Privacy and Technology: Folk Definitions and Perspectives.

Michelle N Kwasny, Kelly E Caine, Wendy A Rogers, Arthur D Fisk
{"title":"Privacy and Technology: Folk Definitions and Perspectives.","authors":"Michelle N Kwasny,&nbsp;Kelly E Caine,&nbsp;Wendy A Rogers,&nbsp;Arthur D Fisk","doi":"10.1145/1358628.1358846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this paper we present preliminary results from a study of individual differences in privacy beliefs, as well as relate folk definitions of privacy to extant privacy theory. Focus groups were conducted with young adults aged 18-28 and older adults aged 65-75. Participants first shared their individual definitions of privacy, followed by a discussion of privacy in six scenarios chosen to represent a range of potentially invasive situations. Taken together, Westin's and Altman's theories of privacy accounted for both younger and older adults' ideas about privacy, however, neither theory successfully accounted for findings across all age and gender groups. Whereas males tended to think of privacy in terms of personal needs and convenience, females focused more on privacy in terms of others, respecting privacy rights, and safety. Older adults tended to be more concerned about privacy of space rather than information privacy. Initial results reinforce the notion that targeting HCI design to the user population, even with respect to privacy, is critically important.</p>","PeriodicalId":74552,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference","volume":"2008 ","pages":"3291-3296"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1145/1358628.1358846","citationCount":"59","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1358628.1358846","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 59

Abstract

In this paper we present preliminary results from a study of individual differences in privacy beliefs, as well as relate folk definitions of privacy to extant privacy theory. Focus groups were conducted with young adults aged 18-28 and older adults aged 65-75. Participants first shared their individual definitions of privacy, followed by a discussion of privacy in six scenarios chosen to represent a range of potentially invasive situations. Taken together, Westin's and Altman's theories of privacy accounted for both younger and older adults' ideas about privacy, however, neither theory successfully accounted for findings across all age and gender groups. Whereas males tended to think of privacy in terms of personal needs and convenience, females focused more on privacy in terms of others, respecting privacy rights, and safety. Older adults tended to be more concerned about privacy of space rather than information privacy. Initial results reinforce the notion that targeting HCI design to the user population, even with respect to privacy, is critically important.

隐私和技术:民间定义和观点。
在本文中,我们介绍了隐私信仰的个体差异研究的初步结果,并将民间对隐私的定义与现有的隐私理论联系起来。焦点小组由18-28岁的年轻人和65-75岁的老年人组成。参与者首先分享了他们对隐私的个人定义,然后讨论了六种情况下的隐私,这些情况代表了一系列潜在的侵犯性情况。总的来说,威斯汀和奥特曼的隐私理论解释了年轻人和老年人对隐私的看法,然而,这两种理论都没有成功地解释所有年龄和性别群体的研究结果。男性倾向于从个人需求和便利的角度考虑隐私,而女性更关注他人的隐私,尊重隐私权和安全。老年人往往更关心空间隐私,而不是信息隐私。最初的结果强化了这样一个概念,即针对用户群体的HCI设计,即使是在隐私方面,也是至关重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信