Transcript Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated
Communication
Social Privacy in a Networked World
Coye Cheshire & Jen King
// 16 February 2016
Quick Review
 Privacy in CMC (but specifically social
networks):
 Highly contextual
 Audience dependent
 Personal disclosure is a fundamental
human activity
 Disclosure explained by (at least in part):
 Different aspects of privacy (psych, social,
info), building social capital
2/16/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
1
What’s happening on the
ground?
2/16/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
2
Info harvesting/reuse/predictions
 Jernigan & Mistree’s
2009 Gaydar study
 It’s not just what you
make explicit, it’s also
what you can infer
 Other examples of
inferences (correct or
not)?
http://immediatefuture.co.uk/blog/new-software-can-predict-personality-traits-what-does-your-facebook-profile-sayabout-you/
2/16/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
3
Prediction accuracy of classification for dichotomous/dichotomized attributes expressed by the
AUC.
Michal Kosinski et al. PNAS 2013;110:5802-5805
Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior
©2013 by National Academy of Sciences
Turn an Email Address into a Social Profile.
When all you have is an email address, Flowtown can give you a name, age, gender,
occupation, location and all the social networks that person is on.
2/18/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
5
User Misunderstandings
2/16/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
6
2/18/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
7
2/16/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
8
Facebook privacy settings circa Dec 2009
2/16/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
9
Facebook privacy settings circa July 2010
2/16/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
10
http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/
2/18/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
11
http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/
2/18/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
12
http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/
2/18/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
13
http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/
2/18/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
14
Silent Listeners (Stutzman et al.)
 Facebook users over time became more privacy
seeking by progressively limiting data shared
publicly with strangers
 Facebook’s 2009 changes reversed this
 amount of info users revealed to connected
friends increased, as well as to third party apps;
often occurred w/o explicit consent or awareness;
the network remains an “imagined” community
that does not map to actual audiences
2/16/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
15
Boundary Management
 Litt & Hargittai’s paper
 Incorporates the work of Sandra Petronio (using
an updated version of Altman’s theory:
Communication Privacy Management)
 Privacy == individuals’ information boundary
(rule) management w/r/t others
 Turbulence == breakdown in expectations when
personal info goes beyond a person’s desired
boundaries
2/16/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
16
Key findings
 Skill is a key concern in Hargittai’s work – found those with more
Internet skills less likely to experience negative outcomes
 Self monitoring: “ability & motivation to pick up on social cues and
modify their self-presentations”
 Higher self-monitoring skills & privacy behaviors == more turbulence
 Context collapse, or perceived vs. actual privacy misaligned, also control
paradox
 Higher self monitors might be more sensitive, more aware negatives
exist, better at ID’ing it, not necessarily more likely to experience
 Prior negative experiences may also contribute
2/16/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
17
Misplaced Confidences –
Control Paradox
 Individuals’ perceived control over release and
access of private info increases willingness to
disclose
 Questions assumptions about rational, informed
choice
 Part of a larger body of research by Acquisti
questioning decision-making models; role of
heuristics
 Posits that privacy preferences are contextual
and subject to manipulation
2/16/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
18
Design solutions?
 Better (re)designed
privacy controls
 Privacy “nudges”
 Predictive privacy
preferences
 Incorporating
longitudinal aspects
2/16/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
19
2/18/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
20
2/18/16
Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication
21