Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Information

iConference 2023: Information for a Better World: Normality, Virtuality, Physicality, Inclusivity pp 229–250Cite as

What Makes a Technology Privacy Enhancing? Laypersons’ and Experts’ Descriptions, Uses, and Perceptions of Privacy Enhancing Technologies

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

  • 1097 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 13972))

Abstract

What makes a technology privacy-enhancing? In this study, we construct an explanation grounded in the technologies and practices that people report using to enhance their privacy. We conducted an online survey of privacy experts (i.e., privacy researchers and professionals who attend to privacy conferences and communication channels) and laypersons that catalogs the technologies they identify as privacy enhancing and the various privacy strategies they employ. The analysis of 123 survey responses compares not only self-reported tool use but also differences in how privacy experts and laypersons explain their privacy practices and tools use. Differences between the two samples show that privacy experts and laypersons have different styles of reasoning when considering PETs: Experts think of PETs as technologies whose primary function is enhancing privacy, whereas laypersons conceptualize privacy enhancement as a supplemental function incorporated into other technologies. The paper concludes with a discussion about potential explanations for these differences, as well as questions they raise about how technologies can best facilitate communication and collaboration while enhancing privacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A total of 106 Qualtrics participants were solicited: 6 as a preliminary test and 100 additional participants. However, only 99 entered any data in the survey. Qualtrics data collection was limited to U.S. respondents and ended before widespread emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.

  2. 2.

    https://whatis.snapchat.com accessed 9/15/2022.

  3. 3.

    https://www.signal.org/ accessed 9/15/2022.

References

  1. Acquisti, A., Taylor, C., Wagman, L.: The economics of privacy. J. Econ. Liter. 54(2), 442–92 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahern, S., Eckles, D., Good, N.S., King, S., Naaman, M., Nair, R.: Over-exposed? privacy patterns and considerations in online and mobile photo sharing. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. pp. 357–366 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ames, M.G., Go, J., Kaye, J., Spasojevic, M.: Understanding technology choices and values through social class. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 55–64 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Andalibi, N., Haimson, O.L., De Choudhury, M., Forte, A.: Understanding social media disclosures of sexual abuse through the lenses of support seeking and anonymity. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3906–3918 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baumer, E.P., Forte, A.: Undoing the privacy paradox with data styles (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beyer, H., Holtzblatt, K.: Contextual design. Interactions 6(1), 32–42 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Borking, J.J.: Why adopting privacy enhancing technologies (pets) takes so much time. In: Gutwirth, S., Poullet, Y., De Hert, P., Leenes, R. (eds.) Computers, Privacy and Data Protection: an Element of Choice, pp. 309–341. Springer, Dordrecht (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0641-5_15

  8. Bowker, G.C., Star, S.L.: Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. MIT press (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Boyatzis, R.E.: Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Sage (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3(2), 77–101 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brennan, M., Afroz, S., Greenstadt, R.: Adversarial stylometry: circumventing authorship recognition to preserve privacy and anonymity. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. (TISSEC) 15(3), 1–22 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Burkert, H., et al.: Privacy-enhancing technologies: typology, critique, vision. Technology and privacy: The new landscape, pp. 125–142 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Busse, K., Schäfer, J., Smith, M.: Replication: no one can hack my mind revisiting a study on expert and non-expert security practices and advice. In: Fifteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (\(\{\)SOUPS\(\}\) 2019), pp. 117–136 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Caulfield, T., Ioannidis, C., Pym, D.: On the adoption of privacy-enhancing technologies. In: Zhu, Q., Alpcan, T., Panaousis, E., Tambe, M., Casey, W. (eds.) GameSec 2016. LNCS, vol. 9996, pp. 175–194. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47413-7_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Caulfield, T., Ioannidis, C., Pym, D.: On the adoption of privacy-enhancing technologies. In: Zhu, Q., Alpcan, T., Panaousis, E., Tambe, M., Casey, W. (eds.) GameSec 2016. LNCS, vol. 9996, pp. 175–194. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47413-7_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Chua, W.Y., Chang, K.T.T., Wan, M.P.H.: Information privacy concerns among novice and expert users of solomo. In: PACIS (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Clark, J., Van Oorschot, P.C., Adams, C.: Usability of anonymous web browsing: an examination of tor interfaces and deployability. In: Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on Usable privacy and security, pp. 41–51 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Evangelho, J.: Why you should ditch google search and use duckduckgo. Forbes (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fisher, R.J.: Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. J. Consumer Res. 20(2), 303–315 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Forte, A., Andalibi, N., Greenstadt, R.: Privacy, anonymity, and perceived risk in open collaboration: A study of tor users and wikipedians. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, pp. 1800–1811 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gallagher, K.: Measurement and improvement of the tor user experience, Ph. D. thesis, New York University Tandon School of Engineering (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gallagher, K., Patil, S., Dolan-Gavitt, B., McCoy, D., Memon, N.: Peeling the onion’s user experience layer: examining naturalistic use of the tor browser. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 1290–1305 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gallagher, K., Patil, S., Memon, N.: New me: understanding expert and non-expert perceptions and usage of the tor anonymity network. In: Thirteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (\(\{\)SOUPS\(\}\) 2017), pp. 385–398 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Garg, V., Camp, J.: Heuristics and biases: implications for security design. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 32(1), 73–79 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gobet, F., Ereku, M.H.: What Is Expertise? Psychology Today (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Goldberg, I.: Privacy-enhancing technologies for the internet, ii: five years later. In: Dingledine, R., Syverson, P. (eds.) PET 2002. LNCS, vol. 2482, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36467-6_1

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Goldberg, I., Wagner, D., Brewer, E.: Privacy-enhancing technologies for the internet. In: Proceedings IEEE COMPCON 97. Digest of Papers, pp. 103–109. IEEE (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Guest, G., MacQueen, K.M., Namey, E.E.: Applied thematic analysis. Sage Publications (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Harborth, D., Pape, S., Rannenberg, K.: Explaining the technology use behavior of privacy-enhancing technologies: the case of Tor and Jondonym. Proceed. Privacy Enhancing Technol. 2020(2), 111–128 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hargittai, E., Marwick, A.: “what can i really do?’’ explaining the privacy paradox with online apathy. Int. J. Commun. 10, 21 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ion, I., Reeder, R., Consolvo, S.: “... no one can hack my mind”: comparing expert and non-expert security practices. In: Eleventh Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security (\(\{\)SOUPS\(\}\) 2015), pp. 327–346 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kang, R., Dabbish, L., Fruchter, N., Kiesler, S.: “My data just goes everywhere:” user mental models of the internet and implications for privacy and security. In: Eleventh Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security (\(\{\)SOUPS\(\}\) 2015), pp. 39–52 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kokolakis, S.: Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: a review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Comput. Secur. 64, 122–134 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167404815001017

  34. Lampinen, A., Tamminen, S., Oulasvirta, A.: All my people right here, right now: Management of group co-presence on a social networking site. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 281–290 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Leavitt, A.: “ this is a throwaway account” temporary technical identities and perceptions of anonymity in a massive online community. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pp. 317–327 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lee, L., Fifield, D., Malkin, N., Iyer, G., Egelman, S., Wagner, D.: A usability evaluation of Tor launcher. Proceed. Priv. Enhan. Technol. 2017(3), 90–109 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Marwick, A., Fontaine, C., Boyd, D.: “nobody sees it, nobody gets mad”: social media, privacy, and personal responsibility among low-ses youth. Soc. Media+ Soc. 3(2), 2056305117710455 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  38. McDonald, N., Forte, A.: The politics of privacy theories: moving from norms to vulnerabilities. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–14 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  39. McDonald, N., Schoenebeck, S., Forte, A.: Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: norms and guidelines for CSCW and HCI practice. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3(CSCW), 1–23 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3359174

