Abstract
The results of studying the attitude of the population to the confidentiality of personal data on the Internet are presented. In empirical terms, this article is based on a representative survey of the Moscow population of May‒June 2020. It is recorded that the practice of presenting personal information when using various Internet services has become widespread. At the same time, two-thirds of the respondents expressed concerns about the security of personal information on the Internet. According to a binary regression model, the strongest predictors of this anxiety correlate with the prevailing privacy attitudes among respondents, practices of leaving personal information on the network (primarily about one’s children), negative assessments of security provision as a norm of life in a democratic society, and general dissatisfaction with the functioning of the political system.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Under the GDPR, personal data is defined as any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. The latter can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular, by reference to an identifier such as a name; an identification number; location data; an online identifier; or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural, or social identity of that natural person.
REFERENCES
C. Berg, The Classical Liberal Case for Privacy in a World of Surveillance and Technological Change (Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2018).
A. F. Westin, Privacy and Freedom (Atheneum, New York, 1967).
I. Altman, “Privacy regulation: Culturally universal or culturally specific?,” J. Soc. Issues 33 (3), 66–84 (1977).
S. Petronio, “Privacy management theory,” in Encyclopedia of Communication Theory, Ed. by S. Littlejohn and K. Foss (Sage, London, 2009), pp. 796–798.
T. Dinev and P. Hart, “Internet privacy concerns and their antecedents—measurement validity and a regression model,” Behav. Inform. Technol. 23 (6), 413–422 (2004).
M. Tsay-Vogel, J. Shanahan, and N. Signorielli, “Social media cultivating perceptions of privacy: A 5-year analysis of privacy attitudes and self-disclosure behaviors among Facebook users,” New Media Soc. 20 (1), 141–161 (2018).
D. Chambers, “Networked intimacy: Algorithmic friendship and scalable sociality,” Eur. J. Commun. 32 (1), 26–36 (2017).
P. E. Ketelaar and M. van Balen, “The smartphone as your follower: The role of smartphone literacy in the relation between privacy concerns, attitude, and behavior towards phone-embedded tracking,” Comput. Hum. Behav. 78, 174–182 (2018).
Online privacy and data protection in the European Union (EU). https://www.statista.com/study/38093/online-privacy-and-data-protection-in-the-european-union-eu-statista-dossier/.
Online privacy in the United Kingdom (UK). https://www.statista.com/study/32598/online-privacy-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/.
Online privacy in the United States. https://www.statista.com/study/17352/online-privacy-statista-dossier/.
General Data Protection Regulation. https://gdpr-info.eu/.
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375.
V. K. Shaidullina. “Big data and personal data protection: The main theoretical and practical issues of legal regulation,” Obshch.: Polit., Ekon., Pravo. No. 1, 51–55 (2019).
What is a unified population register and why it is needed. http://duma.gov.ru/news/48646/.
EFIR: Legalization of interference in private life—self-liquidation of democracy. https://rossaprimavera.ru/article/3d6b8204.
We will be woken up in another country: Tomorrow the tax office will receive all the information about you and your family. http://worldcrisis.ru/crisis/3614161.
Z. Bauman, “Privacy, secrecy, intimacy, human bonds, utopia—and other collateral casualties of liquid modernity,” in Modern Privacy: Shifting Boundaries, New Forms, Ed. by H. Blatterer, P. Johnson, and M. R. Markus (Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2010).
J. B. Thompson, “The new visibility,” Theory, Cult. Soc. 22 (6), 31–51 (2005).
N. Couldry and U. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism (Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, Cal., 2019).
Funding
This study was performed by the ISPR FCTAS RAS within Program of Basic Research of State Academies of Sciences for 2013‒2020, no. 185 “Civilizational Changes in Modern Russia: Spiritual Processes, Values, and Ideals” in accordance with the state R&D order Sociocultural and Religious Processes in Modern Russia.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Translated by B. Alekseev
Mikhail Mikhailovich Nazarov is Chief Researcher of the RAS Institute of Sociopolitical Research of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology (ISPR FCTAS RAS). Elena Aleksandrovna Kublitskaya is Head of the Center for Sociology of Religion and Sociocultural Processes at the same institute.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nazarov, M.M., Kublitskaya, E.A. Confidentiality in a Digital Environment: Attitudes of the Population. Her. Russ. Acad. Sci. 91, 163–169 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331621010056
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331621010056