Skip to main content

Digital Natives and the Metamorphosis of the European Information Society. The Emerging Behavioral Trends Regarding Privacy and Their Legal Implications

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Data Protection: Coming of Age

Abstract

European society is going through a process of metamorphosis as digital natives are becoming of age. This new generation of individuals, who have grown up immersed in information and communication technologies, reveal interesting behavioural patterns regarding the disclosure of personal information, profiling and protection of personal data. How do these emerging attitudes, expectations and behaviours shape society and how does the current set of normative rules enshrined in the existing European legal framework of data protection influence them? The objective of this article is to analyse how observed behavioural trends of digital natives regarding the protection of personal data should be taken into account in future revisions of the legal regulatory framework.

The research on digital natives is based on Eurobarometer 359, “The State of Electronic Identity and Data Protection in Europe” (published in June 2011), which constitutes the largest survey ever on citizens’ behaviours and attitudes concerning identity management, data protection and privacy.

Taking into account the behaviours of digital natives vis-à-vis the disclosure of personal data, the article argues that European data protection law is running the risk of falling into a legally paternalistic temptation, rigidly protecting citizens from the consequences of their actions and losing touch with the reality of data subjects’ expectations and behaviours. As a consequence, the paper argues that future revisions of the legal framework could take into account the image of the emerging digital natives, recommending the introduction of a higher degree of flexibility in the application of its rules while keeping its core values intact

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The authors acknowledge that, while the term ‘digital natives’ is widely used, its definitions vary: sometimes referring to teenagers, sometimes to adolescents and sometimes to all people under 35. For the purpose of this paper, we take into account the age categories used in the special Eurobarometer 359/2011 “Attitudes on Data Protection and Electronic Identity in the European Union”, in which DN are identified in the young people aged 15–24. For a wide research study conducted in Europe on the Internet use among children and youngsters (aged 9–16) see the EU Kids Online project,http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/Home.aspx.

  2. 2.

    This EB updates and integrates the EurobarometerData Protection in the European Union: citizens’ perceptions, Analytical Report, February 2008,http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_225_sum_en.pdf.

  3. 3.

    The survey was conducted in 27 EU Member States via a national, random-stratified sample of ∼1,000 interviews; overall, 26,574 Europeans aged 15 and over were interviewed face-to-face in their homes, between 25/11 and 17/12 of 2010

  4. 4.

    Wainer Lusoli, et al.Pan-European Survey of practices, attitudes & policy preferences as regard personal identity data management. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, EUR 25295, available athttp://is.jrc.eu.europa.eu/pages/TFS/eidsurvey.html

  5. 5.

    http://www.practis.org/. Though the purpose of the PRACTIS project is to assess “the potential impacts of emerging and future technologies on privacy and privacy perceptions”, and “how the developments of new technologies may induce shifts in perceptions about privacy”, we deem that some of its main findings are valid to the aim of our paper, in particular those related to the possible generational gap between adults and younger people.

  6. 6.

    http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/Home.aspx.

  7. 7.

    Chris Hoofnagle et al.,How different are Young adults from older adults when it comes to information privacy attitudes and policies Survey, April 14, 2010,http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/privacyroundtable/544506-00125.pdf.

  8. 8.

    Ibid.

  9. 9.

    This definition is taken from Marc Prensky “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants”, inOn The Horizon. 6 MCB University Press (2001).

  10. 10.

    Further to Prensky’s study, another focused research study on DN is the one developed by John Palfrey and Urs Grasser,Born Digital, New York: Basic Books, 2008. This work is the result of an ongoing interdisciplinary project of the University of Harvard and University of St Gallen, available at:http://www.borndigitalbook.com/.

  11. 11.

