10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17150
While it is extraordinarily difficult to theoretically specify privacy, in the last 100 years or so (social) psychology, philosophy, communication studies, economics, and, to a lesser degree, also sociology and anthropology, provided attempts to conceptualize its meaning. Be that as it may,&nbsp;from the 1960s onwards privacy discourse has focused upon data, understood&nbsp;as “personal information”, to a certain extent because of the advent&nbsp;of huge databases and information and communication technologies (ICTs).&nbsp;Influential scholarship at the present time tends to conceive of ICT-related privacy in terms of the “sociotechnical”, thus highlighting the interlocking of human and technical agency. Although having developed a manifold of instruments to research sociotechnical phenomena, STS engagement with sociotechnical privacy, so far, has been rather low-key. In our contribution we therefore provide a mapping of the research landscape, identify connecting factors between STS and sociotechnical privacy research, and calling for further STS contributions.
application/pdf
2038-3460
17150
2
en
Petra Ilyes
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
STS privacy research
Sociotechnical Privacy. Mapping the Research Landscape
Text.Serial.Journal
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/
4
Scenarios
2014-01-04
2023-06-12
2014-01-04
2023-11-07
73-91
TS
Petra Ilyes
2013
10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17150
73
Goethe University Frankfurt
2038-3460
2
STS privacy research
en
91
Sociotechnical Privacy. Mapping the Research Landscape
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/article/download/17150/16057
4
                                                                                  Scenarios

Sociotechnical Privacy
Mapping the Research Landscape
!
            Carsten Ochs                                      Petra Ilyes
      Technical University Darmstadt                     Goethe University Frankfurt

!

      Abstract While it is extraordinarily difficult to theoretically specify priva-
      cy, in the last 100 years or so (social) psychology, philosophy, communica-
      tion studies, economics, and, to a lesser degree, also sociology and anthro-
      pology, provided attempts to conceptualize its meaning. Be that as it may,
      from the 1960s onwards privacy discourse has focused upon data, under-
      stood as “personal information”, to a certain extent because of the advent
      of huge databases and information and communication technologies (ICTs).
      Influential scholarship at the present time tends to conceive of ICT-related
      privacy in terms of the “sociotechnical”, thus highlighting the interlocking of
      human and technical agency. Although having developed a manifold of in-
      struments to research sociotechnical phenomena, STS engagement with
      sociotechnical privacy, so far, has been rather low-key. In our contribution
      we therefore provide a mapping of the research landscape, identify con-
      necting factors between STS and sociotechnical privacy research, and call-
      ing for further STS contributions.

      Keywords: Privacy Theory; Sociotechnical Privacy; Quantitative Privacy
      Research; Qualitative Privacy Research; STS Privacy Research.

      Corresponding author: Carsten Ochs, European Center for Security
      and Privacy by Design (EC SPRIDE), Technical University Darmstadt,
      Mornewegstr. 32, 64293 Darmstadt. Germany. Phone: +49 6151 - 16-
      75427 – Email: carsten.ochs@ec-spride.de


        Privacy rhetoric often focuses on the individual (…) Models that go beyond the
    individual often focus on groups (…) or articulated lists of others (…) But what are
    the implications of privacy in a networked world where boundaries aren’t so coher-
                            ently defined and when entities aren’t so easily articulated?
                                                   danah boyd (2013), Networked Privacy

1. Introduction

    Conceptual work on privacy regularly starts out from the premise that
it is extraordinarily difficult to theoretically specify the subject matter.
!
TECNOSCIENZA
Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
4 (2) pp. 73-91 - ISSN 2038-3460
www.tecnoscienza.net                              2013
74                                                                  Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

One of the most thorough accounts of privacy is offered by legal scholar
Daniel J. Solove (2008, 1) who states in his seminal Understanding Privacy
that: “Privacy (…) is a concept in disarray. Nobody can articulate what it
means”. A closer look at the academic discourse regarding privacy very
quickly demonstrates, however, that this conceptual disarray is not at all
due to a lack of analytic engagement. Although one cannot but realize a
certain “under-theorisation of the private in sociological thought” (Bailey
2000, 382), “much ink has been spilled in trying to clarify its meaning”
(Posner 1978, 393). The discourse on privacy, in other words, in the last
hundred years or so,1 has been proliferating, with a whole range of disci-
plines, such as legal studies, (social) psychology, philosophy, communica-
tion studies, and economics participating in the debate, aiming to con-
tribute to an understanding of the concept of privacy2.
    A major reason for the difficulty in tackling the privacy problem cer-
tainly lies in the multiplicity of dimensions the term refers to: bodily phys-
icality (intimacy; cfr. Inness 1992), material or immaterial resources (pri-
vate property; cfr. Posner 1978), space (private sphere; cfr. Rössler 2001),
freedom of decision (decisional privacy, ibid.), as well as institutionalized
social domains that are (or are deemed to be) free from public authorities'
interventions (the whole of society as private sphere with the State not be-
ing authorized to interfere at will, cfr. Habermas 1962), may be designat-
ed as “private.” Another dimension the privacy discourse has focused
upon from the 1960s onwards is data, understood as “personal infor-
mation” (cfr. Westin 1970). To a certain extent because of the advent of
huge data bases and information and communication technologies (ICTs)
initially only at the disposal of government authorities, scholars, over the
last several decades, have increasingly explored the status of privacy in
face of the massive digitization of vast spheres of social, political, econom-
ic life (Westin 1970; Gandy 1993; Garfinkel 2000)3. The resulting, at
times rather dystopian, work demonstrates beyond doubt that privacy, to
a considerable degree, has become a matter of information flows, and of
the technical workings of data processing machines that (in part, but de-
cisively) shape these flows (Nissenbaum 2010). Given that privacy is fur-
thermore a collective achievement (Simmel 1906; Goffman 1973), and
thus (perhaps contrary to intuition) not about isolated individuals, but,
rather, a social phenomenon, it is appropriate to speak of sociotechnical

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
  One might locate the starting point in 1890, beginning with Warren and
Brandeis' infamous “The Right to Privacy” (Warren and Brandeis 1890).
2
  And, despite Bailey criticizing sociology's lack of interest in privacy, there are,
indeed, useful contributions current debates repeatedly refer to, such as Simmel
(1906), Goffman (1973), and Arendt (1958).
3
  At the same time, the neighboring research field of surveillance studies has
developed (cf. Lyon 1994). Some scholars consider privacy and surveillance as
concepts that need to be distinguished (Stalder 2002), while others seem to
somewhat fuse both of them (Marx/Muschert 2007).
Ochs and IIyes                                                              75
privacy when it comes to technologically-mediated, data-driven informa-
tional processes (cfr. again Nissenbaum 2010). Accordingly, research on
privacy with respect to new, digital data-collecting and processing tech-
nologies in distributed, networked computational environments must
acknowledge privacy's recent sociotechnical entanglements or dynamic,
heterogeneous associations.4 On this note, Friedewald and Pohoryles, for
example, state that: “Technology and privacy are two intertwined notions
that must be jointly analysed” (2013, 1).
    This is even more true, given that, since the 1990s, sociotechnical pri-
vacy has been significantly transformed, again, with the advent of the In-
ternet and the World Wide Web; with the advent of “smart” cards, me-
ters, grids, and homes; with the advent of “virtual” bank accounts and
online banking; with the advent of digital navigation through analogous
space; with the advent of social media such Online Social Networks
(OSNs) for communication and networking, and Business-to-Consumers
(B2C) E-Commerce for purchasing and selling goods online. In this pa-
per, we focus on mapping the research landscape of the latter two, both
of which involve forms of sociotechnical privacy. The reason for this fo-
cus is that, at present, privacy and privacy breaches in OSNs and E-
Commerce environments are a major subject in academic research, and
also are at the core of the background for staging public policy debates
on privacy.
    The “sociotechnical” is a classic concept in Science and Technology
Studies (STS) (e.g. Akrich 1994, 1989; Bijker and Law 1992; Callon 2004;
Law 2000). It denotes the interplay in highly complex situations of tech-
nological infrastructures and practices, of social and material agencies, in-
volving a wide array of heterogeneous actors – human and non-human or
technical and non-technical – engaged in numerous controversies. Soci-
otechnical privacy as a concept, therefore, is perfectly suited for STS. We
are aware, of course, that STS is a highly contentious field, and that there
is no “solid” definition of it (Coopmans et al. 2004, 2). However, since
the 1980s, the label STS is most commonly used for designating (social)
constructivist and post-constructivist research on science and technology,
albeit not in a binding or consistent way (Ilyes 2006). However, technolo-
gy “as an object of inquiry” in STS is generally conceptualized “in terms
of an ensemble of social and material elements in which dynamic combi-
nations of determination and contingency generate different sociomaterial
configurations” (Boczkowski and Lievrouw 2008, 957). In this sense, a
purely technological or tool understanding of the complex, interactive
systems that involve sociotechnical privacy falls short of their deep em-
beddedness and situatedness in, or entanglement with, social (or cultural)
contexts (e.g. Akrich 1994; MacKenzie and Wajcman 1999). As we will
explain in the conclusion, it is this general insight which renders the con-
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4
 Ellison and boyd (2013, 166) define sociotechnical systems as systems in which
“social and technical factors shape one another”.
76                                                              Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

ceptual tools and methodological instruments of STS fruitful for research
on sociotechnical privacy.
    Having said that, we would like to clarify that whereas STS engage-
ment with sociotechnical privacy so far has been rather low-key, the re-
search landscape concerning this form of privacy is much more extensive
and diverse than we are able to illustrate on the pages to come. What is
more, being located at German research institutions we approach the in-
ternational research landscape from where we are based, which is why
our mapping will predominantly focus on German, European and United
States research. For these reasons the map that we draw will be somewhat
selective; however, we presume this to be negligible for the argument pre-
sented here since our main interest lies in unlocking connecting factors
between sociotechnical privacy research and STS, and we assume that our
selective mapping is appropriate for our particular concern. So the paper
proceeds as follows: in the next paragraph we will offer a rough overview
over quantitative studies dealing with sociotechnical privacy in the last
ten years or so (1); thereupon we will attempt to map the inventory of
qualitative research in this area (2); finally, we will flesh out three possible
STS contributions to sociotechnical privacy studies (3).


2. Quantitative Research on Sociotechnical Privacy

     Some of the earliest and to date most influential quantitative research
on sociotechnical privacy in OSNs and B2C E-Commerce stems from the
fields of behavioural economics, communication studies and (media) psy-
chology. This research mostly centres on the idea of individual actors, of-
ten conceived of as consumers, who make individual privacy decisions (as
explained in Gürses and Diaz 2013, 6); in so doing, these individuals are
deemed to trade personal information off for (economic or social) bene-
fits. Behavioural economists Alessandro Acquisti and Jens Grossklags
formulated the leitmotif of this kind of approach as early as 2003 by iden-
tifying “a dichotomy between stated attitudes and actual behavior of indi-
viduals facing decisions affecting their privacy and their personal infor-
mation security” (Acquisti and Grossklags 2003, 1). Those individuals are
generally deemed to make rational decisions (Acquisti and Grossklags
2005), therefore research strategies aim to compare users' rational valua-
tion of privacy in online environments with the information they actually
reveal via profiles, postings, and so on. A behavioral economics research
strategy proceeds by interrogating users, with the help of surveys, on the
value they assign to personal information. Additionally, profile data and
similar data made available by users in OSNs are collected, examined,
and tested for a match or mismatch between attitudes stated in the sur-
veys, and actual profile settings (cf. Gross and Acquisti 2005; Acquisti
and Gross 2006). More often than not researchers found a discrepancy
Ochs and IIyes                                                           77
between both. The term coined for this mismatch was “Privacy Paradox”
(Barnes 2006).
     Research along these lines attempted to identify a series of issues,
among them (1) privacy concerns and the trust that users assign to certain
OSNs (Dwyer et al. 2007); (2) users' perceptions of “benefits” (i.e. social
capital) of OSNs for them (cf. Ellison et al. 2007; Ellison et al. 2011;
Stutzman et al. 2012a); (3) information protection strategies in OSNs, and
the growing awareness of, privacy issues as well as techniques to limit un-
intended dissemination of information (Tufekci 2008; Young and Quan-
Haase 2009; Stutzman and Kramer-Duffield 2010); (4) the cultural shap-
ing of privacy concerns (Wang et al. 2011a); (5) the change in use and
perception of OSNs over time (Lampe et al. 2008; boyd and Hargittai
2010; Stutzman et al. 2012b); and (6) whether and how OSN use affects
self-disclosure (Trepte and Reinecke 2013).
     Many of these studies were concerned with what was perceived as a
discrepancy between stated attitudes and actual disclosure practice in
OSNs. In the same vein, early research in the realm of E-Commerce de-
tected a similar dichotomy (e.g. cfr. Berendt et al. 2005). As the objective
of many of these studies is to inform privacy research in computer science
(e.g. on Privacy-Enhancing Technologies, abbreviated PETs) the central
question is how to account for this discrepancy and find a design solu-
tion. One major approach is the so-called “soft paternalism” approach
based on the idea of “privacy nudges”, a strategy that works on the prem-
ise that users must be nudged by the software into considering the priva-
cy implications of their online actions (Acquisti 2009; Wang et al. 2013).
For example, studies uncovered that users often regretted having posted a
piece of information (Wang et al. 2011b). Several suggestions were made
and tested. One suggestion was to provide a tool informing users about
the audiences for which a post was visible; another one was to introduce
time delays to give users the opportunity to reconsider as to whether they
wanted to post the message or not; and yet another suggestion was to in-
dicate potentially inappropriate semantics in a post (e.g. swearing; Wang
et al. 2013). With respect to E-Commerce, researchers experimented with
providing tools that indicated the “privacy-friendliness” of online shops,
“nudging” users towards financially less attractive but more privacy-
friendly services (Tsai et al. 2011).
     These studies are well suited to take on rather narrowly defined priva-
cy issues on the Internet. However, they rarely consider collective or in-
teractional dimensions of privacy practices (Gürses and Diaz 2013; Dour-
ish and Anderson 2006). In fact, what is termed “practice” in many of
these studies, empirically and methodologically only comes to the surface
in the form of participants' ticking preformulated statements in a survey.
Often such surveys consider “practice” to be the equivalent to individu-
als' behavior, assuming that it is possible to separate “behavioural bits”
(i.e. decontextualized privacy decisions, e.g. when setting up a profile, or
similar actions) from users' extended social context. In this view, users
78                                                              Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

give rational and clear-cut accounts of the reasons motivating those
“bits”. It follows from this perspective that it should be possible to identi-
fy these reasons by interrogating users with the help of surveys and juxta-
posing them with what is held to be the corresponding “actual practice.”
In contrast, STS approaches situate practice within the collectivity of so-
ciotechnical “agencements” (Callon 2006), or “social worlds” (Clarke and
Star 2008). Empirically and analytically, user practices cannot be studied
in isolation from those collectivities. In order to capture user practices in
situ qualitative approaches are necessary.


3. Qualitative Research on Sociotechnical Privacy

    There is to date a considerable number of studies on privacy issues in
technically mediated environments employing both a sociotechnical ap-
proach, and a qualitative and mixed-method approach to investigate us-
ers' privacy management and sharing practices in OSNs (e.g. Besmer et
al. 2010; boyd 2007; Brandtzaeg et al. 2010; Cunningham and Masoodian
2010; Dowd 2011; Fowley 2011; Lampinen et al. 2011; Lange 2007; Rot-
man et al. 2012a; Nippert-Eng 2007; Sleeper et al. 2013; Viseu et al.
2004). These investigations are qualitative (or partly qualitative) user
studies conducted in a range of fields such as HCI (Human-Computer In-
teraction) and CSCW (Computer-Supported Cooperative Work).5
    There are also some full-fledged ethnographies on OSNs that have
become quite influential. danah boyd, for example, in 2008 brought for-
ward an impressive study of US American Teens' use practices in a range
of OSNs (or social network sites, abbreviated SNS, as she prefers to call
them) (2008b). Moreover, not only did she provide, together with Nicole
B. Ellison, what is the standard definition of OSNs (boyd and Ellison
2007), she also developed the widely-used analytical concept of “net-
worked publics” to capture the characteristics of OSNs (boyd 2008). In-
terestingly, by doing fieldwork, boyd (2011) did not simply offer common
explanations of a say-this-but-do-that type of user, but, instead, was able
to empirically demonstrate that the users she observed (US Teens) in no
way rejected privacy as a value, as it is often claimed (cfr. the debate on
the “privacy paradox”) Rather, they had the normative expectation that
certain classes of actors, such as parents or teachers, were simply not au-
thorized to “sniff out” personal information; doing so was considered a
privacy breach, just like reading someone’s diary without their consent
(boyd 2011). The reason for the occurrence of the so called privacy para-

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5
  HCI and CSCW researchers have employed ethnographically informed
approaches since decades, particularly to gain insights into actual practices of
users of computational environments in workplaces (cfr. Anderson 1996;
Crabtree et al. 2006; Dourish 2001; Hughes 1995; Viller and Sommerville 2000).
Ochs and IIyes                                                               79
dox, therefore, was not so much attributable to discrepancies between
stated attitudes and actual behaviour as to a clash of normative assump-
tions, as well as to power asymmetries in terms of options to achieve
“contextual integrity” (Nissenbaum 2004).
    Other qualitative studies on privacy issues in OSNs similarly help to
differentiate the specific forms privacy (and privacy practices) take on in
online environments. Based on an ethnography of Facebook users,
Raynes-Goldie (2010), for example, distinguishes between “institutional
privacy”, i.e. privacy matters to do with access of providers and third par-
ties to users' personal information (which can hardly be controlled by us-
ers), and “social privacy”, i.e. privacy matters to do with users' privacy
management vis-a-vis other users (which is potentially controllable by us-
ers with the help of privacy settings provided by OSNs). Raynes-Goldie
holds that, typically, teenagers do care less for “institutional privacy”,
compared to “social privacy.”6
    Despite of drawing on rather small sample sizes, qualitative and eth-
nographic studies on actual user practices allow a more nuanced perspec-
tive on privacy in technically mediated environments. Insights into actual
user practices may point to possible solutions for mitigating problems of
unauthorized data access, and thus to suggest ways of giving users more
control over their privacy settings or to make it easier for users to manage
them (Beye et al. 2010, 13). In fact, as far as the design of online interac-
tive systems is concerned, bringing an understanding of the social to the
research of these systems, and conceiving of them as sociotechnical (or
“technosocial”) ensembles rather than just technical tools has become a
widely adopted perspective. Many scholars in the field of systems design
now emphasize anthropological and sociological methodological ap-
proaches in order to provide insights into situated and contextualized end
users' information practice, i.e. how they manage their activities and secu-
rity on an everyday, practical basis (cfr. Dourish 2001, 2004; Dourish et
al. 2004; Dourish and Anderson 2006). Rotman et al. (2012), for instance,
argue that quantitative methods have only a limited capacity for exploring
why people do something online. Ethnographers, they suggest, may un-
cover implicit meanings and new behaviours by conducting in-depth re-
search in natural settings (Rotman et al. 2012b). Sociotechnical approach-
es are, in fact, employed within the field of systems design (e.g. Sutcliffe
2000; Goggins et al. 2011; Mostashari and Sussman 2009), but – with very
few exceptions – work in this field makes no reference to STS nor does it
employ qualitative user studies.
    The latter observation applies to research on sociotechnical privacy in
general: studies locating themselves explicitly within the STS field, taking
up STS conceptual tools are pretty rare. Here are some of those that do
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6
  Other scholars prefer the terms “interpersonal” (Palen and Dourish 2003;
Johnson et al. 2012) or “interactional” privacy (Lipford et al. 2012; Wisniewski
2011).
80                                                           Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

