1. bookVolume 2021 (2021): Issue 3 (July 2021)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
16 Apr 2015
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Exploring mental models of the right to informational self-determination of office workers in Germany

Published Online: 27 Apr 2021
Page range: 5 - 27
Received: 30 Nov 2020
Accepted: 16 Mar 2021
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
16 Apr 2015
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Applied privacy research has so far focused mainly on consumer relations in private life. Privacy in the context of employment relationships is less well studied, although it is subject to the same legal privacy framework in Europe. The European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has strengthened employees’ right to privacy by obliging that employers provide transparency and intervention mechanisms. For such mechanisms to be effective, employees must have a sound understanding of their functions and value. We explored possible boundaries by conducting a semi-structured interview study with 27 office workers in Germany and elicited mental models of the right to informational self-determination, which is the European proxy for the right to privacy. We provide insights into (1) perceptions of different categories of data, (2) familiarity with the legal framework regarding expectations for privacy controls, and (3) awareness of data processing, data flow, safeguards, and threat models. We found that legal terms often used in privacy policies used to describe categories of data are misleading. We further identified three groups of mental models that differ in their privacy control requirements and willingness to accept restrictions on their privacy rights. We also found ignorance about actual data flow, processing, and safeguard implementation. Participants’ mindsets were shaped by their faith in organizational and technical measures to protect privacy. Employers and developers may benefit from our contributions by understanding the types of privacy controls desired by office workers and the challenges to be considered when conceptualizing and designing usable privacy protections in the workplace.

Keywords

[1] A. Acquisti, L. Brandimarte, and G. Loewenstein. Privacy and Human Behavior in the Age of Information. Science, 347(6221):509–514, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[2] A. Acquisti and J. Grossklags. Privacy and Rationality in Individual Decision Making. IEEE Security and Privacy Magazine, 3(1):26–33, 2005.Search in Google Scholar

[3] B. J. Alge, G. A. Ballinger, S. Tangirala, and J. L. Oakley. Information Privacy in Organizations: Empowering Creative and Extrarole Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1):221–232, 2006.Search in Google Scholar

[4] F. Alizadeh, T. Jakobi, A. Boden, G. Stevens, and J. Boldt. GDPR Reality Check - Claiming and Investigating Personally Identifiable Data from Companies. In 2020 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroSPW), pages 120–129, 2020.Search in Google Scholar

[5] M. Watkins Allen, S. J. Coopman, J. L. Hart, and K. L. Walker. Workplace Surveillance and Managing Privacy Boundaries. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(2):172–200, 2007.Search in Google Scholar

[6] I. Altman. The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding. Brooks/Cole Pub. Co, 1975.Search in Google Scholar

[7] F. Asgharpour, D. Liu, and L. Jean Camp. Mental Models of Security Risks. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Financial Cryptography and 1st International Conference on Usable Security (FC, USEC), pages 367–377, 2007.Search in Google Scholar

[8] N. Backhaus. Context Sensitive Technologies and Electronic Employee Monitoring: A Meta-Analytic Review. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII), pages 548–553, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

[9] K. Ball, E. M. Daniel, and C. Stride. Dimensions of Employee Privacy: An Empirical Study. Information Technology & People, 25(4):376–394, 2012.Search in Google Scholar

[10] D. P. Bhave, L. H. Teo, and R. S. Dalal. Privacy at Work: A Review and a Research Agenda for a Contested Terrain. Journal of Management, 46(1):127–164, 2020.Search in Google Scholar

[11] C. Bravo-Lillo, L. F. Cranor, J. Downs, and S. Komanduri. Bridging the Gap in Computer Security Warnings: A Mental Model Approach. IEEE Security & Privacy Magazine, 9(2):18–26, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

[12] F. Bélanger and R. E. Crossler. Privacy in the Digital Age: A Review of Information Privacy Research in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 35(4):1017–1042, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

[13] L. J. Camp. Mental Models of Privacy and Security. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 28(3):37–46, 2009.Search in Google Scholar

[14] J. L. Campbell, C. Quincy, J. Osserman, and O. K. Pedersen. Coding In-depth Semistructured Interviews: Problems of Unitization and Intercoder Reliability and Agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3):294–320, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

[15] D. Carpenter, A. McLeod, C. Hicks, and M. Maasberg. Privacy and Biometrics: An Empirical Examination of Employee Concerns. Information Systems Frontiers, 20(1):91–110, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

[16] X. Chen, J. Ma, J. Jin, and P. Fosh. Information Privacy, Gender Differences, and Intrinsic Motivation in the Work-place. International Journal of Information Management, 33(6):917–926, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

