Search for: All records

We conducted a user study with 380 Android users, profiling them according to two key privacy behaviors: the number of apps installed, and the Dangerous permissions granted to those apps. We identified four unique privacy profiles: 1) Privacy Balancers (49.74% of participants), 2) Permission Limiters (28.68%), 3) App Limiters (14.74%), and 4) the Privacy Unconcerned (6.84%). App and Permission Limiters were significantly more concerned about perceived surveillance than Privacy Balancers and the Privacy Unconcerned. App Limiters had the lowest number of apps installed on their devices with the lowest intention of using apps and sharing information with them, compared to Permission Limiters who had the highest number of apps installed and reported higher intention to share information with apps. The four profiles reflect the differing privacy management strategies, perceptions, and intentions of Android users that go beyond the binary decision to share or withhold information via mobile apps. 

Managing digital privacy and security is often a collaborative process, where groups of individuals work together to share information and give one another advice. Yet, this collaborative process is not always reciprocal or equally shared. In many cases, individuals with more expertise help others without receiving help in return. Therefore, we studied the phenomenon of "Tech Caregiving" by surveying 20 groups (112 individuals) comprised of friends, family members, and/or co-workers who identified at least one member of their group as a someone who provides informal technical support to the people they know. We found that tech caregivers reported significantly higher levels of power use and self-efficacy for digital privacy and security, compared to tech caregivees. However, caregivers and caregivees did not differ based on their self-reportedcommunity collective-efficacy for collaboratively managing privacy and security together as a group. This finding demonstrates the importance of tech caregiving and community belonging in building community collective efficacy for digital privacy and security. We also found that caregivers and caregivees most often communicated via text message or phone when coordinating support, which was most frequently needed when troubleshooting or setting up new devices. Meanwhile, discussions specific to privacy and security represented only a small fraction of the issues for which participants gave or received tech care. Thus, we conclude that educating tech caregivers on how to provide privacy and security-focused support, as well as designing technologies that facilitate such support, has the potential to create positive networks effects towards the collective management of digital privacy and security.