so: Ochs and Löw apply some of the STS instruments to pursue their
more general interest in possibilities of building a “culture of trust” on
the Internet including the matching of techno-legal infrastructures, fair
information practices and user competences (Ochs and Löw 2012). Van
der Velden and Emam (2012) focus on understanding actual privacy-
protection techniques of long-term or chronically ill teenagers using social
media. Ochs (2013) analytically juxtaposes empirically identified norma-
tive scripts shaping users' agency with the cookie script harnessed for tar-
geted advertisement, thus demonstrating the emergence of intrinsically
contradictory information practices. Still further in empirically integrating
the non-human shaping of sociotechnical privacy go Poller et al. (2013).
Their work is based on a collaboration between computer scientists and
cultural anthropologists using both self-reported data and technically elic-
ited in situ data from OSNs to achieve a better understanding of actual
user practices and user interactions. By analyzing users' interaction with
other users as well as with technology, they aim at making valid sugges-
tions for a more user-friendly software design of OSNs.
    In fact, systematically including non-human actors' role – be they
technical, legal, or other – in the shaping of sociotechnical privacy is what
is urgently required in privacy research. Gürses and Diaz (2013) plausibly
argue for an integration of “surveillance perspectives” and “social per-
spectives”, i.e. of what we have called above “institutional privacy” and
“social privacy.” To understand sociotechnical privacy, in other words, it
is mandatory that we account for the wider sociotechnical ensemble or
“agencement”: users, preferences, infrastructures, providers, technology,
laws, etc. Recent research, quantitative as well as qualitative one, has be-
gun to pick up on this insight, including providers and technologies in the
research design. Stutzman et al. (2012), for example, combined their
quantitative longitudinal study of Facebook use by undergraduates at a
US University with a qualitative analysis of Facebook privacy settings dur-
ing the course of the study to explain some of their findings. Raynes-
Goldie empirically investigated both OSN users and the provider (Face-
book Inc.) to demonstrate that: “Facebook Inc. plays a critical, yet often
overlooked role in shaping privacy norms and behaviours through site
policies and architecture” (Raynes-Goldie 2012, ii).
    Mapping the landscape of sociotechnical privacy research eventually
reveals that there is a need to be more inclusive, i.e. to take into account
the various heterogeneous actors / agencies shaping privacy practices and
shaped by them. This requirement has already been acknowledged for
some time within privacy research in general. We argue that STS is per-
fectly equipped to contribute to this task. So in the remainder of the pa-
per we will suggest how STS may contribute to exploring sociotechnical
privacy.
Ochs and IIyes                                                                        81
4. Three Possible STS                                      Contributions   to   Studying
Sociotechnical Privacy

    Studying online social media on the Internet (such as Facebook,
YouTube, Orkut, Twitter, Flickr, Google+, Pinterest, etc.) is a hot topic
for researchers from different disciplines. There is hardly any doubt that
these media have changed the way the Internet is being used, and that the
implications of these changes are not well understood, particularly with
respect to privacy and security issues. Increasingly, researchers articulate
the need to study these technologically mediated online environments
from various perspectives7. However, STS has not yet seriously engaged
with sociotechnical privacy on the Internet. Although STS programs at
universities often emphasize that privacy in technically mediated envi-
ronments is a central public issue that should be investigated from an STS
perspective,8 few studies have visibly materialized so far9. Whereas the
theme of surveillance was present to a certain extent at recent STS con-
ferences10, the question of managing privacy in online social networks by
their users was hardly touched11. We want to argue, however, that STS
with its characteristic non-essentialist and mutual-shaping stance will be
able to contribute to research on sociotechnical privacy. We want to par-
ticularly suggest three points.


4.1. Situated Actions and Practices

    A first move of STS-informed research on sociotechnical privacy
would be to step back from given definitions, and to follow agencies as
they co-constitute the ontologies of privacies in processes of unfolding in
different sociotechnical arrangements or “agencements”. Therefore, STS
first contribution would be to take privacy not as a given, but to investi-
gate into sociotechnical (or “technosocial”) entanglements, i.e. the co-
constitution or social shaping of technology by heterogeneous actors or
agencies. OSN users' actions are part of wider-ranging sociotechnical
practices involving communication, networking and so on, that is, in STS
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7
   For instance, recently, at the Second International Workshop on Privacy and
Security in Online Social Media, co-located with WWW 2013, May 14, 2013, Rio
De Janeiro, Brazil.
8
   Two cases are STS at MIT and Cornell University.
9
   There is some work in STS on other aspects of social media, e.g. on ethical
questions, but not necessarily qualitative studies (cf. e.g. Light et al. 2008).
10
    For instance, at three panels at the 4S/EASST Joint Conference 2012
Copenhagen.
11
    Two of the few presentations at the 4S/EASST Joint Conference 2012 that did
touch this point are by Maja van der Velden and Andreas Poller and Andreas
Kramm.
82                                                            Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

terms, they are “situated” actions. As a consequence, when we deal with
                                                     12

a subject that is socially and culturally as loaded as privacy, it seems hard-
ly possible to sever the informational dimension of privacy from its ties to
dimensions of intimacy, property, freedom of choice, and so on. Addi-
tionally, it is quite probable that conceptualizations of privacy vary with
respect to the given social setting under scrutiny. So, instead of portraying
privacy as a matter of purely individual behavior, or as something essen-
tial, equipped with inherent features, it is more appropriate to investigate
(a) into what privacy means in different social worlds to different actors;
(b) how the latter relate to different taken-for-granted values, norms, ide-
as, interests, etc.; (c) how they aim to inscribe these into material struc-
tures, given the asymmetric distribution of capacities to do so; and (d)
how different notions clash, thus destabilizing discursive, semantic, semi-
otic, and material dimensions. Furthermore, situated actions and practic-
es are not only produced by those who use some online service, but also
by those providing it, including the material agents shaping the flow of in-
formation, and others, e.g. regulatory agencies. It may be the case that
within such complex constellations there are countervailing “scripts”
(Akrich 1994) shaped by quite different norms and values. Still however,
insofar as the contradictions do not necessarily become visible, and con-
sequently do not play out, all the agents together might build networks
producing practices. For example, users may operate with normative as-
sumptions not matching the technological scripts that shape the flow of
information; however, without being aware of it, so in spite of their
norms being somewhat violated, they still develop practices in OSNs.
Hence, what seems a paradox at first glance might, in fact, surface as a
matter of asymmetric translation processes rather than of inconsistency:
users may simply not be able to make their scripts part of the program
running. To sum up, studying situated privacy practices would make the
simultaneous fluidity (no once-and-for-all privacy-in-society) and robust-
ness (relatively stable patterns of privacy practices in different social
worlds) – that is, the contingencies and regularities of sociotechnical pri-
vacy – visible.


4.2. Heterogeneous Actors

    We argue that this approach requests us to identify connected sites
and stabilizing mechanisms, trace a network and account for how the as-
sociation is held together (Latour 2005). While keeping an eye on the us-
ers, we must also turn the lens somewhat away from them and also in-
clude other entities. STS user studies do not only look at users' roles in

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
12
  The concept of “situated action” has been introduced by Lucy Suchman (1987)
to the debate on technical design, and has become a central concept in STS.
Ochs and IIyes                                                          83
technological development and innovation but also at the complex inter-
play of users and artifacts (cfr. Oudshoorn and Pinch 2008). This per-
spective points to emergent properties, unintended consequences and co-
evolutionary dynamics of technical artifacts (cf. e.g. Akrich 1994; Callon
1987). STS emphasizes that there are no “correct” uses of a given techno-
logical artifact, only intended, recommended, expected or dominant ones
(Aibar 2010, 179). Users do not necessarily “come forward to play the
roles envisaged by the designers” (Akrich 1994, 208), but come up with
new and surprising uses. Indeed, qualitative, ethnographically informed
studies on sharing strategies of OSN users demonstrate that users often
do not fully grasp how the system technically functions. They also show
that users invent strategies and workarounds instead of using built-in
functions (e.g. boyd and Marwick 2011; Poller et al. 2013). In this sense,
unsurprisingly, users still play an integral part in sociotechnical privacy
studies. If we want to come to terms with how practices are collectively
produced, however, we quite obviously have to deal not only with users,
but also with technologies, designers, providers, shareholders, privacy ad-
vocates, regulators, laws, government authorities, global governance
agencies, etc., all of them participating in the shaping of practices, at-
tempting to introduce scripts in order to make programs of action run.
Sociotechnical privacy may be produced as much by data regulation laws
as by users' ideas and actions; it may be shaped by the business models of
the Web 2.0 industry just as much as by public discourses on the risks of
“social media”; and it may be configured by technical functionalities just
as much as by the semantics and semiotics of presenting them to users.
We posit, therefore, that the second contribution of STS is to account for
all these entities without privileging any of them a priori, but to rather
empirically determine their relevance.


4.3. Ethnographically Informed Studies

    While the merits of an ethnographically informed approach are obvi-
ous, what rains on its parade is that such an endeavour threatens to run
into considerable methodological challenges (e.g. Rotman et al. 2012;
Gürses and Diaz 2013). For instance, on-site observations of user practic-
es in OSNs or on E-Commerce sites can be difficult because unlike in
studies implying a physical site, researchers in online environments can-
not simply go and visit some place, and observe users in situ. Therefore,
in addition to classical qualitative research methods, the deployment of
software-supported research techniques may be helpful (e.g. experience
sampling, embedded comment tools, activity logs, etc.) to collect qualita-
tive, contextualized in situ data.
    Another case in point is access to providers' data. Gürses and Diaz
point out that in practice it is not possible to observe how providers make
84                                                               Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

management decisions, nor are the algorithms that shape the flow of in-
formation visible. In other words, providers' practices – both human and
nonhuman ones – are anything but transparent, and in this sense the
“opacity of OSN providers” poses considerable challenges for research in
PETs as well as in sociotechnical privacy (Gürses and Diaz 2013, 7).
Problems such as these are, of course, not unique to studying sociotech-
nical privacy but also arise in other fields of STS when corporate interests
(e.g. algorithmic financial markets) and other high-level interests (e.g. po-
litical decision making) are at stake. Some research draws on alternative
strategies, analyzing reverse engineering of the system; public statements
of enterprises; the legal framework of services, and so on. However, these
strategies often require to establish alliances and collaborations with oth-
er disciplines, such as computer science, legal studies, economics, etc. In
spite of the methodological challenges we argue that by investigating into
actual practices and situated action, STS-informed research may both
provide viable suggestions for better privacy solutions, and a better un-
derstanding of sociotechnical privacy in emergent systems; for, if any-
thing, STS scholars have proven in the course of the last decades time and
again that they are capable of building alliances with other fields and dis-
ciplines; and, what is more, that they are not easy to intimidate when it
comes to researching fields which are difficult to study. Thus, the third
contribution of STS to researching sociotechnical privacy is the dogged-
ness it has acquired over the years.
     Let's take up the challenge!


References
Acquisti, A. (2009) Nudging Privacy. The Behavioral Economics of Personal Infor-
   mation, in “IEEE Security & Privacy”, (7) 6, pp. 82-85.
Acquisti, A. and Gross, R. (2006) Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information
   Sharing, and Privacy on the Facebook, in G. Danezis and P. Golle (eds.), Priva-
   cy Enhancing Technologies, 6th International Workshop PET 2006, Berlin and
   Heidelberg, Springer, pp. 36-58.
Acquisti, A. and Grossklags, J. (2003) Losses, Gains, and Hyperbolic Discounting:
   An Experimental Approach to Information Security Attitudes and Behavior. 2nd
   annual Workshop on Economics and Information Security, in
   http://www.cpppe.umd.edu/rhsmith3/papers/Final_session6_acquisti.grosskl
   ags.pdf (retrieved September 5, 2013).
Acquisti, A. and Grossklags, J. (2005) Privacy and Rationality in Individual Deci-
   sion Making, in “IEEE Security & Privacy”, 3 (1), pp. 26-33.
Aibar, E. (2010) A Critical Analysis of Information Society – Conceptualizations
   from an STS Point of View, in “TripleC”, 8 (2), pp. 177-182.
Akrich, M. (1989) La construction d'un système socio-technique. Esquisse pour une
Ochs and IIyes                                                                   85
    anthropologie des techniques, in “Anthropologie et Sociétés”, 13 (2), pp. 31-
    54.
Akrich, M. (1994) The De-Scription of Technical Objects, in W.E. Bijker and J.
   Law (eds.), Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical
   Change, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 205-224.
Anderson, B. (1996) Work, Ethnography and System Design, in Rank Xerox Re-
   search. Centre Technical Report EPC-1996, Rank Xerox Research Centre,
   Cambridge.
Arendt, H. (1958) The Human Condition, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Bailey, J. (2000) Some Meaning of 'the Private' in Sociological Thought, in “Sociol-
    ogy”, 34 (3), pp. 381-401.
Barnes, S. (2006) A Privacy Paradox: Social Networking in the United States, in
   “First Monday”, 11 (9).
Berendt, B., Günther, O. and Spiekermann, S. (2005) Privacy in E-Commerce:
   Stated Preferences vs. Actual Behavior, in “Communications of the ACM”, 48
   (4), pp. 101-106.
Besmer, A. and Richter Lipford, H. (2010) Moving beyond untagging: photo priva-
   cy in a tagged world, in E.D. Mynatt, D. Schoner, G. Fitzpatrick, S.E. Hudson,
   W.K. Edwards and T. Rodden (eds.), “CHI”, pp. 1563-1572.
Beye, M., Jeckmans, A., Erkin, Z., Hartel, P., Lagendijk, R. and Tang, Q. (2010)
   Literature Overview – Privacy in Online Social Networks, in “Technical Report
   TR-CTIT-10-36”, Centre for Telematics and Information Technology Univer-
   sity of Twente, Enschede.
Bijker, W.E. and Law, J. (eds.) (1992) Shaping Technology/Building Society. Stud-
    ies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Boczkowski, P. and Lievrouw, L. A. (2008) Bridging STS and Communication
   Studies: Scholarship on Media and Information Technologies, in E.J. Hackett,
   O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch and J. Wajcman (eds.), Handbook of Science and
   Technology Studies, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 951-977.
boyd, d. (2007) Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked
   Publics in Teenage Social Life, in D. Buckingham (ed.), Youth, Identity, and
   Digital Media, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 119-142.
boyd, d. (2008) Taken Out of Context: American Teen Sociality in Networked Pub-
   lics, PhD Dissertation, University of California-Berkeley, School of Infor-
   mation, http://www.danah.org/papers/TakenOutOfContext.pdf, retrieved
   August 29, 2013.
boyd, d. (2011) Living in a Publicity World: Privatsphäre und Öffentlichkeit in so-
   zialen Netzwerken, in Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (ed.), #public life. Digitale Inti-
   mität, die Privatsphäre und das Netz, Berlin, agit-druck, pp. 28-35.
boyd, d. (2013) Networked Privacy, in “Surveillance & Society”, 10 (3/4), pp. 348-
   350.
86                                                                 Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

boyd, d. and Ellison, N.B. (2007) Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and
   Scholarship, in “Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication”, 13 (1), pp.
   210-230.
boyd, d. and Hargittai, E. (2010) Facebook's Privacy Settings: Who Cares?, in
   “First Monday”, 15 (8).
boyd, d. and Marwick, A. (2011) Social Privacy in Networked Publics: Teens' Atti-
   tudes, Practices and Strategies, in A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the
   Dynamics       of    the     Internet    and      Society,  September     2011.
   http://ssrn.com/abstract=1925128, retrieved September 4, 2013.
Brandtzaeg, P.B., Lüders, M. and Skjetne, J.H. (2010) Too Many Facebook
   “Friends”? Content Sharing and Sociability Versus the Need for Privacy in Social
   Network Sites, in “International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,
   Special Issue: HCI and Social Computing”, 26 (11-12), pp. 1006-1030.
Callon, M. (1987) Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for So-
    ciological Analysis, in W.E. Bijker, T. Hughes, and T. Pinch (eds.), The Social
    Construction of Technological Systems, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 83-
    193.
Callon, M. (2004) The role of hybrid communities and socio-technical arrangements
    in the participatory design, in “Journal of the Center for Information Studies”,
    5, pp. 3-10.
Callon, M. (2006) What does it mean to say that economics is performative? in
    “CSI Working Papers Series”, No. 5.
Clarke, A.E. and Star, S.L. (2008) The Social Worlds Framework: A Theo-
    ry/Methods Package, in E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch and J.
    Wajcman (eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Cambridge
    MA, MIT Press, pp. 113-137.
Coopmans, C., Neyland, D. and Woolgar, S. (2004) Does STS mean business? –
   some issues and questions, workshop at Saïd Business School, University of
   Oxford, June 30.
Crabtree, A., Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., Tennent, P., Chalmers, M. and Brown,
   B. (2006). Supporting ethnographic studies of ubiquitous computing in the wild,
   in “Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems”, New
   York, pp. 60-69.
Cunningham, S.J. and Masoodian, M. (2010) Analyzing users’ behaviour to identi-
   fy their privacy concerns, paper presented at Workshop on Privacy and Usabil-
   ity Methods Pow-wow (PUMP) 2010, Dundee, Scotland, September, 6.
Dourish, P. (2001) Where the Action Is. The Foundation of Embodied Interaction.
   Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Dourish, P. (2004) What We Talk About When We Talk About Context, in “Per-
   sonal and Ubiquitous Computing”, 8 (1), pp. 19-30.
Dourish, P. and Anderson, K. (2006) Collective Information Practice: Exploring
   Privacy and Security as Social and Cultural Phenomena, in “Human-Computer
   Interaction”, 21, pp. 319-342.
Ochs and IIyes                                                                    87
Dourish, P., Grinter, R.E., Delgado De La Flor, J. and Joseph, M. (2004) Security
   in the Wild: User Strategies for Managing Security as an Everyday, Practical
   Problem, in “Personal and Ubiquitous Computing”, 8 (6), pp. 391-401.
Dowd, M. (2011) Contextualised concerns: The online privacy attitudes of young
  adults, in Privacy and Identity Management for Life, “IFIP Advances in In-
  formation and Communication Technology”, Volume 352, Springer, pp. 78-
  89.
Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. and Passerini, K. (2007) Trust and Privacy Concern Within
  Social Networking Sites: A Comparison of Facebook and MySpace, in “AMCIS
  2007 Proceedings. Paper 339”.
Ellison, N. B. and boyd, d. (2013) Sociality through social network sites, in Dutton,
    W.H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies. Oxford, Oxford Uni-
    versity Press, pp. 151-172.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. (2007) The “Benefits” of Facebook-
    Friends: Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network
    Sites, in “Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication”, 12, pp. 1143-
    1168.
Ellison, N. B., Vitak, J., Steinfield, C., Gray, R. and Lampe, C. (2011) Negotiating
    Privacy Concerns and Social Capital Needs in a Social Media Environment, in S.
    Trepte, S. and L. Reinecke (eds.), Privacy Online: Perspectives on Privacy and
    Self-Disclosure in the Social Web, New York, Springer, pp. 19-32.
Fowley, C. (2011) Publishing the confidential. An ethnographic study of young Irish
   bloggers, PhD Thesis, Dublin City University.
Friedewald, M. and Pohoryles, R.J. (2013) Technology and privacy, in “Innova-
    tion: The European Journal of Social Science Research”, 26 (1-2), pp. 1-6.
Gandy, O. (1993) The Panoptic Sort: A Political Economy of Personal Information,
   Boulder/CO, The Westview Press.
Garfinkel, S. (2000) Database Nation: The Death of Privacy in the 21st Century,
   Beijing, O'Reilly.
Goffman, E. (1973) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York, The
   Overlook Press.
Goggins, S. P., Laffey, J. and Gallagher, M. (2011) Completely online group for-
   mation and development: small groups as socio-technical systems, in “Infor-
   mation Technology & People”, 24 (2), pp. 104-133.
Gross, R. and Acquisti, A. (2005) Information Revelation and Privacy in Online
   Social Networks (The Facebook Case), in “Proceedings of the 2005 ACM
   Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society”, pp. 71-80.
Gürses, S. and Diaz, C. (2013) Two Tales of Privacy in Online Social Networks, in
   “IEEE Security & Privacy”, 11 (3), pp. 29-37.
Habermas, J. (1962) Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit, Untersuchungen zu einer
   Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft, Neuwied, Luchterhand.
88                                                               Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