    See,inter alia, Nishant Shah and Fieke Jansen.Digital AlterNatives With a Cause? Book One, To Be. The Center for Internet and Society (CIS), 2011,http://www.scribd.com/nilofarh/d/65628308-Book-1-To-Be-Digital-Alternatives-With-a-Cause; See, moreover, David Buckingham.Youth, Identity and Digital Media, Cambridge: MIT Press, 2008; Rebecca Eynon and L. E. Malmberg (2011), A typology of young people’s Internet use: Implications for education, 56Computers & Education (2011): 585; Catrina Denvir, et al. “Surfing the web- Recreation or resource? Exploring how young people in the UK use the Internet as an advice portal for problems with a legal dimension”,Interacting with Computers 23 (2011): 96-104; Yair Amichai-Hamburger, Gideon Vinitzky “Social network use and personality”, 26Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (2011) 1289.

  12. 12.

    Sue Bennett et al. “The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence”British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (2008): 775. The difference between DN and older generation of users would lie in the appropriation of technologies, not in their ability to use it. Moreover, some scholars sustain that young people with Internet literacy tend to cope with more risks, but the level of exposure to online risks remains high also for those with lower Internet literacy: self-confidence, in fact, would go with more exposure to online risks. See also Sofie Vandoninck et al. “Digital Literacy among Flemish adolescents: How do they handle online content risks?”Communications 35 (2010): 397.

  13. 13.

    For an overview on the different concepts regarding Digital Natives see: Michael Thomas,Deconstructing Digital Natives, Young people and new literacy, Routledge 2001.

  14. 14.

    Anoush Margaryan et al. “Are digital natives a myth or reality?”Computers & Education 56 (2011) 429.

  15. 15.

    See the study of Chris Hoofnagle et al., mentioned above.

  16. 16.

    For an overview on the common discourse on DN in media, literature and education, built on the assumption that “youth do not care about privacy” see: Alice Marwick et al. “Youth, Privacy and Reputation”,Berkman Center Research Publication, Harvard: Harvard University (2010).

  17. 17.

    See EB 359, 45.

  18. 18.

    Wainer Lusoli et al. “Pan-European Survey”, 71. Interesting figures emerging from the EB 359 are also those related to control and responsibility perceptions of EU citizens using SNS. People thinking that disclosure is unavoidable are more likely to think they are responsible for protecting, rather than companies. People who are happy to disclose consider public authorities to be the ones responsible for the correct treatment of their data are responsible, rather than companies. However, there is no relation between self-responsibility and identity protection behaviours. Even people that feel responsible for their own data, do little to protect their personal data once they have been disclosed. This may be due to the lack of effective tools allowing people to take care of their data. But when tools are available, such as privacy notices, “responsible-feeling” people do read them. See Wainer Lusoli et al. “Pan-European Survey”, 43.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., 39: “General pattern emerges from the socio-demographic analysis of the types of personal information disclosed on social networking or sharing sites. The younger the social or sharing site users are, the more likely they are to disclose their names (85 %), their photos (65 %), their nationality (54 %), the things they do (50 %), who their friends are (51 %) etc.”.

  20. 20.

    See EB 359, 4.

  21. 21.

    See PRACTIS Deliverable D3.4 final, Report on changing perceptions of privacy and the changing role of the State,http://www.practis.org/UserFiles/File/D3%204_final_report_20110725.pdf. One should note that the PRACTIS Report considers this behaviour as “privacy-treating behaviour”, underlining younger peoples’ lower awareness as regards privacy risks.

  22. 22.

    Ibid, 7.

  23. 23.

    danah boyd, Alice Marwick, Social Privacy in Network Publics: teens’ Attitudes, Practices and Strategies, paper presented at Oxford Internet Institute’s “A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society” on September 22, 2011,http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1925128, 10–13.

  24. 24.

    Ralph Gross and Alessandro Acquisti, “Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Network (The Facebook case)”,Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES), New York, 2005.

  25. 25.

    In subsequent research findings, the same authors (Alessandro Acquisti and Ralph Ross “Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing and Privacy on the Facebook”, inPET 2006, ed. G. Danezis and P. Golle, Cambridge, LNCS 4258 (2006): 36) seemingly mitigated their assertions, acknowledging that members of communities do exhibit privacy concerns, though they are not deterred by them from joining the community.

  26. 26.

    See EB 359, 160–167.

  27. 27.

