Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors of Intention to Use a Photo Tool: Comparison Between Privacy-Enhancing and Non-privacy-enhancing Tools

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
ICT Systems Security and Privacy Protection (SEC 2023)

Part of the book series: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology ((IFIPAICT,volume 679))

  • 15 Accesses

Abstract

Tools that detect and transform privacy sensitive information in user content have been proposed to enhance privacy in contexts such as social media. However, previous research has found that privacy-related concerns can be higher in these types of tools compared to similar non-privacy tools. In this paper, we focus on adoption of these tools and investigate how the knowledge that a data-processing tool has a privacy purpose affects privacy-related factors of intention to use such a tool, when compared with a similar tool with a non-privacy-related purpose. We conducted a user study where we described a privacy-enhancing and a non-privacy-enhancing photo manipulation app to two groups of participants. The results show that general and context-specific privacy-related perception has different effects for the two types of apps. In particular, although participants perceived the same level of privacy risk towards both types of apps, this risk only had a significant negative effect on intention to use in the case of the privacy-enhancing app. Furthermore, disposition to value privacy increased both perceived risk and intention to use the privacy-enhancing app. We discuss these findings in the context of the diffusion of privacy-enhancing tools for user content.

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

Access this chapter

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 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bracamonte, V., Pape, S., Loebner, S.: “All apps do this”: comparing privacy concerns towards privacy tools and non-privacy tools for social media content. Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol. 2022(3) (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bracamonte, V., Tesfay, W.B., Kiyomoto, S.: Towards exploring user perception of a privacy sensitive information detection tool. In: 7th International Conference on Information Systems Security and Privacy (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Corner, M., Dogan, H., Mylonas, A., Djabri, F.: A usability evaluation of privacy add-ons for web browsers. In: Marcus, A., Wang, W. (eds.) HCII 2019. LNCS, vol. 11586, pp. 442–458. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23535-2_33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Dijkstra, T.K., Henseler, J.: Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Q. 39(2), 297–316 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dinev, T., McConnell, A.R., Smith, H.J.: Research commentary—informing privacy research through information systems, psychology, and behavioral economics: thinking outside the “APCO’’ box. Inf. Syst. Res. 26(4), 639–655 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dinev, T., Xu, H., Smith, J.H., Hart, P.: Information privacy and correlates: an empirical attempt to bridge and distinguish privacy-related concepts. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22(3), 295–316 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hair, J., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N., Ray, S.: Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M.: When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Harborth, D., Pape, S.: How privacy concerns and trust and risk beliefs influence users’ intentions to use privacy-enhancing technologies – the case of tor. In: 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) 2019, pp. 4851–4860 (2019). https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/59923

  10. Harborth, D., Pape, S.: How privacy concerns, trust and risk beliefs and privacy literacy influence users’ intentions to use privacy-enhancing technologies - the case of tor. ACM SIGMIS Database: DATABASE Adv. Inf. Syst. 51(1), 51–69 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3380799.3380805. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3380799.3380805

  11. Harborth, D., Pape, S., Rannenberg, K.: Explaining the technology use behavior of privacy-enhancing technologies: the case of tor and Jondonym. Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol. (PoPETs) 2020(2), 111–128 (2020). https://doi.org/10.2478/popets-2020-0020. https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/popets/2020/2/article-p111.xml

  12. Hasan, R., Crandall, D., Fritz, M., Kapadia, A.: Automatically detecting bystanders in photos to reduce privacy risks. In: 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 318–335 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/SP40000.2020.00097

  13. Henseler, J.: PLS-MGA: a non-parametric approach to partial least squares-based multi-group analysis. In: Gaul, W., Geyer-Schulz, A., Schmidt-Thieme, L., Kunze, J. (eds.) Challenges at the Interface of Data Analysis, Computer Science, and Optimization. STUDIES CLASS, pp. 495–501. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24466-7_50