Hughes, J. (1995) The Role of Ethnography in Interactive Systems Design, in “In-
  teractions”, 2 (2), pp. 57-65.
Ilyes, P. (2006) Zum Stand der Forschung des englischsprachigen “Science and
    Technology” (STS)-Diskurses, in “Teilstudie im Rahmen des Forschungspro-
    jekts 'Computersimulationen – Neue Instrumente der Wissensproduktion' im
    Rahmen der BMBF Initiative Wissen für Entscheidungsprozesse. Forschung
    zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft, Politik und Gesellschaft”.
Inness, J. (1992) Privacy, Intimacy, and Isolation, Oxford, Oxford University
   Press.
Johnson, M., Egelman, S. and Bellovin, S.M. (2012) Facebook and Privacy: It’s
   Complicated, in “Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS) 2012”,
   July 11–13, Washington.
Lampe, C., Ellison, N.B. and Steinfield, C. (2008) Changes in use and perception
   of Facebook, in “Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer sup-
   ported cooperative work (CSCW '08). ACM, New York”, pp. 721-730.
Lampinen, A., Lehtinen, V., Lehmuskallio, A. and Tamminen, S. (2011) We're in
   It Together: Interpersonal Management of Disclosure in Social Network Ser-
   vices, in “CHI 2011, Session: Privacy May 7-12, 2011, Vancouver, BC, Cana-
   da”.
Lange, P. G. (2007) Publicly Private and Privately Public: Social Networking on
   Youtube, in “Journal for Computer-Mediated Communication”, 13 (1), pp.
   361-380.
Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-
   Theory. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Law, J. (2000) Networks, Relations, Cyborgs: on the Social Study of Technology, in
   “Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University Working Paper Series”.
   http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/research/publications/papers/law-
   networks-relations-cyborgs.pdf, retrieved November 21, 2013.
Light, B., McGrath, K. and Griffiths, M. (2008) More Than Just Friends? Face-
   book, Disclosive Ethics and the Morality of Technology, in “Twenty Ninth In-
   ternational Conference on Information Systems, Paris 2008. ICIS 2008 Pro-
   ceedings”, Paper 193.
Lipford, H.R., Wisniewski, P., Lampe, C., Kisselburgh, L. and Caine, K. (2012)
   Reconciling Privacy with Social Media, in “Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Con-
   ference on Computer Supported Corporative Work Companion”, pp. 19-20.
Lyon, D. (1994) The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society, Cambridge,
   Polity Press.
MacKenzie, D., and Wajcman, J. (1999) Introductory essay: the social shaping of
   technology, in D. MacKenzie, D. and J. Wajcman (eds.), The Social Shaping of
   Technology, Buckingham, Open University Press, pp. 3-27.
Marx, G.T. and Muschert, G. (2007) Personal Information, Borders, and the New
   Surveillance Studies, in “Annual Review on Law and Social Science”, 3, pp.
   375-395.
Ochs and IIyes                                                                   89
Mostashari, A. and Sussman, J.M. (2009) A Framework for Analysis, Design and
  Management of Complex Large-Scale Interconnected Open Sociotechnological
  Systems, in “International Journal of Decision Support System Technology
  (IJDSST)”, 1 (2), pp. 53-68.
Nippert-Eng, C. (2007) Privacy in the United States: Some Implications for Design
   Privacy in the United States, in “International Journal of Design”, 1 (2), pp. 1-
   10.
Nissenbaum, H.F. (2004) Privacy as Contextual Integrity, in “Social Science Re-
   search Network Working Paper Series”, May.
Nissenbaum, H.F. (2010) Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity
   of Social Life, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press.
Ochs, C. (2013) Wettrüsten der Skripte: Widersprüchlichkeiten soziotechnischer
   Privatheitspraktiken im Internet, in U. Ackermann (ed.), Im Sog des Internets.
   Öffentlichkeit und Privatheit im digitalen Zeitalter, Frankfurt/M., Humanities
   Online, pp. 111-129.
Ochs, C. and Löw, M. (2012) Un/faire Informationspraktiken: Internet Privacy aus
   sozialwissenschaftlicher Perspektive, in J. Buchmann (ed.), Internet Privacy.
   Eine multidisziplinäre Bestandsaufnahme / amultidisciplinary analysis (acatech
   STUDIE), Berlin, Springer, pp. 15-61.
Oudshoorn, N. and Pinch, T. (2008) User-Technology Relationships: Some Recent
  Developments, in E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch and J. Wajcman
  (eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Cambridge, MA,
  MIT Press, pp. 541-565.
Palen, L. and Dourish, P. (2003) Unpacking “privacy” for a networked world, in
    “Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
    Systems (CHI '03). ACM, New York, NY, USA”, pp. 129-136.
Poller, A., Kramm, A. and Ilyes, P. (2013) Designing privacy-aware online social
    networks – A reflective socio-technical approach, in “CSCW ’13 Measuring
    Networked Social Privacy Workshop, February 23-27, 2013, San Antonio,
    Texas, USA”.
Posner, R. (1978) The Right of Privacy, in “Georgia Law Review”, 12 (3), pp. 393-
   422.
Raynes-Goldie, K. (2010) Aliases, Creeping, and Wall Cleaning: Understanding
   Privacy in the Age of Facebook, in “First Monday”, 15 (1).
Raynes-Goldie, K. (2012) Privacy in the Age of Facebook: Discourse, Architecture,
   Consequences, PhD Thesis, Curtain University, Perth/Australia, in
   http://www.k4t3.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/09/privacy_in_the_age_of_fac
   ebook_raynes-goldie.pdf, retrieved September 5, 2013.
Rössler, B. (2001) Der Wert des Privaten, Frankfurt/M., Suhrkamp.
Rotman, D., Preece, J., He, Y. and Druin, A. (2012a) Extreme Ethnography: Chal-
   lenges for Research in Large Scale Online Environments, in “Proceedings of
   the 2012 iConference, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM”, pp. 207–214.
90                                                                Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