    Alice Marwick et al. 4.

  28. 28.

    As Alice Marwick et al. highlight, the policy and technical solutions proposed until now are based on this assumption and presume that young people would not disclose their personal information if they understood the risks, consequently they focus predominantly on making DN aware of the consequences of disclosing information.

  29. 29.

    James Grimmelman (2010), Privacy as Product Safety, 26Widener Law Journal, 793, talks about these assumptions as “myths of privacy”.

  30. 30.

    Alice Marwick et al. 4. In a recent lawsuit in U.S., a Minnesota middle school student claimed a violation of her privacy rights by her school district, perpetrated through a search over her Facebook and emails account, confirming these different perceptions of privacy. See “Minnesota girl alleges school privacy invasion, March 10, 2012,http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-10/us/us_minnesota-student-privacy_1_school-counselor-school-house-gate-facebook?_s=PM:US.

  31. 31.

    Maria Karyda, Spyros Kokolakis Privacy Perceptions among Members of online Communities, inDigital Privacy, Theories, Technologies and Practices, ed. A. Acquisti, S. Gritzalis et al., New York: Auerbach Pub. (2008) distinguish different types of privacy: physical, interactional, psychological and informational privacy. Moreover they wonder how the concept of privacy protection may be affected by the fact that people online often have multiple (virtual) identities or profiles.

  32. 32.

    Alice Marwick et al. 5.

  33. 33.

    danah boyd, Alice Marwick, Social Privacy in Network Publics: teens’ Attitudes, Practices and Strategies, paper presented at Oxford Internet Institute’s “A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society” on September 22, 2011,http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1925128.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., 10.

  35. 35.

    danah boyd, Alice Marwick, Social Privacy in Network Publics, 18–20. See also Mimi Ito et al. Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project.The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning, 52 (2008),http://www.itofisher.com/mito/weblog/2008/11/living_and_learning_with_new_m.html; and Emily Christofides, Amy Muise and Serge Desmarais, Information Disclosure and Control on Facebook: Are They Two Sides of the Same Coin or Two Different Processes?CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(3), 341–345 2009.

  36. 36.

    Heather West, Is Online Privacy a Generational Issue?GeekDad, Wired.com, 2009,http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/10/is-online-privacy-a-generational-issue/.

  37. 37.

    Ibid.

  38. 38.

    PRACTIS Deliverable D3.4 final, Report on changing perceptions of privacy and the changing role of the State, 7,http://www.practis.org/UserFiles/File/D3%204_final_report_20110725.pdf.

  39. 39.

    Chris Hoofnagle et al.,How different are Young adults from older adults when it comes to information privacy attitudes and policies Survey, April 14, 2010,http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/privacyroundtable/544506-00125.pdf.

  40. 40.

    Nonetheless, the Berkeley’s report also presents data on the DN’s lack of knowledge about the effective privacy protection ensured by the law. It concludes that the young adults do have an aspiration for increased privacy, but the business environment and other factors encourage them to disclose data in order to enjoy social inclusion. The suggestion from Hoofnagle et al. is, thus, to search for forms of assistance in the educational and regulatory field.

  41. 41.

    PRACTIS Deliverable D3.4 final, 6.

  42. 42.

    Helen Nissenbaum, “Privacy as contextual integrity”,Washington Law Review, 79 (2004): 101.

  43. 43.

    Gordon Hull, et al., Contextual Gaps: Privacy issues on Facebook,Ethics and Information Technology, 4, (2011): 289,http://ssrn.com/abstract=1427546.

  44. 44.

    danah boyd, Alice Marwick, Social Privacy in Network Publics: teens’ Attitudes, Practices and Strategies, paper presented at Oxford Internet Institute’s “A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society” on September 22, 2011,http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1925128.

  45. 45.

    The OECD Guidelines and the Convention 108 were, in effect, put in place before the advent of the World Wide Web as a public network.

  46. 46.

    Omer Tene, Privacy: The New Generations.International Data Privacy Law 1 (2011).

  47. 47.

    In a recent empirical study that characterizes and quantifies the amount of content of various types that is transferred worldwide using BitTorrent, it was found that content that is popular among teenagers is more likely to be disproportionately represented in BitTorrent as compared to content that appeals to an older audience. See, MATEUS, A. M. & PEHA, J. M. 2011. Quantifying Global Transfers of Copyrighted Content Using BitTorrent39th Telecommunications Policy Research Conference (TPRC) 2011 George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA.. This study has also concluded that BitTorrent Transfers result in hundreds of millions of copyright violations worldwide per day, and that copyright holders fail to realize significant revenues as a result. The analysis of this result in light of DN behavior practices lead us to discuss the adequacy and the (social) acceptance of current copyright laws (and the need to devise new alternative models to the existing one). The analysis of DN behavioural trends may also prove to be useful in the revision of copyright laws. Nevertheless, this discussion goes beyond the scope of this paper.

  48. 48.

    SWIRE, P. 2012 Social Networks, Privacy, and Freedom of Association: Data Empowerment vs. Data ProtectionNorth Carolina Law Review, 2012; Ohio State Public Law Working Paper 165; 2011 TPRC Conference.

  49. 49.

    The inefficiencies and shortcomings of the current data protection model, such as the ones developed in this section, have led legal scholars and computer scientists to put forward alternative models, presenting different proposals of how to attain a more effective enforcement of one’s privacy and data protection rights. This is the case of the proposal for introducing property rights in personal data (see Purtova, Nadezhda.Property Rights in Personal Data. A European Perspective, Kluwer Law International 2012.) or the proposal of a data protection approach based on the assertion of different categories of privacy harms (see CALO, M. R. 2011). The Boundaries of Privacy Harm.Indiana Law Journal 86.

  50. 50.

    http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/site/mySite/pid/74.

  51. 51.

    Chris Hoofnagle et al. “How Different are Young Adults from Older Adults”, 20.

  52. 52.

    Ian Brown, Data Protection: The New Technical and Political Environment.Computers & Law 20 (2010).

  53. 53.

    This mode of computing has been called “affective processing”, see Robert, W. Gehl, The Archive And The Processor: The Internal Logic Of Web 2.0New Media & Society 13 (2011): 1228.

  54. 54.

    Ibid. Surveys on privacy attitudes seem to suggest that some of today’s SNS users are aware of (and comfortable with) this commercial environment, while others are not. It needs further monitoring to see to what extent these attitudes might change over time.

  55. 55.

    Ibid.

  56. 56.

    Peter Swire. 2012 Social Networks, Privacy, and Freedom of Association: Data Empowerment vs. Data ProtectionNorth Carolina Law Review, 2012; Ohio State Public Law Working Paper 165; 2011 TPRC Conference. “I suggest the term ‘data empowerment’ to describe how individuals use personal data in social networks and the other many horizontal relationships enabled by modern computing … the 2008 Obama campaign and the Arab Spring symbolize the political dimension of this empowerment. The discussion of non-profit, religious and other expressive associations shows that the empowerment goes well beyond the realm of political power. More broadly, individuals are empowered to reach out to others on many dimensions, from the cultural (writing, photos, music), to the economic … to the everyday social interactions of the social networks themselves”, Peter Swire. 2012 Social Networks, Privacy, and Freedom of Association: Data Empowerment vs. Data ProtectionNorth Carolina Law Review, 2012; Ohio State Public Law Working Paper 165; 2011 TPRC Conference.

  57. 57.

    Furthermore, in a recent empirical study regarding how privacy laws affect the location decisions of Internet firms when faced with high legal standards of privacy protection, the ease of access to personal data proved to be a determinant factor. In effect, the study demonstrated that the more a jurisdiction makes collecting and using these data easy, the more attractive the country is. Such analysis highlighted a new privacy paradox according to which the more stringent certain online privacy laws are, the more they induce firms to locate their business in less stringent countries, and finally the weaker actual privacy protection on the internet is. See, Fabrice Rochelandet & Silvio H.T. Tai 2012. Do Privacy Laws Affect the Location Decisions of Internet Firms? Evidence for Privacy Havens Available:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2022160.

  58. 58.

    See also, in this respect, Peter Swire. 2012 Social Networks, Privacy, and Freedom of Association: Data Empowerment vs. Data Protection. The author also depicts the shift from vertical to horizontal relationships in computing.

  59. 59.

    The average Facebook user has 130 friends and is connected to 80 community pages, groups and events (http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics).

  60. 60.

    Art. 29 WP has clarified a number of instances where the activity of an SNS may not be covered by the household exemption, namely “when the SNS is used as collaboration platform for an association or company” or “when access to profile information extends beyond self-selected contacts, such as when access to a profile is provided to all members within the SNS or the data is indexable by search engines.” As noted in its Opinion, “a high number of contacts could be an indication that the household exception does not apply and therefore that the user would be considered a data controller”, Article 29 Working Party, Opinion 5/2009 on online social networking,2009b,http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2009/wp163_en.pdf.

  61. 61.

    Rebecca Wong, “Social networking: a conceptual analysis of a data controller”.Communications Law 14 (2009): 142–149.

  62. 62.

    Despite recognizing the lack of safeguards that need to be addressed for individuals who upload their own personal data into the internet (social networks, cloud computing services, etc.), Art. 29 WP “does not recommend, however, revising the terminology used in the Data protection framework for data controller and data subject relationship in the context of Web 2.0 technologies or cloud computing, but rather, to continue using the ‘data controller – data subject’ dichotomy and enhancing their responsibilities, which appears by some outmoded in Web 2.0 technologies” – Rebecca Wong, “Data protection: The future of privacy”.Computer Law & security Review 27(2011): 53. See also Article 29 Working Party 2009a. The Future of Privacy. Joint contribution to the Consultation of the European Commission on the legal framework for the fundamental right to protection of personal data.

  63. 63.

    In this light, a number of questions may be posed: What is to be understood by “purely personal purposes”? Does the posting of information on an SNS equate to the disclosure of information for private purposes, that is, to our private (although admittedly large) group of selected contacts? Or – depending on the access to the information – does it equate to disclosure of information to the public? How many people with access to that information would render its diffusion as processing of personal data for private purposes or, instead, as disclosure to the public?

  64. 64.

    See Article 2 (h) of DPD and article 2 (h) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

  65. 65.

    The systematic need for opt-in consent is also out of touch with the ubiquity of current and future mechanisms of data processing, rendering ineffective the existing notice and choice regime. In effect, with the forthcoming development of the Internet into an Ubiquitous Computing environment (also called Ambient Intelligence or Internet of Things), the current opt-in consent model is frankly not sustainable in the long run. The trend is to move towards a frictionless, mobile and ubiquitous technological environment in which the request for permanent consent will be extremely difficult to articulate. For an overview of the technological developments leading towards an Ambient Intelligence Scenario, see Norberto Andrade, Technology and Metaphors: from Cyberspace to Ambient Intelligence.Observatorio (OBS*) Journal 4 (2010): 121–146. For an overview of the challenges posed by the vision of Ambient Intelligence, see Antoinette Rouvroy, Privacy, Data Protection, and The Unprecedented Challenges of Ambient InteligenceStudies In Ethics, Law, And Technology Berkeley Electronic Press (2008).

  66. 66.

    Daniel Le Metayer and Shara Monteleone, “Automated Consent through Privacy Agent: legal requirements and technical architecture”,Computer Law Security Review 25 (2009) 136–144.

  67. 67.

    Lorenzo Allio, L. 2007. Better regulation and impact assessment in the European Commission.In: Colin Kirkpatrick & David Parker (eds.)Regulatory Impact Assessment. Towards Better Regulation? Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

  68. 68.

    See ec.europa.eu/governance/better_regulation/index_en.htm. The Better Regulation policy had its origin in 2001 with the Mandelkern report on Better Regulation. For an evolution of the “better/smart regulation” agenda at the level of the EU, seeIbid. Helen McColm. 2011. Smart Regulation: The European Commission’s Updated Strategy.European Journal of Risk Regulation 9–11. Lorenzo Allio. 2011. On the Smartness of Smart Regulation – A Brief Comment on the Future Reform Agenda.European Journal of Risk Regulation.

  69. 69.

    Furthermore, by re-labeling the strategy “Smart Regulation”, the EC has connected the two extremes of the policy cicle, enhancing the ex ante impact assessment of a given proposal, while devoting more attention to the ex post evaluation and outcomes of the produced legal instrument. See Helen Mccolm. 2011. Smart Regulation: The European Commission’s Updated Strategy.European Journal of Risk Regulation 9–11.

  70. 70.

    European Commission 2006. Better Regulation – Simply Explained. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

  71. 71.

    Lorenzo Allio. 2007. Better regulation and impact assessment in the European Commission.In: Colin Kirkpatrick & David Parker. (eds.)Regulatory Impact Assessment. Towards Better Regulation? Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

  72. 72.

    See, in general, Anne Meuwese, 2008.Impact Assessment in EU Lawmaking The Hague, Kluwer Law International.

  73. 73.

    Lorenzo Allio. 2010. Keeping the Centre of Gravity Work: Impact assessment, Scientific Advice and Regulatory Reform.European Journal of Risk Regulation 76–81.

  74. 74.

    Lorenzo Allio. 2007. Better regulation and impact assessment in the European Commission.In: Colin Kirkpatrick & David Parker. (eds.)Regulatory Impact Assessment. Towards Better Regulation? Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

  75. 75.

    As a process, IA “naturally spills over into the development of other equally crucial elements of regulatory reform, such as enhanced planning and programming; systematic and timely consultation practices, a smoother implementation and enforcement of legislation, and enhanced transparency and accountability” Lorenzo Allio. 2010. Keeping the Centre of Gravity Work: Impact assessment, Scientific Advice and Regulatory Reform.European Journal of Risk Regulation 76–81.

  76. 76.

    Ibid.

  77. 77.

    European Commission 2006. Better Regulation – Simply Explained. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

  78. 78.

    European Commission 2009. Impact Assessment Guidelines.

  79. 79.

    For a detailed description of these key analytical steps, along with practical examples of how they have been carried out in previous IAs, seeIbid.

  80. 80.

    Lorenzo Allio, 2010. Keeping the Centre of Gravity Work: Impact assessment, Scientific Advice and Regulatory Reform.European Journal of Risk Regulation 76–81.

  81. 81.

    Chris Reed, 2010. How to Make Bad Law: Lessons from the Computing and Communications SectorQueen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 40/2010.

  82. 82.

    Ibid.

  83. 83.

    Ibid.

  84. 84.

    Ibid.

  85. 85.

    Ibid. As a concrete example of an existing law redrafted to fit such lawmaking approach, Reed proceeds to a partial redraft of data protection law which aims to comply with the principles of law-system quality. See, Chris Reed. 2010. How to Make Bad Law: Lessons from the Computing and Communications Sector.

  86. 86.

    Article 29 Working Party, “The Future of Privacy. Joint contribution to the Consultation of the European Commission on the legal framework for the fundamental right to protection of personal data”, 2009a.http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2009/wp168_en.pdf.

  87. 87.

    It is obvious that perception – as a subjective factor – is inexorably influenced and shaped by the technological environment – objective factor – surrounding them.

  88. 88.

    “Not only technology has changed over the past 30 years: the individuals using it have changed too”, Omer Tene, “Pivacy: The New Generations”,International Data Privacy Law 1 (2011).

  89. 89.

    Aernout Schmidt. 2009. Radbruch in Cyberspace: About Law-System Quality and ICT Innovation.Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology 3.

References

  • Alessandro Acquisti and Ralph Ross. 2006. Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing and privacy on the facebook. Proceedings of Privacy Enhancing Technologies Workshop(PET) 2006, LNCS 4258, Springer: 36–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allio, Lorenzo. 2007. Better regulation and impact assessment in the European Commission. InRegulatory impact assessment. Towards better regulation? ed. C. Kirkpatrick and D. Parker. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allio, Lorenzo. 2010. Keeping the centre of gravity work: Impact assessment, scientific advice and regulatory reform.European Journal of Risk Regulation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allio, Lorenzo. 2011. On the smartness of smart regulation – A brief comment on the future reform agenda.European Journal of Risk Regulation 1: 19–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amichai-Hamburger, Yair, and Gideon Vinitzky. 2011. Social network use and personality.Computers in Human Behavior 26: 1289–1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, Norberto. 2010. Technology and metaphors: From cyberspace to ambient intelligence.Observatorio (OBS*) Journal 4: 121–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Article 29 Working Party. 2009a. The future of privacy. Joint contribution to the consultation of the European Commission on the legal framework for the fundamental right to protection of personal data.http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2009/wp168_en.pdf.

  • Article 29 Working Party. 2009b. Opinion 5/2009 on online social networking.http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2009/wp163_en.pdf.

  • Bennett, Sue, Karl Maton, and Lisa Kervin. 2008. The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence.British Journal of Educational Technology 39: 775–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, Danah and Alice Marwick. 2011. Social privacy in network publics: Teens’ attitudes, practices and strategies.. Paper presented at Oxford Internet Institute’s “A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society”.http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1925128. Accessed 22 Sept 2011.

  • Brown, Ian. 2010. Data protection: The new technical and political environment.Computers and Law 20(6): 40–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham, David. 2008.Youth, identity and digital media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calo, Ryan. 2011. The boundaries of privacy harm.Indiana Law Journal 86: 1131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Democracy and Technology Policy Post. 2009. The dawn of the location-enabled. https://www.cdt.org/policy/dawn-location-enabled-web.

  • Denvir, Catrina, Nijel J. Balmer, and Pascoe Pleasence. 2011. Surfing the web – Recreation or resource? Exploring how young people in the UK use the internet as an advice portal for problems with a legal dimension.Interacting with Computers 23: 96–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2006.Better regulation – simply explained. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2009.Impact Assessment Guidelines. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eynon, Rebecca, and L.E. Malmberg. 2011. A typology of young people’s internet use: Implications for education.Computers in Education 56(3): 585–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehl, Robert W. 2011. The archive and the processor: The internal logic of web 2.0.New Media and Society 13(8): 1228–1244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, Hull, Heather R. Lipford, and Celine Latulipe. 2011. Contextual gaps: Privacy issues on Facebook.Ethics and Information Technology 13(4): 289–302.http://ssrn.com/abstract=1427546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimmelman James. 2010. Privacy as product safety.Widener Law Journal 19: 793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, Ralph and Alessandro Acquisti. 2005. Information revelation and privacy in online social network (The Facebook case). InProceedings of the ACM workshop on privacy in the electronic society (WPES), New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoofnagle, Chris, Jennifer King, Su Li, and Joseph Turow. 2010. How different are young adults from older adults when it comes to information privacy attitudes and policies?. Survey.http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/privacyroundtable/544506-00125.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2010.

  • Karyda, Maria, and Spyros Kokolakis. 2008. Privacy perceptions among members of online communities. InDigital privacy, theries, technologies and practices, ed. Alessandro Acquisti, Stefanos Gritzalis, Costas Lambrinousakis, and Sabrina De Capitani di Vecemercati. New York: Auerbach Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Métayer, Daniel, and Shara Monteleone. 2009. Automated consent through privacy agent: Legal requirements and technical architecture.Computer Law Security Review 25(2): 136–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusoli, Wainer, Margherita Bacigalupo, Francisco Lupiañez, Norberto Andrade, Shara Monteleone, and Ioannis Maghiros. 2012.Pan-European Survey of practices, attitudes & policy preferences as regard personal identity data management. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, EUR 25295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margaryan, Anoush, Allison Littlejohn, and Gabrielle Vojt. 2011. Are digital natives a myth or reality?Computers in Education 56: 429–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marwick, Alice, Diego Murgia-Díaz, and John Palfrey. 2010. Youth, privacy and reputation.Berkman Center Research Publications No. 2010-5. Harvard: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mateus, Alexandre. M., and Jon. M. Peha. 2011. Quantifying global transfers of copyrighted content using BitTorrent. In39th telecommunications policy research conference (TPRC) 2011. Arlington: George Mason University School of Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mccolm, Helen. 2011. Smart regulation: The European Commission’s updated strategy.European Journal of Risk Regulation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuwese, Anne. 2008.Impact assessment in EU lawmaking. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Last accessed June 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnesota girl alleges school privacy invasion,CNN U.S., 10 Mar 2012,http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-10/us/us_minnesota-student-privacy_1_school-counselor-school-house-gate-facebook?_s=PM:US.

  • Nissenbaum, Helen. 2004. Privacy as contextual integrity.Washington Law Review 79(1): 119–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palfrey, John, and Urs Grasser. 2008.Born digital. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascu, Corina, David Osimo, Geomina Turlea, Martin Ulbric, Yves Punie, and Jean-Claude Burgelman. 2008. Social computing – Implications for the EU innovation landscape.Foresight 10(1): 37–52. Emerald.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poullet, Yves. 2010. About the E-privacy directive: Towards a third generation of data protection legislation? InData protection in a profiled world, ed. Serge Gutwirth, Yves Poullet, and Paul De Hert. Dordrecht/London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, Marc. 2001. Digital natives, digital immigrants.On The Horizon 9(5): 1–6. MCB University Press.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purtova, Nadezhda. 2012.Property rights in personal data. A European perspective. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C. 2010. How to make bad law: Lessons from the computing and communications sector. Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 40/2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riva, Giuseppe. 2005. The psychology of ambient intelligence: Activity, situation and presence. InAmbient intelligence: The evolution of technology, communication and cognition towards the future of human-computer interaction, ed. Giuseppe Riva, F. VItalaro, F. Davide, and M. Alcaniz. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochelandet, Fabrice, and Silvio H. T. Tai. 2012. Do privacy laws affect the location decisions of internet firms? Evidence for privacy havens. Available:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2022160.

  • Rouvroy, Antoinette. 2008. Privacy, data protection, and the unprecedented challenges of ambient inteligence.Studies in ethics, law, and technology. Berkeley: Berkeley Electronic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, Nishant and Fieke Jansen. 2011.Digital alternatives with a cause? Book one: To Be. Bangalore: The Center for Internet and Society, available athttp://www.scribd.com/nilofarh/d/65628308-Book-1-To-Be-Digital-Alternatives-With-a-Cause.

  • Shmidt, Aernout. 2009. Radbruch in cyberspace: About law-system quality and ICT innovation.Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology 3(2): 195–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solove, Daniel. 2008.Understanding privacy. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swire, Peter. 2012. Social networks, privacy, and freedom of association: Data empowerment vs. data protection.North Carolina Law Review, 2012; Ohio State Public Law Working Paper 165; 2011 TPRC Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tene, Omer. 2011. Privacy: The new generations.International Data Privacy Law 1(1): 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, Micheal. 2001.Deconstructing digital natives. Young people and new literacy. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandoninck, Sofie, Leen d’Haenens, and Veronica Donoso. 2010. Digital literacy among Flemish adolescents: How do they handle with online risks?Communications 35(4): 397–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, Heather 2009. Is online privacy a generational issue?.GeekDad, Wired.com.http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/10/is-online-privacy-a-generational-issue/.

  • Wong, Rebecca. 2009. Social networking: A conceptual analysis of a data controller.Communications Law 14(5): 142–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, Rebecca. 2011. Data protection: The future of privacy.Computer Law and Security Review 27(1): 53–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norberto Nuno Gomes de Andrade .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

de Andrade, N.N.G., Monteleone, S. (2013). Digital Natives and the Metamorphosis of the European Information Society. The Emerging Behavioral Trends Regarding Privacy and Their Legal Implications. In: Gutwirth, S., Leenes, R., de Hert, P., Poullet, Y. (eds) European Data Protection: Coming of Age. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5170-5_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics