A Survey of Security & Privacy In Online Social Networks (OSN) With Regards To Attitudes And Behaviors

8/18/2019 A Survey of Security & Privacy In Online Social Networks (OSN) With Regards To Attitudes And Behaviors

1/12

A Survey of Security & Privacy

In Online Social Networks (OSN)

With Regards To Attitudes And Behaviors

Frances Coronel

Computer Science

Hampton UniversityHampton, VA

Abstract — Do individuals truly care about their

privacy? Studies demonstrate that onlineprivacy is a primary concern for most users in

our computerized age and yet there exists this

sort of irregularity between their attitudes and

actions towards privacy. This irregularity is

known as the “Privacy Paradox” and explains

how the actions of users submitting so much of

their private information online contrasts

heavily with their attitude of wanting complete

control over how this mass information is used

by large social media corporations. The findings

suggest there is a general lack of awarenessamong users in regards to how their favorite

social networks utilize their private information

in their terms and conditions. The conflicting

relationship will then be discussed with a focus

on how researchers and designers can better

improve privacy awareness while building such

large scale social systems.

Keywords— social media privacy, user privacy,

privacy paradox

I. I NTRODUCTION

Youngsters in this day and age will unreservedlyand without hesitation surrender their individual

data to join social communities online. Later,however, these same young youngsters are shocked

with surprise when their parents start reading

through their readlines and revealing or questioningall sorts of goodies regarding their personal lives.

Given that anonymity isn’t profitable, government

agencies and marketers all around us are doingeverything in their power to collect personal data

about us. As the users, we hand over this completecontrol by agreeing to their “terms and conditions”

without so much a glance. For example, thegovernment utilizes driver permit databases to

discover “miscreant” fathers (fathers who fail to paychild support on time) and each time we go

shopping, retail stores will gather any piece ofinformation in order to create an accurate profile of

our shopping practices. Bolted away on severalservers is each moment and point of interest in our

day to day lives from our individual purchasinginclinations to our even deepest and darkest

thoughts.

A large number of the people worldwide have usedor are using a social network in one way or the

other. However, questions have arisen whether people are concerned about their privacy in social

networks. Studies have revealed that online privacyis a concern for many people as the implications of

their information landing in the wrong hands in verydevastating. The worry is, however, despite these


2/12

concerns about the attitudes that people have aboutonline social network privacy, the behaviors on the

other side do not match the attitudes [1]. As far as people are concerned about their information falling

on unexpected destinations if not well taken care of,they do little to protect this information. People

submit too much private information online, whichcontrasts their attitude of wanting to be in full

control of their private information.

With many social networks coming up every day, people become overwhelmed by the behavior of

disclosing their private information ignoring therepercussions thereof [6]. According to a study, the

lack of awareness and knowledge among onlinesocial network users of where their information can

land to once it is made public in these social sites

has contributed immensely in the conflict of theattitudes of people towards what they post and the behavior they exhibit in posting them.

Many of us do not understand how our security has

been breached nor are we even attempting to find away to shield our data from being harvested. So the

question now is “in this digital age, how aware areusers when it comes to their privacy?”. Better still,

“Do they even care anymore?”.

The sad story is that the information that we post inthese sites is not private [5]. The companies that

own these sites and government agencies can accessthis information. Why do users of these sites ignore

the privacy statements that are on these sites?People overrun without glimpsing across them

because most of them assume that their informationis adequately protected. They ignore the fact that

there are exceptions as far as the protection of their

data is concerned. At some point in time, peoplewonder how the government or any other institutioncame across personal data that you though nobody

else knows apart from the people in your circle. Forexample, e-mail databases are sold all over, which

is a clear indication that the data that we provide isnot private.

Moreover, with the current penetration of Whatsappas a social media site [11], it has become very easy

for a clip to circulate all over the world within a fewhours. Therefore, that clearly indicates how delicate

sharing private data can be.

The fact is that people are aware that privateinformation posted in social sites falls in the

unintended destinations and used for purposes thatwere not originally intended by the source [3]. The

biggest concern is that despite all these evidence,most of the users are not concerned about how their

privacy has been breached.

Worst of, they are not doing anything to try and protect their private data from falling in the wrong

hands [4]. They become concerned when the worsthappens, and the information is used against them

or destroys their public image. That is the only timewhen they become concerned.

It is, therefore, evident that the behaviors that we

exhibit as far as sharing information in social sitesdo not reconcile with the attitudes that we have as

far as the privacy of this information is concerned.The question is, how common does this conflict of

attitude and behavior occur?

In light to the above assertions, this paper

investigates the relationship between the attitudesand behaviors that online social media users haveabout the social media security concerns that have

been a constant concern.

The paper provides the methodology used in thestudy, and the conclusions, which are based on the

preliminary results of the survey within the contextof social networking. The paper considers aspects

of the overall social network privacy concerncoupled with the aspects of concern that are related

to the control and transparency of information.

These aspects shall be analyzed, specifically,considering how users share information on the

networks, and the practices that they exhibit aboutthe people on their sharing circles.


3/12

II. METHDOLOGY

The methods were designed to test the perceptions

of online social sites in comparison with theirattitudes towards sharing information in these sites.

It aims at testing whether their behaviors of sharing private information match their attitudes towards

the same. Much of the studies done in this fieldsuggests the presence of privacy paradox [1], so the

structuring of the methods will also want to prove ifthese studies match with our findings.

Based on previous studies, the paper hypothesizes

that online social media user’s behaviors do notmatch their attitudes. The other hypothesis is that

these attitudes differ with demography. It, therefore,hypotheses that the young people are less concerned

of their privacy than their older counterparts.

I formulated two hypotheses at the beginning of my

research.

Hypotheses 1. Does the behavior of online users

match their attitudes when it comes to online

privacy? I do not think they match because userstend to provide a lot of data but expect their privacy

to be protected simultaneously.

Hypotheses 2. Do people recognize the importance

of the privacy policies their applications put in

place? I also do not think that many people, eventhose part of the younger generation, recognize the

importance of having a fair and reasonable privacy policy in place for the numerous applications they

use.

A. Survey

The survey is intended to assess how much users

know about the data that is kept of them [2].

For example, a question that was posed is “Were

you aware that if you use LinkedIn, you grantLinkedIn the right to keep everything you post on

their website forever?”. The user would then answer“Yes” or “No” and they would either gain or lose a

point based on their existing knowledge on privacy

practices specifically within LinkedIn.

Throughout the survey, the user will be given aquick snapshot of exactly how much data is being

collected about them on the different applicationsthey use and therefore they will leave a little more

educated on their state of their online privacy [7].The terms privacy policy and terms of services are

defined and explained throughout the survey so thatthe user is aware of what the questions pertain to

when asked about a specific online service.

The aspects presented in these questions are related.All of them revolves around comparing how people

are aware of the destinations of their private data,and the behaviors that they exhibit even with such

knowledge. The survey questions were distributedvia email and social media personal inbox to the

respondents. The respondents were sampled fromaddress books and users of social networks from

families, friends, and fellow students.

The respondents were requested to offer theirinsights on their attitude and behaviors as far as the

privacy of social media is concerned. The ages ofthe respondents were pre-determined based on the

demographic data that they have provided in their profiles. When the survey was done, and people

offered their views, the respondents were given a

quick analysis of their attitude towards sharing private information and how they can improve theironline privacy. Apart from that, the survey results

were also used in coming up with the overallconclusion comparing the aspects being studied.

The survey questions can be found in the Appendix

[Appendix 1].

B. Social Network Experts

I cite the appropriate opinions of whom societyconsiders experts of social media privacy. In

society, there are those people who are consideredas the “mirrors” of the society. These are the people

who bring issues that seem as non-issues, but thathave great implications on the members of the

society.


4/12

In light of this, the study uses the views of the

people it considers as experts in the realm of socialmedia privacy like Cullen Hoback [10] who is well

known for his award winning film “Terms andConditions Apply.” In his documentary, he exposes

how governments and other corporations filter personal information online and learn about people.

He then gives insights on how the habit can becurtailed to prevent these institutions from using

personal information with the absence of theconsent of the owners.

Cullen Hoback ultimately observed that countries

around world are increasingly exercising territorialcontrol over Internet and Internet users' data, largely

due to concerns about fact that much of Internetdata is controlled by United States companies.

Within Hoback’s documentary, there was an

assistant professor featured from the School ofInformation and Library Science at the University

of North Carolina. Her name is Zeynep Tufekci andshe is an assistant professor who writes on

technology policy in the New York Times (OpEd)[9]. She has argued that intelligence agencies,

bearing blame for terrorist attacks like recent assaulton Paris, have tendency to automatically call for

greater surveillance of technology-based

communications and weakening of encryptionservices. The challenge she believes is not theactual collection of more data, but developing the

ability to identify and track truly dangerous peoplewho currently get lost amid wash of information.

Finally, in terms of social media experts, there is

also Ondrej Krehel who is the founder and principalof Lifars LLC, an international cybersecurity and

digital forensics firm. He’s also the former ChiefInformation Security Officer of Identity Theft 911,

the nation’s premier identity theft recovery and data breach management service. The reason he’s so key

is that because of his great number of years ofexperience in cybersecurity, his eight basic steps to

protecting your privacy online are quite crediblewithin the IT community.

His eight basic steps to improving your online privacy are as follows [8]:

1. Decide if your digital presence and persona is

professional or individual. Having proficientsubstance in online networking can help your

central goal in vocation and business, whileover-sharing individual information can trigger

inverse impact. Storehouse your onlinenetworking records as needs be to keep up your

online security while as yet holding an expertvicinity.

2. Be aware of who you are sharing your data

with. Altering your social settings so that you'rekeeping outsiders out and just sharing your data,

posts and pictures with individuals in yourinward circle goes far in ensuring your online

security. Most sites will likewise give you thechoice to gathering companions into distinctive

classes, each of which gives you the alternativeto breaking point or alter the sort of data shared.

It's prudent to exploit this choice when it'saccessible.

3. Remove any traces of yourself from public

searches. A few sites gift you the capacity tokeep your profile from being found through an

open web crawler. On the off chance that you'd

like to stay shrouded, search for this alternativeand guarantee you actuate it. Numerous candiscover you effortlessly just by your telephone

number.

4. Opt out of check-ins. Numerous sites andapplications permit you to registration to

geographic areas. A lot of clients wouldn't fretthis choice, while numerous really check in

freely to tell others where they are. Keep inmind notwithstanding, that when you do tell

others where you are, you're additionally lettingthem know where you aren't — at home.

Culprits can monitor your movement to pick a period when you aren't home and break-in. I

prescribe not checking in openly.

5. Keep a close eye on social apps. There are a lotof applications which have entry to your


5/12

companion’s rundown, posts, pictures and otherdata. Physically altering the application

protection settings, either inside of the socialsite or each application separately on your

telephone, to uproot these meddlesomeauthorizations will offer assistance. I, for

instance, intermittently experience my joinedapplications and uproot the ones I no more

utilize.

6. Limit the amount of personal information you post. Individual data posted on open spaces

abandons you defenseless. Going without posting data, for example, your introduction to

the world date or physical location, amongdifferent points of interest, will keep away those

intruding personality criminals. On the offchance that you have loved ones posting data

about you, guarantee that it is data you arealright with outsiders thinking about — nothing

more.

7. Be wary of strangers. The Internet makes italtogether simple for individuals to act like

somebody they aren't — distorting theircharacters and thought processes. Consider

protection controls that point of confinement thegeneral population why should permitted get in

touch with you on social sites. When you

interface with individuals you don't have thefoggiest idea, be cautious with the measure ofyour own data you uncover, and considerably

more watchful with meeting individuals, "allthings considered."

8. Stay updated on privacy policy changes on

websites and apps. Protection approaches areknown not much of the time on online

networking sites, so ensure you know about thestrategies and survey your security settings

frequently.

C. Appropriate Comparisons Made in

Literature

I utilized Google Scholar to find recent academic

literature on social media privacy and how it’s

affected current corporation structures. Onlyreputable articles cited by many were used.

To elaborate, the studies cited also used secondary

literature on the topic acquired both online and fromthe library. There is a bunch of research containing

information on issues of online privacy, and how people respond to protect their personal data.

In this review of literature, we found one prominentstudy on Facebook users [13]. There was this

Facebook scraping application involved.

This application was used to collect informationexclusively from Facebook users. The participants

who were selected were requested to install theFacebook application in their profile. Once the

crawler application was installed in their profile,they were notified in their notifications profile. The

crawler application collected past information onthe participant’s behavior based on their privacy

settings, status updates, friends, posts and theinformation presented as basic user information.

The crawler monitored the status updates, whichwere specifically the information posted by the

users on their walls.

On top of that, it separately recorded any otherinformation on the respondent’s wall. These

included both comments and tags by other people.

The software was automated to complete a follow-up questionnaire, which was composed of acomplete set of questions about the data that was

being collected. The crawler application also provided a link of the location of the questionnaire,

which was accessible to both the respondents andthe researcher.

The study involved 60 participants (33 females and

27 males) who successfully completed the study.All the participants ranged between 19-45 years of

age. The crawler application collected data for the past three years from 2013 to present. The

secondary literature used was published within the past four years. Cumulatively, the data included

5789 wall posts and 3721 status updates [13].

The study involved 60 participants (33 females and27 males) who successfully completed the study.


6/12

All the participants ranged between 19-45 years ofage. The crawler application collected data for the

past three years from 2013 to present. Thesecondary literature used was published within the

past four years. Cumulatively, the data included5789 wall posts and 3721 status updates.

In this study, there were two key hypotheses

formulated. It should be noted these hypotheses aredifferent from the ones formulated through my own

research.

Hypothesis 1: Online social media user’s

behaviors do not match their attitudes.

Hypothesis 1 was confirmed. The data collected

showed that, for the past two years, the Facebookusers (78%) visit their accounts on a daily basis,

most of them spending at least 20 minutes (80%) posting and reading news feeds. According to the

information collected, most of the users postedmore in the past one year than they do today. For

example, in 2014, the average posts per month ofthe respondents stood at 22 posts. In the last half of

2015, the average posts per month for therespondents stood at 7 [13].

When the privacy attitudes and the behaviors were

analyzed, there was a discrepancy between the two.

The participants were less concerned in hiding their personal data as most of it was visible to friendswithin their circles. When the measure was weighed

in a Likert scale, the weigh stood at 2.3 for every 5respondents. When asked if they have considered

using a software that would help them in hidingtheir personal information, 61% of the respondents

admitted to not using any of the available softwareto protect their data. However, despite that a big

umber had not attempted, the software recorded atotal number of 112 posts that the respondents had

tried to hide from the public. In the past six months,the remaining 39% admitted to having used some

privacy settings and other software to hide their personal data. Despite the few percentage of the

respondents who tried to hide their personal data,98% of them were worried about whether there are

enough controls in Facebook to warrant anonymityof the data that they share over the network to

strangers [14].

Hypothesis 2: Young people are less concerned of

their privacy than their older counterparts.

To answer this question, the respondents were

divided into two categories. Those who fell between19-34 years of age were considered as the young

generation. Those between 35-45 years wereclassified as the older generation. Based on the

results, the hypothesis was confirmed. It wasevident that young people are less concerned about

their privacy than their older counterparts. 78% ofthe young people disclosed most of their private

information compared to 57% of their oldercounterparts.

When the analysis of the behavior versus attitude

about online social site privacy was conducted, thescores were similar. All of them (100%) pointed out

that they were not sure whether their informationwas private from strangers. However, the concern

was much less among the young people than it waswith their older counterparts. When asked about

their efforts towards protecting their posts andstatuses, of the 39% percent who had used some

privacy measures, the young counterparts accountedfor only 41% compared to their older counterparts

[13].

III. R ESULTS

The survey where these results were taken from can

be found at the following link:https://cshu.typeform.com/to/M2fRYP [2]. There

were over 50+ respondents over the course of thelast several weeks.

The survey was done to gauge the level of

understanding of how the users are aware of thedata that they disclose in these sites. The survey,

which is based on Knowledge Networks (KN) usesan array of questions posed to the users to get to

know their stands as far as this information isconcerned.


7/12

Please refer to the Appendix [Appendix 1] for the

survey results. From the survey results, thefollowing results were made clear. If the results did

not have a clear majority, they may not behighlighted here.

1.

Most respondents were single, young, and in

college.a. Gender wise, it was 57% male and

43% female. b. 52% were students.

c. 50% were 18 to 24, and 22% were25 to 34.

d. 41% had some college background.e. 52% were single.

2.

Most respondents use at least 3 socialnetworks on an hourly daily basis to share

status updates, pictures, and news pieces inorder to keep in touch with friends.

a. 71% are an active member ofLinkedIn, while 67% are active

members of Facebook and 61% areactive members of Twitter.

b. 74% use 1-5 social networks on adaily basis.

c. 61% share status updates the most ofany social network, while 57% share

pictures and 52% share news pieces.

d.

50% mainly use social networks tokeep in touch with friends.

3. Most respondents are unaware of what the

privacy policies of popular social mediaapps pertain.

a. 76% were unaware that if they useLinkedIn, they grant LinkedIn the

right to keep everything on theirwebsite

b. 54% were unaware that if they useGoogle, their data may be used for

purposes they did not intend, sold tothird parties, given to advertisers,

kept indefinitely, stored in anunencrypted form, and may be given

to legal authorities when legal processes are ongoing.

c. 54% were unaware that if they useFacebook, everything they publish is

shared to the public by defaultexcept their birthday and contact

info.4. Most respondents believe having a privacy

policy in place is extremely important but donot believe current practices are suitable

enough.a.

The average level of importance for

having a privacy policy in place foran app they use was 7.96 on a scale

of 1 to 10, 10 being extremelyimportant and 1 being not important.

b. 89% do not believe current privacy policies are effective in social

networking sites.c. 93% do not believe current laws are

strong enough to protect theidentities of people online

5.

Most respondents have never read the Terms& Conditions for an app they use because

they’re too long.a. The average number of times

someone has said they actually readthe entire Terms of Services was 0.

b. 48% believed the biggest reason theydon’t read the Terms of Services

very often is because they’re toolong.

6. Most respondents (63%) were not aware big

companies have used ToS to hand over datato the government in the past.

7. In the light of the new information they

learned throughout the survey, 76% ofrespondents said it would be likely that they

would change their privacy settings.8. With an average score of 5.51 on a scale of

1 to 10, 10 being they will take seriousaction when it comes to their privacy on

online social networks and 1 being theiropinion hasn’t changed, most respondents

decided to re-evaluate some things when itcomes to their privacy on online social

networks.9. Most respondents aren’t ignorant to the fact

that social networks are companies in of andthemselves and not actually based on a free

to use model with 96% stating they do not believe that any social media network is


8/12

truly free.10. Most respondents felt they learned

something after the survey with an averagerating of 4.07 on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 meaning

that the survey was interesting and theylearned something and 1 meaning they

didn’t understand the point of the survey.

IV. A NALYSIS OF R ESULTS

A. Conclusion 1. Behavior of online users do

not match their attitudes when it comes to online

privacy. Even though many people put their personal information online, most are ignorant or

concerned on how their personal data is actually being used. Hypotheses 1 succeeded.

B.

Conclusion 2. Too many people fail to readthe Terms of Services for the applications theyuse because they’re either too boring or too long

to read. Yet, they still recognize the importanceof having a ToS that is fair and reasonable. Hypotheses 2 failed.

C. Overarching Conclusion. When provided

with data and facts, most people are willing to

re-evaluate their current state of privacy settingsand general perspective on online privacy.

V. R ECOMMENDATIONS

The study presented in this paper is preliminary,and any other researcher interested in doing further

study in the same topic can do so. Based on theresults and analysis, social network sites have

become very popular, and many people are usingthem. However, the concern is that the more the use

of the social networks increase, so do the risks and

vulnerabilities involved. Young users, especially,are more affected because they post much of their private data in those sites. Despite this observation,

they are more aware of the dangers that they face by posting their personal information in these sites. It,

therefore, translates that people have to becomemore aware of the dangers of posting personal

information in these sites, and change their

behaviors as far as posting is concerned.

Awareness should be created to make sure that people are aware of the dangers that they get

themselves into when they share informationanyhow. Compliance to security measures is the

responsibility of every body, as personalinformation should only remain with the owner

unless otherwise [15]. It is the high time that wechange the attitudes we have towards sharing

personal data and moderate our behaviors on thesame.

Unless someone and makes it no longer practical

and pressure is put upon the CEOs of thesecompanies, they will continue to engage it in. The

terms & conditions for these large tech monopoliesneed to be easier to understand and only users

voicing their concerns over them will changeanything. To date, no US legislation has dealt with

the policies that permit government agencies &corporations to abuse personal data [15].

However, there are already several tools that exist

that can help with this dilemma. PrivacyPal.co provides a quick and simple overview of any

website’s terms and conditions through their webapplication [19]. There’s also GetTerms.io which

generates a simple Privacy Policy for your website

[17] so you don’t have to confuse your users butstill protect the integrity of your application online.Docracy provides a list of all the changes made to

the terms of services and privacy policies of theworld’s most popular sites for regular users can

always stay up to date with what their websites areup to in terms of online privacy agreements [16].

One of the most popular tools however is the online

web app “Terms of Service; Didn’t Read” whichhas a comprehensive rating system for many

websites’ terms of conditions and privacy policies[18]. This website aims to help “fix the biggest lie

on the web” which is the fact that almost no onereally reads the Terms of Services we agree to all

the time. With their state of the art rating system,any user can go to their website and quickly find

out what kind of data is being tracked on differentweb apps and what kind of restrictions are put on


9/12

them in terms of content or user account deletion.One could be terribly shocked at how low the

privacy ratings are for top tech companies.

VI. CONCLUSION

Protection and security are vital themes innumerous areas of software engineering. They areexceptionally compelling particularly in the zone of

online interpersonal organizations in light of thedelicate information included. At no other time has

there been a solitary gathering of individual,identifiable, touchy, and volunteered information

like we have now with online social networks. Theunion of this information poses a great risk. For

instance, main residence and conception date are allthat is important to decide one's government

disability number with more than sensible precisionand these are frequently both promptly accessible

on a client's profile in an online informalcommunity.

Online informal community suppliers must

accomplish more than produce an administrationone time and after that permit clients access. Maybe

they must keep up the best possible operation ofthat administration after some time.