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. Int. Mark. Rev. (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jarvenpaa, S.L., Tractinsky, N., Saarinen, L.: Consumer trust in an internet store: a cross-cultural validation. J. Comput.-Mediated Commun. 5(2), JCMC526 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00337.x

  16. Kang, R., Brown, S., Dabbish, L., Kiesler, S.: Privacy attitudes of mechanical Turk workers and the U.S. public. In: 10th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2014), pp. 37–49 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Klesel, M., Schuberth, F., Henseler, J., Niehaves, B.: A test for multigroup comparison using partial least squares path modeling. Internet Res. 29(3), 464–477 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-11-2017-0418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kock, N., Hadaya, P.: Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: the inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods. Inf. Syst. J. 28(1), 227–261 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kokolakis, S.: Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: a review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Comput. Secur. 64, 122–134 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Korayem, M., Templeman, R., Chen, D., Crandall, D., Kapadia, A.: Enhancing lifelogging privacy by detecting screens. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2016, pp. 4309–4314. Association for Computing Machinery (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858417

  21. Li, Y., Vishwamitra, N., Knijnenburg, B.P., Hu, H., Caine, K.: Effectiveness and users’ experience of obfuscation as a privacy-enhancing technology for sharing photos. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1(CSCW), 67:1–67:24 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3134702

  22. Lin, T.Y., et al.: Microsoft COCO: common objects in context. In: Fleet, D., Pajdla, T., Schiele, B., Tuytelaars, T. (eds.) ECCV 2014. LNCS, pp. 740–755. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10602-1_48

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S., Agarwal, J.: Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): the construct, the scale, and a causal model. Inf. Syst. Res. 15(4), 336–355 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1040.0032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pavlou, P.A.: Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 7(3), 101–134 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.M.: SmartPLS 3 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Thiele, K.O., Gudergan, S.P.: Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: where the bias lies! J. Bus. Res. 69(10), 3998–4010 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schaub, F., et al.: Watching them watching me: browser extensions impact on user privacy awareness and concern. In: Proceedings 2016 Workshop on Usable Security. Internet Society (2016). https://doi.org/10.14722/usec.2016.23017

  28. Sleeper, M., et al.: “I read my Twitter the next morning and was astonished”: a conversational perspective on Twitter regrets. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2013, pp. 3277–3286. Association for Computing Machinery (2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466448

  29. Smith, H.J., Milberg, S.J., Burke, S.J.: Information privacy: measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices. MIS Q. 20(2), 167–196 (1996). https://doi.org/10.2307/249477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Spiel, K., Haimson, O.L., Lottridge, D.: How to do better with gender on surveys: a guide for HCI researchers. Interactions 26(4), 62–65 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3338283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 157–178 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wang, Y., Norcie, G., Komanduri, S., Acquisti, A., Leon, P.G., Cranor, L.F.: “I regretted the minute I pressed share”: a qualitative study of regrets on Facebook. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2011, pp. 1–16. Association for Computing Machinery (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/2078827.2078841

  33. Xu, H., Dinev, T., Smith, J., Hart, P.: Information privacy concerns: linking individual perceptions with institutional privacy assurances. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 12(12) (2011). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00281

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. KDDI Research, Inc., Saitama, Japan

    Vanessa Bracamonte

  2. Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

    Sebastian Pape & Sascha Löbner

Authors
  1. Vanessa Bracamonte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastian Pape
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sascha Löbner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vanessa Bracamonte .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center, Poznań, Poland

    Norbert Meyer

  2. Poznań University of Technology, Poznań, Poland

    Anna Grocholewska-Czuryło

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Bracamonte, V., Pape, S., Löbner, S. (2024). Factors of Intention to Use a Photo Tool: Comparison Between Privacy-Enhancing and Non-privacy-enhancing Tools. In: Meyer, N., Grocholewska-Czuryło, A. (eds) ICT Systems Security and Privacy Protection. SEC 2023. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 679. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56326-3_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56326-3_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-56325-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-56326-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation