This journal looks in great detail on the existing important privacy issues on Facebook. This article main focus is towards Helen Nissenbaum's work on privacy as contextual integrity shows the meaning of social contexts to privacy norms. Furthermore in 2007 Facebook announced an application platform which allows advertisers and business to access personal information through Facebook, more concerning is the fact that these application have been given access to user's friend information. The author highlights that privacy problems is a violation of our norms. Moreover the journal looks in in great depth into how social networking sites change the privacy equation, mainly the need to seek privacy because the internet is a global network where our details are exposed.
The journal has many valid references such as websites and to other journals. The journal only explains the issues surrounding privacy on Facebook, but does not provide any solutions or how to protect our personal information from third parties.
The journal has no solid facts and it only provides some few statistics which uses a very little sample. Furthermore the article only covers privacy from news feeds and application and therefore does not give us a true picture of general privacy on Facebook.
In conclusion the journal only covers a small segment of privacy on Facebook, mainly towards contextual integrity and third parties accessing personal information of the user and user's friends. However the paper lacks detail and mainly focuses on application feature and news food and does not go into detail of other privacy concerns.
The journal looks in depth of the concept of privacy settings on social networking sites, Westin (1967, 2003)'s concept on privacy states that social networking sites motivate or want users to reveal their real name, school, date of birth, location and a variety of other personal information. The main argument of the writer is privacy surrounding monitoring and the search bar Facebook uses. The article also identifies online marketing to teens and teen's privacy worries, in particular marketers and advertisers showing an interest in teen's online behaviour and personal information.
Journal 1 could be compared to journal 2 in the sense of markers and advertiser showing an interest in online behaviour and taking personal information on social networking accounts. Both authors make the same point in regards of the fear of information being leaked from social networking sites. Moreover the journal also suggest parental influence when it comes to privacy.
The article has references, hypothesis testing and survey research. The article covers a variety of privacy issues unlike journal 1, in terms of online privacy concern and self-disclosure. Overall the article is good and discusses broad range of topics within privacy.
To conclude the article covers a variety points and provides up to date statistics making the article valid. Even though the article does not provide any solution of how privacy could be protected on social networking sites, it still provides a range of topics and states limitations and for future research. The ideas presented in the paper can lead to further work and future research as the author suggests.
The paper has many valid references and most importantly it has conducted its research and presents the findings in the journal. The journal can be compared to journa1 and 2 because all of these articles mentions the danger of privacy in particular to business taking information from user accounts.
In general the paper looks at privacy from different angles unlike the other journals and provides solid evidences.
In conclusion the paper provides a fresh insight to the different perspectives of privacy and self-disclosure in terms of Facebook. The article in general is good because not only it looks at a different angle of privacy it is backed up by evidences that the author has conducted.
The main purpose of the article is to recognize the impact of the individual privacy concerns on their approval of social networking sites. By using technology acceptance model the author has concluded that privacy concern has an immediate effect on behavioral intention and privacy concern controlling the effects of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on behavioral of use. Furthermore the article comments on the concept of privacy and the concept of privacy concern, it also identifies a theoretical base of privacy concerns in terms of social networking sites.
The article has many references, survey questionnaires, empirical data and prior work on privacy concern on social networking sites. The journal only explains privacy concerns and goes into detail supported by evidences from the questionnaires.
Even though the journal goes into detail it only mentions privacy concerns and does not take into consideration about other types of privacy. Journal 3 looks at privacy from different angles unlike journal 4, however the journal does mention previous work of privacy concern in social networking sites.
The paper covers a large section of privacy, primarily focused upon the effects on user privacy concern online. The paper give an in detailed insight into user privacy concern. In addition the paper provides a pilot study which back up the author argument. However the paper fails to recognize different aspects of privacy, but the paper mentions related literature and previous research. Even though the lack of analysis of privacy the aspects of the paper can be applied today and it is supported by the research of the author.
The main aim of the paper is to establish the ways that social media change their way of how information is shared and who see what on social networking sites. Furthermore the paper mentions do teenagers really care about privacy whilst on social networking sites, the paper goes further in depth and looks into how teenagers cope with privacy on social networking sites. The paper highlights contextual integrity is crucial to privacy, in terms what personal and sensitive information is mentioned online. The main discussion point of the paper is the difficulty of privacy.
The paper has references and has conducted 166 semi structured interviews, where teenagers were asked about privacy, publicity and what personal information their share online. Both paper 1 and 5 mention Helen Nissenbaum's notion of contextual integrity and how it can be applied to the world of social networking sites.
The author primarily focuses on one main topic of how teenagers share information online, moreover the interviews are not representative as it only conducts 166 interviews which is a small sample and therefore the findings cannot be applied globally.
In summary the paper focal point is how teenagers share information online, the harms of privacy online and weather teenagers actually care about privacy on social networking sites. The paper does not take into consideration on how privacy is managed online and looks at privacy from a narrow perspective. The research carried indicates that it was not a representative sample hence it cannot be applied to wider society.
...(download the rest of the essay above)