  40. Mulligan, D.K., Koopman, C., Doty, N.: Privacy is an essentially contested concept: a multi-dimensional analytic for mapping privacy. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 374(2083), 20160118 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Oates, M., et al.: Turtles, locks, and bathrooms: understanding mental models of privacy through illustration. Proceed. Privacy Enhan. Technol. 2018(4), 5–32 (2018). https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/popets/2018/4/article-p5.xml

  42. Phelan, C., Lampe, C., Resnick, P.: It’s creepy, but it doesn’t bother me. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 5240–5251 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Posner, R.A.: The economics of privacy. Am. Econ. Rev. 71(2), 405–409 (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Renaud, K., Volkamer, M., Renkema-Padmos, A.: Why doesn’t jane protect her privacy? In: De Cristofaro, E., Murdoch, S.J. (eds.) PETS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8555, pp. 244–262. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08506-7_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Ruoti, S., Andersen, J., Zappala, D., Seamons, K.: Why Johnny still, still can’t encrypt: evaluating the usability of a modern PGP client. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.08555 (2015)

  46. Sheehan, K.B.: Toward a typology of internet users and online privacy concerns. Inf. Soc. 18(1), 21–32 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. Shen, Y., Pearson, S.: Privacy enhancing technologies: A review. HP Laboratories 2739, 1–30 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Sheng, S., Broderick, L., Koranda, C.A., Hyland, J.J.: Why Johnny still can’t encrypt: evaluating the usability of email encryption software. In: Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security, pp. 3–4. ACM (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Spiekermann, S.: The challenges of privacy by design. Commun. ACM 55(7), 38–40 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Stutzman, F., Hartzog, W.: Boundary regulation in social media. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 769–778 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Turner, E.C., Dasgupta, S.: Privacy on the web: an examination of user concerns, technology, and implications for business organizations and individuals. Inf.Syst. Manage. 20, 8–18 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Vemou, K., Karyda, M.: A classification of factors influencing low adoption of pets among sns users. In: International Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Digital Business, pp. 74–84. Springer (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Whitten, A., Tygar, J.D.: Why Johnny can’t encrypt: a usability evaluation of PGP5.0. In: USENIX Security Symposium, vol. 348, pp. 169–184 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Yardi, S., Bruckman, A.: Income, race, and class: exploring socioeconomic differences in family technology use. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3041–3050 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Young, A.L., Quan-Haase, A.: Privacy protection strategies on facebook: the internet privacy paradox revisited. Inf. Commun. Soc. 16(4), 479–500 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Zabihimayvan, M., Sadeghi, R., Doran, D., Allahyari, M.: A broad evaluation of the tor english content ecosystem. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science, pp. 333–342 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based on work supported in part by the NSF under Grants No. CNS-1814533 and CNS-1816264.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Luddy School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Houda Elmimouni

  2. College of Computing and Informatics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Erica Shusas & Andrea Forte

  3. Computer Science and Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA

    Patrick Skeba & Eric P. S. Baumer

Authors
  1. Houda Elmimouni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erica Shusas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrick Skeba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eric P. S. Baumer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrea Forte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Houda Elmimouni .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. iSchool Organization, Berlin, Germany

    Isaac Sserwanga

  2. Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    Anne Goulding

  3. University of Missouri, Chicago, IL, USA

    Heather Moulaison-Sandy

  4. University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Jia Tina Du

  5. University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    António Lucas Soares

  6. Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    Viviane Hessami

  7. University of Tennessee at Knoxville, Knoxville, TN, USA

    Rebecca D. Frank

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Elmimouni, H., Shusas, E., Skeba, P., Baumer, E.P.S., Forte, A. (2023). What Makes a Technology Privacy Enhancing? Laypersons’ and Experts’ Descriptions, Uses, and Perceptions of Privacy Enhancing Technologies. In: Sserwanga, I., et al. Information for a Better World: Normality, Virtuality, Physicality, Inclusivity. iConference 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13972. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28032-0_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28032-0_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-28031-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-28032-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation