A Contextual Approach to Information Privacy Research

Abstract

In this position paper, we synthesize various knowledge gaps in information privacy scholarship and propose a research agenda that promotes greater cross-disciplinary collaboration within the iSchool community and beyond. We start by critically examining Westin's conceptualization of information privacy and argue for a contextual approach that holds promise for overcoming some of Westin's weaknesses. We then highlight three contextual considerations for studying privacy-digital networks, marginalized populations, and the global context-and close by discussing how these considerations advance privacy theorization and technology design.

Full text

Forthcoming in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
A Contextual Approach to Information Privacy Research
Philip Fei Wu
Royal Holloway, University of London
Email: philip.wu@rhul.ac.uk
Jessica Vitak
University of Maryland, College Park
Email: jvitak@umd.edu
Michael T. Zimmer
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
Email: zimmerm@uwm.edu
Abstract
In this position paper, we synthesize various knowledge gaps in information privacy scholarship
and propose a research agenda that promotes greater cross-disciplinary collaboration within the
iSchool community and beyond. We start by critically examining Westin’s conceptualization of
information privacy and argue for a contextual approach that holds promise for overcoming
some of Westin’s weaknesses. We then highlight three contextual considerations for studying
privacy – digital networks, marginalized populations, and the global context – and close by
discussing how these considerations advance privacy theorization and technology design.
Keywords: information privacy, contextual integrity, networked privacy, marginalized groups,
privacy by design

2
A Contextual Approach to Information Privacy Research
Introduction
Privacy is a central issue of the information age. Advances in information and
communication technologies (ICTs) and their wide adoption have exponentially increased the
amount of personal information being collected by commercial and government entities. While
ICTs like fitness trackers, smart speakers, and social media provide users with new ways to
interact and learn about themselves, they also pose a number of privacy risks. For example, the
Cambridge Analytica scandal in early 2018 spotlighted problematic privacy practices at
Facebook (Cadwalladr & Graham-Harrison, 2018). More broadly, the promises of big data and
“data-driven decision making” raise wider concerns for the future of individual privacy (boyd &
Crawford, 2012; Lane, Stodden, Bender, & Nissenbaum, 2014; Zhang, 2016; Zimmer, 2016).
Although few scholars would argue against the importance of information privacy, there
are considerable differences across privacy scholarship on how to assess, improve, and regulate
current industry practices for a better protection of personal information. The intertwining
relationship between information technology and privacy calls for a highly interdisciplinary
approach to examining information privacy issues from multiple perspectives. We believe that
the information science community is particularly well positioned to contribute to the current
privacy discussion and to shape the solution space with innovative ideas. Indeed, a quick survey
of JASIST publications over the last decade (2008-2018) shows that more than 30 articles have
tackled privacy issues in various empirical contexts, including mobile health (Clarke & Steele,
2015; Harvey & Harvey, 2014), social media platforms (Squicciarini, Xu, & Zhang, 2011; Stern
& Kumar, 2014), as well as new ways to model and measure privacy in academic research
(Rubel & Biava, 2014; Sánchez & Batet, 2016). Collectively, these studies span a broad
spectrum of intellectual traditions in the community and demonstrate nuanced understandings of
the relationship between ICTs and privacy.
Nevertheless, research gaps still exist. In particular, despite the diversity of intellectual
resources being utilized in privacy research, there has been limited integration of these resources
in proposing practical and innovative privacy-enhancing solutions. For example, there is a wide
recognition that social network sites’ (SNSs) privacy settings match poorly with users’ privacy

3
expectations (Liu, Gummadi, Krishnamurthy, & Mislove, 2011; Wu, 2019); however, few
studies to date have proposed and empirically tested alternative designs for a better control of
privacy parameters (with Stern & Kumar, 2014 as a notable exception). Likewise, scholars
taking a sociopsychological approach have identified multiple factors that affect people’s privacy
perceptions and behaviors, but these findings are often difficult to translate into concrete policy
suggestions (Acquisti & Grossklags, 2004, 2005).
In this position paper, we synthesize various knowledge gaps in information privacy
scholarship and propose a contextual approach of privacy research that promotes greater cross-
disciplinary collaboration. We start by critically examining Westin’s conceptualization of
privacy and argue for a contextual perspective that holds promise for overcoming some of
Westin’s weaknesses. We then highlight three contextual considerations for studying privacy,
and we discuss how these considerations advance privacy theorization and technology design.
Assumptions of Westin’s Theory of Privacy
Writing more than 50 years ago, Westin (1967) defined privacy as “the right of the
individual to decide what information about himself [sic] should be communicated to others and
under what condition” (p. 10). This widely cited definition contains several underlying
assumptions, including that 1) “information about himself” is known and transparent to the
individual; 2) “communicated to others” is the end of the information journey; and 3) individuals
are capable of evaluating “conditions” and making rational decisions about their privacy rights.
Each of these assumptions is contestable in today’s digital information environment. As
our daily activities are being facilitated (e.g., shopping) and sometimes deeply embedded (e.g.,
social networking) in various digital technology platforms, we leave data trails that are recorded,
monitored, and shared with or without our knowing. Hence, individuals rarely have a complete
picture of what “information about themselves” is out there. Furthermore, privacy policy
development and implementation has lagged behind technological advancements; for example,
while the U.S. Federal Trade Commission recommended a one-stop “privacy dashboard” in 2013
for smartphone users to review information being accessed across mobile apps (Federal Trade
Commission, 2013), such recommendations have not yet been widely adopted by the industry. In
fact, as digital businesses create “walled gardens” to lock in users and maintain competitive
advantage, a cross-app, cross-platform, comprehensive privacy dashboard is unlikely to become

4
a reality. It is also important to note that in this hyperconnected era (Floridi, 2015), individuals
have less control over information about themselves, with data being co-managed with friends,
family, and others who can post or share your personal information to a variety of online
channels. For example, Besmer and Lipford (2010) found that photo tagging on SNSs reduces
users’ control over their information disclosures when images are shared across their many
overlapping social circles.
Control over, access to, and communication of personal data are still key aspects of
information privacy. Yet, information privacy today is more than just who has access to what
information. A significant development in recent years is the technological capability of
analyzing large volumes of data from diverse sources to identify patterns in consumption,
lifestyle, sexual orientation, political inclinations, and more (e.g., Ohm, 2009). An individual’s
privacy is at risk not only because information about herself may be “communicated to others”
without consent, but also because existing dots can now be connected with high efficiency to
reveal intimate details about the person.
Lastly, Westin’s definition assumes a knowledgeable and rational human who is capable
of making the best decision for their privacy under different scenarios, yet research reveals this is
not always the case (Acquisti, Taylor, & Wagman, 2016). Often, there are transparency and
information asymmetries that prevent individuals from obtaining complete and perfect
information for decision making. Further, humans are known for making poor decisions due to
cognitive biases and changing preferences. For example, in evaluating risks and benefits of
revealing personal information, people frequently make decisions that favor short-term gains
over long-term consequences, both known and unknown (Acquisti & Grossklags, 2005). A
number of empirical studies have demonstrated inconsistencies and difficulties of making the
“best” privacy trade-off in various circumstances (see, for example, Acquisti et al., 2016).
A Contextual Approach to Privacy Research
Recognizing that the “transparency-and-choice” scenario in Westin’s conceptualization
of privacy does not fit well with the digital reality of privacy today, a growing number of privacy
scholars are advocating for a more a contextual approach to information privacy, emphasizing
the importance of understanding and respecting the conditions and context that guide individuals
decision to disclose sensitive data. One of the foundations for this approach is Helen

5
Nissenbaum’s theory of “privacy as contextual integrity” (2004, 2010), which links the
protection of personal information to the norms of information flow within specific contexts.
Rejecting the traditional dichotomy of public versus private information—as well as the notion
that a user’s preferences and decisions of privacy are independent of context—contextual
integrity provide a framework for evaluating the flow of personal information between different
agents and explaining why certain patterns of information flow might be acceptable in one
context but viewed as problematic in another.
Researchers have applied contextual integrity to various privacy-sensitive contexts, such
as search engines (Zimmer, 2008), social network sites (Shi, Xu, & Chen, 2013), location-based
technologies (Barkhuus, 2012), electronic medical records (Chen & Xu, 2014), student learning
analytics (Rubel & Jones, 2016), smart home devices (Apthorpe, Shvartzshnaider, Mathur,
Reisman, & Feamster, 2018), and big data research ethics (Zimmer, 2018), among others. These
studies have identified more nuanced explanations for perceived “inconsistencies” or
“paradoxes” in privacy behaviors, suggesting that breaches in contextual integrity can help
explain why users would be concerned with uses of information that go beyond the original
purpose or context in which they were initially disclosed.
In light of the critical importance of contextual integrity in studying privacy, we advocate
for an even broader contextual view of privacy at all analytical levels—individual, group, and
societal. Below, we briefly discuss three specific contextual considerations that are likely to
shape future directions of privacy research: privacy in networked contexts, privacy for
marginalized groups, and privacy in a global regulatory context.
Privacy in Networked Contexts
With a contextual perspective, privacy can be understood as a process of managing
boundaries across different social contexts. The boundaries may shift, collapse, or re-emerge as
social circumstances change. For example, on Facebook, users navigate a variety of audiences
and social contexts, with different boundaries for their disclosures. In private groups, they may
feel more open in making sensitive disclosures because only other group members can see the
content; contrast these disclosures with status updates that may be viewable to all friends or an
even wider audience, depending whether the post is public or if other users have been tagged in
the post. In these spaces, therefore, privacy becomes an “ongoing negotiation of contexts in a

