risky behaviors: How online experiences influence privacy behaviors, In Von der Gutenberg-Galaxis zur Google-Galaxis, B. Stark, O. Quiring, N. Jackob (Eds.). UVK, pp. 225–244.
• Trepte S., Teutsch D., Masur P. K., Eicher C., Fischer M., Hennhöfer A., Lind F. (2015). Do People Know About Privacy and Data Protection Strategies? Towards the “Online Privacy Literacy Scale” (OPLIS), In Reforming European Data Protection Law, S. Gutwirth, R. Leenes, P. de Hert (Eds.). Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media, pp. 333–365.
• Turow J., Feldman L., Meltzer K. (2005). Open to Exploitation: America’s Shoppers Onlineand Offline. A Report from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania; http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/35, 21.03.2018.
• Uricchio W., The Algorithmic Turn: Photosynth, Augmented Reality and the Changing Implication of the Image, „Visual Studies” 2011, vol. 26(1), p. 27.
• Young A. L., Quan-Haase A. (2013). Privacy Protection Strategies on Facebook, Information, Communication & Society, vol. 16 (4), pp. 479–500.
• Zuboff S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for the Future anf New Frontier of Power. London: Profile Books.
• Zuboff S. (2015). Big Other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civilization. Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 30, pp. 75–89.

Identifiers

DOI

10.17951/ms.2018.2.49-68