DOCSLIB.ORG

The Antecedents of Citizens' Privacy Concerns In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Antecedents of Citizens' Privacy Concerns In THE ANTECEDENTS OF CITIZENS’ PRIVACY CONCERNS IN THE CONTEXT OF SURVEILLANCE AND SECURITY MEASURES: A CROSS-NATIONAL ANALYSIS by SURAY DUYGULU A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-Newark Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Global Affairs written under the direction of Dr. Norman Samuels: Professor and Provost Emeritus and approved by Dr. Yale H. Ferguson Dr. Gregg G. Van Ryzin Dr. Osman Dolu Newark, New Jersey October, 2016 Copyright ® 2016 Suray Duygulu ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The Antecedents of Citizens’ Privacy Concerns in the Context of Surveillance and Security Measures: A Cross-national Analysis By SURAY DUYUGLU Dissertation Director: Dr. Norman Samuels: Professor and Provost Emeritus By taking into account the debate on the balance between privacy and security (i.e., between security and civil liberties), particularly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, this study investigates the factors that affect citizens’ concerns about privacy across eight countries. In this regard, it examines the impact of mass surveillance on the public. Employing the “Antecedents of Privacy Concerns and Outcomes (APCO) Macro Model,” this study attempts to find support for the understudied and tenuous relationship between antecedents and privacy concerns. In addition, it looks at variations between antecedents and concerns across the countries included in the sample. Furthermore, the study raises some questions about the hierarchy of competing rights. The study hypothesizes that citizens’ knowledge of laws, perceived type of media coverage, and experience with surveillance measures are positively associated with their privacy concerns, while regime type, terrorism, confidence in government, and privacy regulations are negatively associated with privacy concerns. It applies quantitative research methods by conducting bivariate and multivariate analysis. Results show that experience with surveillance measures increases citizens’ privacy concerns, while recent experience with terrorism shifts the focus of citizens towards security, thereby reduces their privacy concerns. In addition, the democracy score of a ii country was not found to necessarily explain the intensity of surveillance, quality of privacy regulations, and citizens’ confidence in government. The study offers policy implications in terms of balancing competing rights and reducing citizens’ privacy concerns. Consequently, it suggests that with technological advances and globalization, the threat of terrorism becomes global, while privacy concerns significantly differs across cultures. Important events do affect the level of concerns. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank many individuals whose support was invaluable during the writing of this dissertation and the journey of doctoral work as a whole. First, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my committee chair, Professor Norman Samuels, who was always reachable, very encouraging, and supportive in this process. As head advisor of this dissertation project, his insights on the dissertation were instrumental. He not only cared about giving good advice to his students about their graduate work, but also cared for his students as individuals. I will always be grateful for this. Thank you, Professor Samuels, for your understanding and sincerity. At the beginning of this process I had a topic. I knew what I wanted to study and write about, but I fell a little short about how to design my research. At this point I consulted Professor Gregg Van Ryzin. I worked with him on different phases of my research, including data merging, variable formation, and use of statistical software for analysis. He even spent time over the summer answering my questions and checking the accuracy of my statistical analysis. I specifically want to thank for his time and contributions in terms of his survey research expertise. I would also like to thank Professor Yale Ferguson who agreed to be on my dissertation committee and supported me with his suggestions and global affairs expertise. I attended Professor Yale Ferguson’s seminars, the topics of which were very worthwhile, especially one about how to write a dissertation proposal. Later in the dissertation research process, I never missed opportunity to meet with him during his regular visits to DGA. Special thanks also goes to Professor Osman Dolu. His dissertation, written years ago, was on a similar topic as mine. Therefore, he was very knowledgeable on the topic, iv both with respect to theory and methodology. I learned a lot both from his dissertation and publications. The DGA faculty as well as the DGA administration play an important role in every student’s success. I would like to thank Professor Ariane Chebel and Professor Leslie Kennedy. The content of their courses inspired the formulation of my topic. Many thanks to Associate Director Ms. Ann Martin, Director Professor Jean-Marc Coicaud, and Administrative Assistant Ms. Desiree Gordon. Also, I want to thank my dear colleagues who surrounded me during my graduate studies. In particular, senior TNP officers, Mustafa Demir, Ismail Onat, Esref Erturk, and my friend and TNP cohort, Isa Kagan Karasioglu, as well as an officer junior to me in the TNP but cohort in the DGA, Mehmet Fatih Bastug. I also thank many other colleagues and fellow students not mentioned here who supported me throughout the process. Special thanks go to my wife, Sinem, and my son, Omer Akif, for their continued and priceless support throughout my graduate studies. They were always patient and sacrificed much time that cannot be recovered. v To Professor Norman Samuels, My father, Ali and my mother, Vildan, My wife, Sinem and my son, Omer Akif. vi TABLE of CONTENTS ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION .................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ iv LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... x CHAPTER I ................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................ 3 1.4 Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Globalization and Security .................................................................................................. 5 1.6 Globalization and Personal Data Flow............................................................................... 9 1.7 Surveillance ........................................................................................................................ 10 1.8 Privacy ................................................................................................................................ 13 1.9 A Brief History of Surveillance and Privacy ................................................................... 17 1.10 Dissertation Organization ............................................................................................... 23 CHAPTER II ................................................................................................................................ 25 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 25 2.1 Justification of Mass Surveillance Measures ................................................................... 25 2.2 Privacy Advocacy ............................................................................................................... 30 2.3 Media Coverage ................................................................................................................. 35 2.4 Public Opinion Polls .......................................................................................................... 39 2.5 Public Opinion and Public Policy ..................................................................................... 47 2.6 Attitudes toward Privacy and Surveillance and Citizens’ Privacy Concerns .............. 49 2.7 Trust and Confidence in Government ............................................................................. 53 2.8 Knowledge of Laws ............................................................................................................ 55 2.9 Emotional Experience with Terrorism ............................................................................ 56 2.10 Regime and Democracy Level of the Country ............................................................... 57 2.11 Cultural Differences ......................................................................................................... 57 2.12 Experience with Security/Surveillance Measures ........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Privacy Online: a Report to Congress
    PRIVACY ONLINE: A REPORT TO CONGRESS FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION JUNE 1998 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Robert Pitofsky Chairman Mary L. Azcuenaga Commissioner Sheila F. Anthony Commissioner Mozelle W. Thompson Commissioner Orson Swindle Commissioner BUREAU OF CONSUMER PROTECTION Authors Martha K. Landesberg Division of Credit Practices Toby Milgrom Levin Division of Advertising Practices Caroline G. Curtin Division of Advertising Practices Ori Lev Division of Credit Practices Survey Advisors Manoj Hastak Division of Advertising Practices Louis Silversin Bureau of Economics Don M. Blumenthal Litigation and Customer Support Center Information and Technology Management Office George A. Pascoe Litigation and Customer Support Center Information and Technology Management Office TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................... i I. Introduction ........................................................... 1 II. History and Overview .................................................... 2 A. The Federal Trade Commission’s Approach to Online Privacy ................. 2 B. Consumer Privacy Online ............................................. 2 1. Growth of the Online Market ...................................... 2 2. Privacy Concerns ............................................... 3 C. Children’s Privacy Online ............................................. 4 1. Growth in the Number of Children Online ............................ 4 2. Safety and Privacy Concerns ...................................... 4 III. Fair
    [Show full text]
  • 342.721 Preventing Terrorism Or Eliminating Privacy?
    235 Ivana Stepanović MA1 Scientific review paper UDK: 342.721 PREVENTING TERRORISM OR ELIMINATING PRIVACY? RETHINKING MASS SURVEILLANCE AFTER SNOWDEN REVELATIONS Abstract After Edward Snowden’s leaks revealed to the public in June 2013, mass surveillance programs still exist. Considering that these practises restrain the right to privacy, there is a need to rethink the very concept of mass surveillance. The aim of this paper is to analyse this concept, sum up the problems related to its logic and methods, and question its legitimacy. Critical approach to the concept of mass surveillance is necessary on order to create the basis for resolving current issues related to it. My research shows that there are reasons to question legitimacy of mass surveillance as it not only breaches the right to privacy but also ignores the presumption of innocence and there is possibly a substantial lack of oversight by the independent bodies which is necessary to make these practices democratic. Moreover, given that mass surveillance programs were introduced to fight terrorism and crime, it should be assessed how efficient they really are and whether they are worth having considering their drawbacks and potential dangers for the society. Key words: mass surveillance, terrorism, Snowden, privacy. 1. Introduction Information revealed by the former US National Security Agency employee Edward Snowden and published by The Guardian, The New York Times and other media in June 2013 confirmed the existence of surveillance programs conducted by intelligence services such as the US National Security Agency (NSA) and British Government Communications Headqarters (GCHQ). Even though the news about the existence of systems which are monitoring private communications isn’t completely new, and the general public was aware of a global system for the interception of 1 Assistant Researcher, Institute of criminological and sociological research, Belgrade; mail: ivana.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Internet Privacy
    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 2000 Principles of Internet Privacy Fred H. Cate Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Computer Law Commons, and the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation Cate, Fred H., "Principles of Internet Privacy" (2000). Articles by Maurer Faculty. 243. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/243 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Principles of Internet Privacy FRED H. CATE* I. INTRODUCTION Paul Schwartz's InternetPrivacy and the State makes an important and original contribution to the privacy debate that is currently raging by be- ginning the process of framing a new and more useful understanding of what "privacy" is and why and how it should be protected.' The definition developed by Brandeis, Warren,2 and Prosser,3 and effectively codified by Alan Westin in 1967---"the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others"---worked well in a world in which most privacy concerns involved physical intrusions (usually by the government) or public disclosures (usually by the media), which, by their very nature, were comparatively rare and usually discovered.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age
    The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age April 9, 2018 Dr. Keith Goldstein, Dr. Ohad Shem Tov, and Mr. Dan Prazeres Presented on behalf of Pirate Parties International Headquarters, a UN ECOSOC Consultative Member, for the Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Our Dystopian Present Living in modern society, we are profiled. We accept the necessity to hand over intimate details about ourselves to proper authorities and presume they will keep this information secure- only to be used under the most egregious cases with legal justifications. Parents provide governments with information about their children to obtain necessary services, such as health care. We reciprocate the forfeiture of our intimate details by accepting the fine print on every form we sign- or button we press. In doing so, we enable second-hand trading of our personal information, exponentially increasing the likelihood that our data will be utilized for illegitimate purposes. Often without our awareness or consent, detection devices track our movements, our preferences, and any information they are capable of mining from our digital existence. This data is used to manipulate us, rob from us, and engage in prejudice against us- at times legally. We are stalked by algorithms that profile all of us. This is not a dystopian outlook on the future or paranoia. This is present day reality, whereby we live in a data-driven society with ubiquitous corruption that enables a small number of individuals to transgress a destitute mass of phone and internet media users. In this paper we present a few examples from around the world of both violations of privacy and accomplishments to protect privacy in online environments.
    [Show full text]
  • Disconnecting the Dots: Anonymity in the Digital Age D Sydney Hanover
    Disconnecting the Dots: Anonymity in the Digital Age d Sydney Hanover Governmental and corporate spying are no longer a surprising facet of everyday life in the digital age. In this paper, I expand upon the implications at stake in debates on autonomy, privacy, and anonymity, and I arrive at a definition of anonymity involving the flow between traits and the inability to connect them based on deliberate non- publication on a structurally social level. I argue that cultivating the space to remain anonymous is useful for distanced association with oneself in the purely private internal sphere, furthering a more fully examined inner association not based on a future already predicted or prematurely acted upon. The privilege of anonymity is a precondition for genuine self-relation. Later, I argue doubly against the “nothing to hide” argument, i.e., if one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to fear. Firstly, the actionability and fabrication of data make it such that it is always at risk of being interpreted as unsafe. Secondly, this argument is predicated on hiddenness as negative, which I answer with an analysis of the functionality of anonymity concerning personal growth. I. Introduction What we search and put on personal devices, who owns that data, and what they do with that information, is at the center of an important debate on privacy containing various opinions on what is being protected and why. This debate is not merely about words and concepts, rather, as exemplified by the extent of corporate and governmental spying in this country, all of us are affected, despite how technologically involved one may be.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Privacy and the State
