Privacy Settings And Social Media

Having differentiated between policies and settings, and established some levels of awareness and understanding around these areas, Table 5.6 assesses the level of effort made to adjust settings. The information in this table is drawn from the answers Questions 50, 52, 53, 56, 62 and 63. Immediately apparent from the figures presented, is the discrepancy between the numbers in the ‘total’ column for the first three rows. In

the second row, 81.78% of respondents indicated that they were aware of how to adjust privacy settings on social networking platforms. Yet when responding to whether they had in fact changed any of these settings, the figure dropped to 69.38%. This may be explainable in the same manner as previously; i.e. that awareness does not translate into action, owing to lack of concern or interest, ignorance regarding the concept of privacy, or for other unexplained reasons.

Table 5.6: Adjustment of privacy settings by respondents

Total (n=258) % Male (n=122) % Female (n=136) % p-value

Steps taken to improve

privacy 125 48.45 50 40.98 75 55.15 0.022*

Aware of how to adjust social

media privacy settings 211 81.78 96 78.69 115 84.56 0.227

Privacy settings changed

(social media ) 179 69.38 80 65.57 99 72.79 0.212

Privacy settings changed on

phone 153 59.30 70 57.38 83 61.03 0.553

Privacy settings adjusted on

web browser 141 54.65 68 55.74 73 53.68 0.741

Allow location via cellphone 91 35.27 51 41.80 40 29.41 0.021*

* significant at the 5% level

When the respondents were asked if they had ever taken steps to improve their online privacy, the numbers dropped further, to 48.45%. This may be rationalised in the same way as the previous in comparison the 81.78% indicating awareness of the settings. Nevertheless this figure is in contrast, or even conflict with the 69.38% who had indicated that they had changed settings. The 48.45% stems from Question 56 (‘Have you ever taken any deliberate steps to improve your online privacy?’), which followed the questions from which the previous responses were elicited, and as such a different result was expected, considering the results of the previous two questions. The only explanations that can be offered without more information available for the differential between the results, is that confusion may have arisen, stemming from one question

referring to steps taken on social media platforms, and the other referring to online privacy in general terms.

Nevertheless, respondent numbers for both rows in which it was indicated that adjustments had been made, remained significantly below the 81.78% who indicated their awareness of settings, at least in terms of social media platforms. Whilst the reasons for this were speculated on previously, further research would need to be conducted in order to get a more definitive answer. What remains in no doubt however, is that awareness of settings does not guarantee corrective action, in the same way that having read a privacy policy does not guarantee either action or an understanding of the implications of that policy.

Interestingly, of the 211 respondents who indicated their awareness of how to adjust their social media privacy settings, 134 of them had also read the privacy policy of at least one social media platform, and either understood it, or read it and were uncertain as to their understanding thereof. This translates to 63.50% of those who were aware of how to adjust the relevant settings, indicating some degree of correlation between being interested enough to read privacy policies and adjust the settings, and vice versa, meaning there is a link between interest/awareness, and action. The fact that more respondents were aware of how to adjust settings than were inclined to read policies is perhaps indicative of taking personal responsibility on the one hand, but not realising the full implications on the other.

A total of 54.65% of respondents indicated that they had made an adjustment to the privacy settings on a web browser, which perhaps indicates a more advanced knowledge of privacy both as a concept and technically, than the previous figures suggest. Examining the number of respondents who had changed a privacy setting on their phone, compared with the number who indicated in row 2 of Table 5.4 that they had changed privacy settings for social media platforms without specifying on which device, it is apparent that of the 179 respondents who had done the latter, 68.71% had also indicated that they had changed privacy settings on their phones. This could be indicative of the strong link between social media use and the use of phones to access such platforms.

The final row in Table 5.6 represents results drawn from the answers given to Question 62: ‘Do you allow your cellphone to advertise your location when you go somewhere, via Facebook for example?’ The answers from the options ‘yes’ and ‘sometimes’ were combined to give a broader picture of the attitude towards and practice of location sharing, providing the total of 35.27%. The dangers of advertising one’s location were discussed in the previous section, and it should be noted that location sharing on some makes of cellphone, such as the Blackberry, which was shown to enjoy high popularity amongst the respondents is turned on by default, therefore requiring deliberate action on the part of the user to disable it. How well this fact was known by those who answered ‘no’ to this question was not determined, and as a result, through possible ignorance more respondents were potentially doing this than admitted so.

Examining Table 5.6 for differences between the answers given in terms of the genders of the participants, it is shown that female respondents are more likely to have adjusted privacy settings, a difference statistically significant at the 5% level. This is consistent with the results for female respondents in Table 5.5, showing that females are more likely to have read privacy policies, more likely to be aware of the settings available for adjustment on Facebook, and also more likely to have adjusted any privacy settings. It is also shown in Table 5.6, that female respondents were less likely to allow their cellphone to advertise their location. With a p-value of 0.021 this is statistically significant at the 5% level.

These figures are consistent with those in Table 5.5 and indicate a better attitude towards privacy both in terms of awareness and general practice amongst female respondents, and therefore a reduced level of risk from privacy breaches than their fellow respondents of the opposite gender. Reasons for this were not established, but it is possible that this is due to the attention given regarding the dangers of the Internet in terms of privacy and ‘stranger danger’, and certainly much of the press coverage (see Appendix A) has been focussed on the negative impact on females, thus making them more cognisant of their potential vulnerability. In light of the figures above, it is worth noting that despite only 47.67% of respondents having indicated that they had encountered the term online privacy (see Table 4.2) many of the figures on display in the tables in this section indicate higher overall percentages than that. This is likely due

to an initial unfamiliarity with the term being replaced by a greater understanding as the subsequent questions asked provided greater insight.