Rotman, D., Preece, J., Hammock, J., Procita, K., Hansen, D.L., Parr, C., Lewis,
   D. and Jacobs, D.W. (2012b) Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative
   citizen-science projects, in S.E. Poltrock, C. Simone, J. Grudin, G. Mark and J.
   Riedl (eds.), “CSCW”, 217-226.
Simmel, G. (1906) The Sociology of Secrets and of Secret Societies, in “American
   Journal of Sociology”, 11 (4), pp. 441-498.
Sleeper, M., Balebako, R., Das, S., McConahy, A.L., Wiese, J. and Cranor, L.F.
    (2013) The Post that Wasn't: Exploring Self-Censorship on Facebook, in
    “CSCW13, February 23–27, 2013, San Antonio, Texas, USA”.
Solove, D. J. (2008) Understanding Privacy, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University
    Press.
Stalder, F. (2002) Privacy is not the Antidote to Surveillance, in “Surveillance &
    Society, 1 (1), pp. 120-124.
Stutzman, F. and Kramer-Duffield, J. (2010) Friends Only: Examining a Privacy-
    Enhancing Behavior in Facebook, in “CHI 2010: Privacy, April 10–15, 2010,
    Atlanta, GA, USA”.
Stutzman, F., Vitak, J., Ellison, N.B., Gray, R. and Lampe, C. (2012a) Privacy in
    Interaction: Exploring Disclosure and Social Capital in Facebook, in “Proceed-
    ings of the 6th annual International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media
    (ICWSM). Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Artificial
    Intelligence”.
Stutzman, F., Gross, R. and Acquisti, A. (2012b) Silent Listeners: The Evolution of
    Privacy and Disclosure on Facebook, in “Journal of Privacy and Confidentiali-
    ty”, 4 (2), pp. 7-41.
Suchman, L. (1987) Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-machine
   communication, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Sutcliffe, A.G. (2000) Requirements Analysis for Socio-Technical System Design, in
   “Information Systems”, 25 (3), pp. 213-233.
Trepte, S. and Reinecke, L. (2013) The Reciprocal Effects of Social Network Site
   Use and the Disposition for Self-Disclosure: A Longitudinal Study, in “Comput-
   ers in Human Behavior”, 29 (3), pp. 1102-1112.
Tsai, J., Egelmann, S., Cranor, L.F. and Acquisti, A. (2011) The Effect of Online
   Privacy Information on Purchasing Behaviour: An Experimental Study, in
   “Journal of Information Systems Research”, 22 (2), pp. 254-268.
Tufekci, Z. (2008) Can You See Me Now? Audience and Disclosure Regulation in
   Online Social Network Sites, in “Bulletin of Science Technology & Society”,
   28 (1), pp. 20-36.
Van der Velden, M. and El Emam, K. (2012) “Not All my Friends Need to Know”:
   A Qualitative Study of Teenage Patients, Privacy, and Social Media, in “Journal
   of the American Medical Information Association”, 20, pp. 16-24.
Viller, S. and Sommerville, I. (2000) Ethnographically Informed Analysis for Soft-
    ware Engineers, in “International Journal of Human-Computer Studies”, 53
Ochs and IIyes                                                                 91
    (1), pp. 169-196.
Viseu, A., Clement, A., Aspinall, J. (2004) Situating Privacy Online, in “Infor-
    mation, Communication and Society”, 7 (1), pp. 92-114.
Wang, Y., Norcie, G., Komanduri, S., Acquisti, A., Leon, P.G. and Cranor, L.F.
  (2011b) “I regretted the minute I pressed share”: A qualitative study of regrets
  on facebook, in “Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Usable Privacy
  and Security, SOUPS '11, 10:1-10:16, New York, NY, USA”.
Wang, Y., Leon, P.G., Scott, K., Chen, X., Acquisti, A. and Cranor, L.F. (2013)
  Privacy Nudges for Social Media: An Exploratory Facebook Study, in “Proceed-
  ings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web companion”,
  pp. 763-770.
Wang, Y, Norcie, G. and Cranor, L.F. (2011a) Who is Concerned about What? A
  Study of American, Chinese and Indian Users' Privacy Concerns on social Net-
  work Sites, in “Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Trust and
  Trustworthy Computing”, pp. 146-153.
Warren, S.D. and Brandeis, L. (1890) The Right to Privacy, in “Harvard Law Re-
  view, 4 (5), pp. 193-220.
Westin, A. (1970) Privacy and Freedom, London, The Bodley Head.
Wisniewski, P. (2011) Interpersonal Boundary Regulation within Online Social
   Networks, in http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=059287
   48, retrieved September 5, 2013.
Young, A.L. and Quan-Haase, A. (2009) Information Revelation and Internet Pri-
   vacy Concerns on Social Network Sites: A Case Study of Facebook, in “Proceed-
   ings of the 4th International Conference on Communities and Technologies”,
   pp. 265-274.