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Previously Published Works Title Internet Privacy and the State Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/37x3z12g Author Schwartz, Paul M Publication Date 2021-06-27 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Berkeley Law Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 1-1-1999 Internet Privacy and the State Paul M. Schwartz Berkeley Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Paul M. Schwartz, Internet Privacy and the State, 32 Conn. L. Rev. 815 (1999), Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/766 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Interet Privacy and the State PAUL M. SCHWARTZ" INTRODUCTION "Of course you are right about Privacy and Public Opinion. All law is a dead letter without public opinion behind it. But law and public opinion in-1 teract-and they are both capable of being made." Millions of people now engage in daily activities on the Internet, and under current technical configurations, this behavior generates finely grained personal data. In the absence of effective limits, legal or other- wise, on the collection and use of personal information on the Internet, a new structure of power over individuals is emerging. This state of affairs has significant implications for democracy in the United States, and, not surprisingly, has stimulated renewed interest in information privacy? Yet, the ensuing debate about Internet privacy has employed a deeply flawed rhetoric.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Bruno Gencarelli Head of Unit for International Data Flows and Protection European Commission [email protected]
    Mr. Bruno Gencarelli Head of Unit for International Data Flows and Protection European Commission [email protected] 26 July 2019 Re: Access Now Responds to Privacy Shield Review Questionnaire - Third review Dear Mr. Gencarelli, Thank you for your invitation to provide information and observations on the European Commission’s third annual review of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield arrangement, the mechanism to facilitate the transfer and processing of the personal data of individuals from the European Union to and within the United States. Access Now is an international organisation that defends and extends the digital rights of users at risk around the world.1 By combining innovative policy, user engagement, and direct technical support, we fight for open and secure communications for all. Access Now maintains a presence in 13 locations around the world, including in the policy centers of Washington, DC and Brussels.2 Access Now regularly analyzes data transfer arrangements under EU law, including the Safe Harbor arrangement that was invalidated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2015, and the Privacy Shield which replaced it.3 Users benefit from a free, open, and secure internet that is enabled by legal certainty for stakeholders to operate. Robust data transfer frameworks which ensure a high level of data protection in the free flow of data are key to deliver these benefits for all actors. The Privacy Shield continues to be inadequate to protect fundamental rights. Since negotiations began in 2016, Access Now has provided detailed analysis and recommendations to the EU Commission on how to improve the Privacy Shield.
    [Show full text]
  • Against Authority
    AGAINST AUTHORITY Freedom and The Rise of the Surveillance States by John Twelve Hawks for Thomas Pynchon ©2014 by John Twelve Hawks. All Rights Reserved. A LITTLE BOY IN A ROOM OF MIRRORS Both dogs and humans know when we’ve been caged. We sense instinctually when some other person—or an institution—has the power to direct or control our lives. And our first awareness of this reality occurs at an early age. The older kids on the schoolyard are bigger and stronger. They have the power to knock us down and tell us what to do. When I was growing up in the 1950s, I was quite aware of my own powerlessness. I couldn’t tell anyone what to do—not even a first grader. Although my brain was crammed with a great many words, I had a terrible stutter and couldn’t get the words out. Everyone in my elementary school class laughed when I struggled to speak, and sometimes even my teacher had to conceal her smile. By the time I was eight years old, I started to believe that a demon with a perverse sense of humor was in charge of my lips and tongue. On some days, he was a lazy demon, and I could talk on the phone or answer questions in class. Then the demon would get annoyed with me and I would spit and sputter over every word. On Sundays my family attended a Scotch Presbyterian church headed by a conservative pastor who preached about infant damnation. I was confused about the power of baptism, but I definitely understood the concept of hell.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC to the Internet, 25 J. Marshall J