Information sharing in social networks in the formof status updates, videos, hyperlinks or photographshas gained popularity in the recent past. Social

network sites allow people to create either private, public or partly public and partly private profiles,

most of which features their personal thoughts andlives. Young people are the most affected in sharing

their personal information, either to let them gainaccess to these social sites, or remain relevant if

they are already part of the social sites [8]. They arenot aware of the destinations of such information,

and most of them do not care to know, provided thatthey satisfy their ego of remaining socially relevant

by being part of these social sites.

VII. APPENDIX I.

Social Media Survey Results

These are the questions and possible answer choices

within the survey where results were gathered.

The results are shown in several different figures,each representing a page from the results of the

survey using the admin dashboard on Typeform, theonline application used to create the survey [2].

To note: All questions were required to answer.

Along with each possible answer choice is

showcased the percentage of users who chose thatoption.


10/12


11/12

Figure 1. Results of the Social Media Survey


12/12

VIII. R EFERENCES

[1] Barnes, Susan B. "A privacy paradox: Socialnetworking in the United States." First

Monday 11.9 (2006).

[2] Frances Coronel, 2015. “Social Media

Survey” Typeform,https://cshu.typeform.com/to/M2fRYP,

accessed 9 December 2015.[3] Gangopadhyay, Saswati, and Ms Debarati

Dhar. "Social Networking Sites and PrivacyIssues Concerning Youths.” Global Media

Journal-Indian Edition Summer Issue 5.1

(2014): 1-7.[4] Greenwald, Glenn, and Laura Poitras. "NSA

Whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I Don't Wantto Live in a Society That Does These Sort of

Things' – Video." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 9 June 2013. Web. 6 Dec.

2015..

[5] Gritzalis, Dimitris, et al. "History ofinformation: The case of privacy and security in

social media." Proc. of the History of

Information Conference. 2014.

[6] Madden, Mary. “Privacy management on

social media sites.” Pew Internet Report (2012).1-20.

[7] Madejski, Michelle, Maritza Lupe Johnson,

and Steven Michael Bellovin. “The failure of

online social network privacy settings.” (2011).[8] "Online Privacy Tips from 4 Security

Experts." Virtru. Virtru Corporation, 30 June2015. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.

.

[9] "Surveillance of Citizens by Government."

NY Times. New York Times, 6 Dec. 2015. Web.7 Dec. 2015..

[10] TACMA Guide. Active Voice (2014). <

http://www.activevoice.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/TACMAGuide-1.pdf>

[11] Tufecki, Zeynep. “Stopping WhatsAppWon’t Stop Terrorists.” The New York Times.

The New York Times, 21 Nov. 2015. Web. 13Dec. 2015. <

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/opinion/stopping-whatsapp-wont-stop-

terrorists.html?ref=topics>.[12] Utz, Sonja, and Nicole Krämer. "The

privacy paradox on social network sites

revisited: The role of individual characteristics

and group norms." Cyberpsychology: Journal of

Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace 3.2

(2009): 2.[13]

Vitak, Jessica. "Balancing Privacy Concerns

and Impression Management Strategies on

Facebook." Symposium on Usable Privacy andSecurity (SOUPS). 2015.

[14] Wang, Yang, et al. "A field trial of privacynudges for facebook."Proceedings of the 32nd

annual ACM conference on Human factors in

computing systems. ACM, 2014.

[15] William S. Galkin, 1996. “Privacy: What is

it?” Computer Law Observer, issue 14 (May),

http://www.awcircle.com/issue14.html,accessed 23 December 1997.

[16] "Docracy - Free Legal Documents."

Docracy Terms of Service and Privacy PolicyTracker . Docracy. Web. 14 Dec. 2015..

[17] "Getterms.io." Website Terms & Privacy Policy Generator . Humaan. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.

.[18] Roy, Hugo. "Terms of Service; Didn't

Read." Terms of Service; Didn't Read . Unhosted5Apps, 1 June 2012. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.

.[19] "Your Data Privacy and Online Rights

Shield." PrivacyPal.co. Koding Hackathon2014, 2014. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.

.