6
networked ecosystem in which contexts regularly blur and collapse” (Marwick & boyd 2014,
p.1063). Users must constantly negotiate questions about the content they’re sharing, and who
the perceived audience for the post is, who the potential audience is, among other considerations.
Furthermore, users of these spaces may quickly discover that they co-manage their privacy with
other users (who might share content related to them) and the platforms themselves (who make
various pieces of personal information more or less visible in the system).
The concept of “networked privacy”— that individuals lack full control over how and
what information about them is shared online and that privacy is collaboratively managed by
both individuals and other users of a platform — highlights two key aspects of privacy in a
networked environment: a) privacy norms about appropriate information flow are in flux as
individuals move within and/or across social boundaries; b) privacy management is a collective,
rather than individual, practice.
In evaluating how norms around privacy and sharing change across time and space,
networked privacy researchers have studied the challenges arising when social contexts collapse.
Context collapse, which broadly describing the flattening of social networks into homogeneous
groups, can affect disclosure and privacy practices in a variety of ways. For example, some users
stop sharing on social media completely or significantly censor their posts because platforms
offer few technical strategies for more nuanced sharing (Marwick & boyd, 2011; Vitak, 2012).
Furthermore, researchers have considered how the sociotechnical affordances of social media
platforms shape users’ experiences, encourage sharing, and make it more challenging to discern
how information flows through (and beyond) the platform. These studies (e.g., Bangasser-Evans
et al., 2017; Treem & Leonardi, 2013) highlight how the features of various platforms afford
different outcomes, with some sites affording high levels of visibility or spreadability of content,
while others may afford greater degrees of obscurity or anonymity. Finally, studies suggest that
the collective nature of privacy in these spaces leads users to engage in a variety of privacy
management strategies, including social steganography or vaguebooking (Marwick & boyd,
2014), constant curation of connections and content (Vitak et al., 2015), and using more private
platforms for sensitive disclosures (Piwek & Joinson, 2016).
Privacy for Marginalized Groups

7
When looking at the subjects of privacy research, it quickly becomes clear that some
subsets of the population are largely overlooked or understudied. A key demographic receiving
little empirical attention is economically disadvantaged internet users. As a group, these
individuals have lower digital literacy, less access to the internet and computers, and fewer
connections in their social network to go to for help with technology (van Dijk, 2005). Therefore,
a contextual approach is needed to examine how socioeconomic and other contextual factors
affect the group’s privacy concerns and practices. Numerous studies have considered the broader
effects of the digital divide (see, for example, Rice & Katz, 2003; Stanley, 2003), but few have
addressed privacy issues across socioeconomic spectrums. In one notable exception, research by
Vitak and colleagues (2018) highlighted that low socio-economic status (SES) families face a
range of privacy and security risks online and many lack trust in companies to protect their
personal information. Continuing to evaluate low-SES internet users is increasingly important in
a time when job applications, tax forms, and government benefits require users to complete
online forms and submit sensitive personal information.
Marginalized and stigmatized groups also face heightened risks around identity-based
disclosures; therefore, their disclosure strategies and privacy-protection behaviors in digital
spaces are more important than for the general population. For example, LGBTQ+ adults and
adolescents may have heightened privacy concerns around when and where they make identity
disclosures online (Blackwell et al., 2016), and such disclosure decisions may be difficult,
especially in spaces where others can “out” an individual and users have less control over their
self-presentation (Duguay, 2016). Individuals with stigmatized health conditions or chronic
illnesses may possess greater privacy concerns about sharing their data online, even when
disclosures may help facilitate social, informational, and emotional support (Choudhury & De,
2014). Likewise, individuals living in authoritarian regimes or under restrictive governments
may have greater privacy concerns and face greater risks when speaking out against the
government than those living in more democratic countries (Pearce, Vitak, & Barta, 2018).
Privacy in a Global Regulatory Context
Context matters not only in understanding individuals’ privacy needs and behaviors, but
also in addressing regulatory challenges in a globalized world. Governments have struggled with
whether and how to regulate information flows across global platforms and services to protect

8
citizens’ privacy. Given the diversity of interests, histories, and cultural contexts, a complicated
terrain of trans-national laws and policies for the protection of privacy and personal data flows
across networks has emerged (Greenleaf, 2017). Some jurisdictions have opted for broad, and
relatively strict, laws regulating the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information, such
as Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and the
European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The U.S., however, maintains a
more sectoral approach to privacy legislation, with laws addressing only specific types of
personal information. For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA) offers protection of personal medical information; the Fair Credit Reporting Act
regulates the collection and flow of personal financial data; and the Video Privacy Protection Act
makes the wrongful disclosure of video rental records illegal.
The differences between Canadian/E.U. approach to privacy, and that of the U.S., have
been well documented and analyzed (Bennett & Rabb, 2006; Krotoszynski, 2016). While the
E.U. and Canada focus on direct and preemptive regulation of the collection and use of personal
data, prohibiting “excess” data collection and restricting use to the original and stated purposes
of the collection, the U.S. approach begins with the assumptions that most data collection and
use is both acceptable and beneficial, that guidelines should be primarily voluntary and non-
invasive, and that any regulation should only address documented instances of misuse or harm.
This difference in regulatory approaches to privacy—and the underpinning tensions between
different jurisdictions’ views towards the rights of data subjects—becomes complicated further
given the increasing flows of personal information between transnational networks and across
borders. Internet companies like Google and Facebook have customers accessing their products
and services from across the globe, with data processing and storage facilities equally scattered.
A Canadian citizen, for example, might be accessing a Google product in the U.S., while the
record of the particular information exchange might be stored on a server in Ireland. Each
jurisdiction has its own complex set of regulations and rights assigned to the treatment of any
personal information shared and stored.
These kinds of scenarios have prompted debate about whether the global diversity of
privacy governance will result in a “trading up,” where information platforms develop practices
and policies that meet higher privacy standards in order to be perceived as the “best” protector of
personal information flows irrespective of the borders the personal information might cross, or a

9
“race to the bottom” where corporate interests in processing personal data will migrate to
jurisdictions with little or no control over the circulation and capture of personal information
flows. Researchers wishing to embrace a more contextual approach to privacy will need to
grapple with the complex global nature of information flows and regulations, recognizing that
privacy expectations and practices differ greatly across geopolitical borders. For the information
science community, this will require continued focus on global research studies and
collaborations.
Conclusion and a Design Recommendation
Our brief review of three contextual considerations above highlights the challenges of
designing a one-size-fits-all solution for informational privacy needs that spans multiple
contexts. For example, privacy researchers have long observed a “privacy paradox” phenomenon
(i.e., people claim to care about privacy but behave as if they don’t care), but few have
systematically examined in what contexts this attitude-behavior dichotomy is likely to manifest
— or how to resolve the dichotomy through technology design. Many current systems and
platforms fail to protect user privacy because privacy is an afterthought of system design
(Papacharissi & Gibson, 2011). More effective privacy protections, as Cavoukian (2011) argues,
may require a Privacy by Design approach where privacy considerations are an integral part of
design and implementation from the outset, with design decision-making situated in the relevant
local and global contexts. Such privacy-sensitive design could even embed a choice architecture
(Thaler, Sunstein, & Balz, 2013) where privacy choices are contingent on the use context and the
platform’s technological affordances, thereby nudging users to take privacy-protective actions
when necessary (Wang et al., 2013). Almuhimedi et al. (2015) demonstrated in a field study that
even a simple nudge on mobile devices can lead participants to adjust their mobile app privacy
settings and bring their data sharing behaviors into alignment with their privacy preferences. To
this end, designing for privacy should move beyond mainstream mechanisms that protect
already-generated personal data, and instead develop creative ways of steering both individuals
and organizations toward preventative behaviors in various contexts.
To conclude, we have explained how a contextual view of information privacy may open
up new venues of research. Prior research based on Westin’s assumptions does not provide the
full picture of people’s privacy behaviors and decision-making strategies in the information age.

10
Today, we find that privacy management is negotiated not just at the individual level, but
between many individuals at a group or community level, with companies and third-parties who
collect and share data, and with governments and regulators in different regions. Considering
privacy from a contextual approach is more difficult, but it more accurately reflects the reality of
data sharing and privacy management in the 21st century. Investigating how individuals, groups,
and businesses deal with information sharing in all types of contexts is critical to extending
theories of privacy and to designing privacy-sensitive tools that address the needs and concerns
of a wider range of users and communities. We believe the information science community can
lead this line of inquiry due to their interdisciplinary knowledge and experience in social and
computational sciences and their well-established tradition of respecting use context in
information system research and design.
References
Acquisti, A, & Grossklags, J. (2004). Privacy attitudes and privacy behavior. In L. J. Camp & S.
Lewis (Eds.), Economics of information security (pp. 165–178). Boston, MA: Springer
US.
Acquisti, A, & Grossklags, J. (2005). Privacy and rationality in individual decision making.
IEEE Security Privacy, 3(1), 26–33.
Acquisti, A., Taylor, C., & Wagman, L. (2016). The economics of privacy. Journal of Economic
Literature, 54(2), 442–492.
Almuhimedi, H., Schaub, F., Sadeh, N., Adjerid, I., Acquisti, A., Gluck, J., Cranor, L. F., &
Agarwal, Y. (2015). Your location has been shared 5,398 times!: A field study on mobile
app privacy nudging. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 787–796). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Apthorpe, N., Shvartzshnaider, Y., Mathur, A., Reisman, D., & Feamster, N. (2018).
Discovering IoT smart home privacy norms using contextual integrity. In Proceedings of
the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies (Vol. 2, 2).
Bangasser-Evans, S., Pearce, K., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. (2017). The affordances test: A
conceptual model for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 22, 35-52.

11
Barkhuus, L. (2012). The mismeasurement of privacy: Using contextual integrity to reconsider
privacy in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (pp. 367–376). Austin, TX.
Bennett, C. J., & Charles, D. R. (2006). The governance of privacy: Policy instruments in global
perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Besmer, A., & Richter Lipford, H. (2010). Moving beyond untagging: Photo privacy in a tagged
world. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 1563–1572). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Blackwell, L., Hardy, J., Ammari, T., Veinot, T., Lampe, C., & Schoenebeck, S. (2016). LGBT
parents and social media: Advocacy, privacy, and disclosure during shifting social
movements. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (pp. 610–622). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
boyd, danah, & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Information,
Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679.
Cadwalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018, March 17). Revealed: 50 million Facebook
profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. The Guardian.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-
facebook-influence-us-election
Cavoukian, A. (2011). Privacy by design in law, policy and practice: A white paper for
regulators, decision-makers and policy-makers. Information and Privacy Commissioner,
Ontario, Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/25008/312239.pdf
Chen, Y., & Xu, H. (2013). Privacy management in dynamic groups: understanding information
privacy in medical practices. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer
supported cooperative work (CSCW ’13) (pp. 541-552), New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Choudhury, M. D., & De, S. (2014). Mental health discourse on reddit: Self-disclosure, social
support, and anonymity. In Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social
Media. Retrieved from
https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM14/paper/view/8075

12
Clarke, A., & Steele, R. (2015). Smartphone-based public health information systems:
Anonymity, privacy and intervention. Journal of the Association for Information Science
and Technology, 66(12), 2596–2608.
Duguay, S. (2016). “He has a way gayer Facebook than I do”: Investigating sexual identity
disclosure and context collapse on a social networking site. New Media & Society, 18(6),
891–907.
Federal Trade Commission. (2013). Mobile privacy disclosures: Building trust through
transparency: a federal trade commission staff report. Retrieved from
https://www.ftc.gov/reports/mobile-privacy-disclosures-building-trust-through-
transparency-federal-trade-commission
Floridi, L. (Ed.). (2015). The onlife manifesto: Being human in a hyperconnected era. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer Open.
Greenleaf, G. (2017). Global data privacy laws 2017: 120 national data privacy laws, including
Indonesia and Turkey. 145 Privacy Laws & Business International Report, 10-13;
UNSW Law Research Paper No. 17-45. Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2993035
Harvey, M. J., & Harvey, M. G. (2014). Privacy and security issues for mobile health platforms.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(7), 1305–1318.
Krotoszynski, R. J. (2016). Privacy revisited: A global perspective on the right to be left alone.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lane, J., Stodden, V., Bender, S., & Nissenbaum, H. (Eds.). (2014). Privacy, big data, and the
public good: Frameworks for engagement. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, Y., Gummadi, K. P., Krishnamurthy, B., & Mislove, A. (2011). Analyzing Facebook
privacy settings: User expectations vs. reality. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM
SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement Conference (pp. 61–70). New York,
NY, USA: ACM.
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context
collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13, 114-133.
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in
social media. New Media & Society, 16(7), 1051–1067.

13
Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119–
157.
Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Ohm, P. (2009). Broken promises of privacy: Responding to the surprising failure of
anonymization. UCLA Law Review, 57, 1701.
Papacharissi, Z., & Gibson, P. L. (2011). Fifteen minutes of privacy: Privacy, sociality, and
publicity on social network sites. In S. Trepte & L. Reinecke (Eds.), Privacy online:
Perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web (pp. 75–90). Heidelberg:
Springer.
Pearce, K. E., Vitak, J., & Barta, K. (2018). Privacy at the margins| Socially mediated visibility:
Friendship and dissent in authoritarian Azerbaijan. International Journal of
Communication, 12(0), 22.
Piwek, L., & Joinson, A. (2016). “What do they Snapchat about?” Patterns of use in time-limited
instant messaging service. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 358-367.
Rice, R. E., & Katz, J. E. (2003). Comparing internet and mobile phone usage: digital divides of
usage, adoption, and dropouts. Telecommunications Policy, 27(8), 597–623.
Rubel, A., & Biava, R. (2014). A framework for analyzing and comparing privacy states.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(12), 2422–2431.
Rubel, A., & Jones, K. M. L. (2016). Student privacy in learning analytics: An information ethics
perspective. The Information Society, 32(2), 143–159.
Sánchez, D., & Batet, M. (2016). C-sanitized: A privacy model for document redaction and
sanitization. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(1),
148–163.
Shi, P., Xu, H., & Chen, Y. (2013). Using contextual integrity to examine interpersonal
information boundary on social network sites. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 35–38). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Squicciarini, A. C., Xu, H., & Zhang, X. (Luke). (2011). CoPE: Enabling collaborative privacy
management in online social networks. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 62(3), 521–534.

14
Stanley, L. D. (2003). Beyond access: Psychosocial barriers to computer literacy special issue:
ICTs and community networking. The Information Society, 19(5), 407–416.
Stern, T., & Kumar, N. (2014). Improving privacy settings control in online social networks with
a wheel interface. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,
65(3), 524–538.
Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R., & Balz, J. P. (2013). Choice architecture. In The Behavioral
Foundations of Public Policy (pp. 428–439). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the
affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the
International Communication Association, 36(1), 143-189.
van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: inequality in the information society.
Thousand Oaks; London; New York: Sage Publications.
Vitak, J. (2012). The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures.
Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 56, 451-470.
Vitak, J., Blasiola, S., Patil, S., & Litt, E. (2015). Balancing audience and privacy tensions on
social network sites. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1485-1504.
Vitak, J., Liao, Y., Subramaniam, M., & Kumar, P. (2018). “I knew it was too good to be true”:
The challenges economically disadvantaged internet users face in assessing
trustworthiness, avoiding scams, and developing self-efficacy online. In Proceedings of
the ACM: Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), Article 176, 1-25.
Wang, Y., Leon, P. G., Scott, K., Chen, X., Acquisti, A., & Cranor, L. F. (2013). Privacy nudges
for social media: An exploratory Facebook study. In Proceedings of the 22nd
International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 763–770). New York, NY, USA:
ACM.
Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum.
Wu, P. F. (2019). The privacy paradox in the context of online social networking: A self-identity
perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(3),
207-217.
Zhang, S. (2016). Scientists are just as confused about the ethics of big-data research as you.
Wired. Retrieved December 28, 2016, from https://www.wired.com/2016/05/scientists-
just-confused-ethics-big-data-research/

15
Zimmer, M. (2008). Privacy on planet Google: Using the theory of contextual integrity to clarify
the privacy threats of Google’s quest for the perfect search engine. Journal of Business &
Technology Law, 3(1), 109–126.
Zimmer, M. (2016). OkCupid study reveals the perils of big-data science. Wired. Retrieved May
29, 2016, from https://www.wired.com/2016/05/okcupid-study-reveals-perils-big-data-
science/
Zimmer, M. (2018). Addressing conceptual gaps in big data research ethics: An application of
contextual integrity. Social Media + Society, 4(2), 1-11.