    The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law Volume 25 Issue 2 Journal of Computer & Information Law Article 2 - Spring 2008 Spring 2008 All or Nothing: This is the Question? The Application of Article 3(2) Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC to the Internet, 25 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 241 (2008) Rebecca Wong Joseph Savirimuthu Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl Part of the Computer Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Privacy Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Rebecca Wong & Joseph Savirimuthu, All or Nothing: This is the Question? The Application of Article 3(2) Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC to the Internet, 25 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 241 (2008) https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl/vol25/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ALL OR NOTHING: THIS IS THE QUESTION? THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 3(2) DATA PROTECTION DIRECTIVE 95/46/ EC TO THE INTERNET REBECCA WONGt AND JOSEPH SAVIRIMUTHUtt I. INTRODUCTION The exponential growth of social networking Web sites, online per- sonal journals and the use of multimedia by individuals, raises impor- tant questions about the compatibility of Article 3(2) of the Data Protection Derivative 95/46/EC ("DPD") as applied to the internet.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in Privacy and Data Security
    TRENDS IN PRIVACY AND DATA SECURITY JEFFREY D. NEUBURGER PARTNER PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Jeff is co-head of the firm’s Technology, Media & Telecommunications Group, head of the firm’s Blockchain Group, and a member of the firm’s Privacy & Cybersecurity Group. His practice focuses on technology, media, and intellectual property-related transactions, counseling, and dispute resolution. 24 April/May 2019 | Practical Law © 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved. As large-scale data breaches and other cyber incidents continue to pose significant threats worldwide, privacy and cybersecurity remain top priorities for regulators and companies alike. To minimize risks and reduce potential liability, companies and their counsel should stay updated on privacy and data security-related enforcement activity, notable litigation, new regulations, and key emerging issues. the-lightwriter /iStock photo © 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved. The Journal | Litigation | April/May 2019 25 ompanies must keep up with the dynamic legal Children’s privacy practices. The FTC approved obligations governing privacy and data security, modifications to the Entertainment Software Rating Board’s understand how these obligations apply in practice, (ESRB’s) COPPA safe harbor program. The ESRB is a self- improve their cyber intelligence, and manage their regulatory organization for the video game industry. Ccompliance to minimize risks. This article reviews important Mobile device security. The FTC issued a report titled FTC privacy and data security developments over the past year and Recommends Steps to Improve Mobile Device Security highlights key issues for 2019. Specifically, it addresses recent: Update Practices (available at ftc.gov), which makes several Federal regulation and enforcement actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Findings of the Data Privacy and Security Advisory Committee September 2020
    Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection Findings of the Data Privacy and Security Advisory Committee September 2020 Page | 0 WI DATCP Data Privacy and Security Report - September 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 4 COMMITTEE OBJECTIVES AND STRUCTURE.................................................................................... 5 Table 1: Membership List .................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Meeting Schedule .................................................................................................................................. 7 CURRENT LANDSCAPE OF DATA PRIVACY, SECURITY, AND BREACH REGULATION ............... 8 Data Privacy ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Data Security ............................................................................................................................................................ 9 Data Breach ...........................................................................................................................................................11 Other Privacy and Security
    [Show full text]
  • The Normalization of Surveillance and the Invisibility of Digital Citizenship: Media Debates After the Snowden Revelations
    International Journal of Communication 11(2017), 740–762 1932–8036/20170005 The Normalization of Surveillance and the Invisibility of Digital Citizenship: Media Debates After the Snowden Revelations KARIN WAHL-JORGENSEN LUCY BENNETT GREGORY TAYLOR Cardiff University, UK Based on an analysis of newspaper and blog coverage of the Snowden revelations and their aftermath, our study demonstrates that newspapers normalize surveillance by highlighting concerns over national security and focusing on surveillance of elites, and minimize the attention given to the mass surveillance of citizens. By contrast, blogs allow more critical discussions relevant to digital citizenship, enabling debates on civil rights and privacy. This article argues that if conventional media limit debates relevant to digital citizenship, blogs may provide a space that contests and makes visible the key problems scantly evident in newspapers. We suggest research on digital citizenship in mediated debates should focus on how political subjects are silenced, as well as the emerging spaces where this silence can be broken. Keywords: blogs, bulk data, digital citizenship, digital rights, journalism, mass surveillance, normalization, Snowden, surveillance The 2013 Edward Snowden revelations and their aftermath could be understood as a specific historical moment that crystallized debates about surveillance and digital citizenship. Snowden leaked information about previously unknown surveillance programs by the main U.S. and UK intelligence agencies, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). These included the widespread gathering of “bulk data” from mobile phone and Internet companies, encompassing both the content of communications as well as metadata. The surveillance activities of the NSA, under the so-called PRISM program, had been ongoing since 2007 and involved a range of major Internet players and phone companies.
    [Show full text]