[17] K. J. W. Craik. The Nature of Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943.Search in Google Scholar

[18] T. Dinev and P. Hart. An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1):61–80, 2006.Search in Google Scholar

[19] S. Fischer-Hübner, J. S. Pettersson, and J. Angulo. HCI Requirements for Transparency and Accountability Tools for Cloud Service Chains. In Accountability and Security in the Cloud: First Summer School, Cloud Accountability Project, A4Cloud, Malaga, Spain, June 2-6, 2014, Revised Selected Papers and Lectures, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 81–113. 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[20] K. R. Fulton, R. Gelles, A. McKay, Y. Abdi, R. Roberts, and M. L. Mazurek. The Effect of Entertainment Media on Mental Models of Computer Security. In Proceedings of the 15th USENIX Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS), pages 79–95, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

[21] M. F. Gan, H. N. Chua, and S. F. Wong. Privacy Enhancing Technologies Implementation: An Investigation of its Impact on Work Processes and Employee Perception. Telematics and Informatics, 38(1):13–29, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

[22] N. Gerber, P. Gerber, and M. Volkamer. Explaining the Privacy Paradox: A Systematic Review of Literature Investigating Privacy Attitude and Behavior. Computers & Security, 77(8):226–261, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

[23] N. Gerber, V. Zimmermann, and M. Volkamer. Why Johnny Fails to Protect his Privacy. In 2019 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroSPW), pages 109–118, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

[24] J. Johansen and S. Fischer-Hübner. Making GDPR Usable: A Model to Support Usability Evaluations of Privacy. In Privacy and Identity Management. Data for Better Living: AI and Privacy: 14th IFIP WG 9.2, 9.6/11.7, 11.6/SIG 9.2.2 International Summer School, Windisch, Switzerland, August 19–23, 2019, Revised Selected Papers, pages 275–291. Springer International Publishing, 2020.Search in Google Scholar

[25] P. N. Johnson-Laird. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Harvard University Press, 1986.Search in Google Scholar

[26] N. Jones, H. Ross, T. Lynam, P. Perez, and A. Leitch. Mental Models: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis of Theory and Methods. Ecology and Society, 16(1):1–13, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

[27] R. Kang, L. Dabbish, N. Fruchter, and S. Kiesler. “My Data Just Goes Everywhere:” User Mental Models of the Internet and Implications for Privacy and Security. In Proceedings of the 11th USENIX Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS), pages 39–52, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[28] J. King. Taken Out of Context: An Empirical Analysis of Westin’s Privacy Scale. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Privacy Personas and Segmentation (PPS), pages 1–8, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

[29] P. Klasnja, S. Consolvo, J. Jung, B. M. Greenstein, L. LeGrand, P. Powledge, and D. Wetherall. “When I am on Wi-Fi, I am fearless”: Privacy Concerns & Practices in Everyday Wi-Fi Use. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (SIGCHI), pages 1993–2002, 2009.Search in Google Scholar

[30] D. Krebs and J. Doctor. “Privacy by Design”: Nice-to-have or a Necessary Principle of Data Protection Law? Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law, 4(1):2–20, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

[31] K. Krombholz, K. Busse, K. Pfeffer, M. Smith, and E. von Zezschwitz. “If HTTPS Were Secure, I Wouldn’t Need 2fa” - End User and Administrator Mental Models of HTTPS. In Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P), pages 246–263, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

[32] R. A. Krueger and M. A. Casey. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. SAGE, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[33] P. Kumar, S. Milind Naik, U. R. Devkar, M. Chetty, T. L. Clegg, and J. Vitak. ’no telling passcodes out because they’re private’: Understanding children’s mental models of privacy and security online. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 1(CSCW):1–21, 2017.Search in Google Scholar

[34] P. Kumaraguru and L. F. Cranor. Privacy Indexes: A Survey of Westin’s Studies. Technical report, Institute for Software Research, International School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, 2005.Search in Google Scholar

[35] M. Kwasny, K. Caine, W. A. Rogers, and A. D. Fisk. Privacy and Technology: Folk Definitions and Perspectives. Technical report, Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology School of Psychology – Human Factors and Aging Laboratory, 2008.Search in Google Scholar

[36] Y. Li. Empirical Studies on Online Information Privacy Concerns: Literature Review and an Integrative Framework. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28(1):453–496, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

[37] J. Lin, N. Sadeh, S. Amini, J. Lindqvist, J. I. Hong, and J. Zhang. Expectation and Purpose: Understanding Users’ Mental Models of Mobile App Privacy Through Crowd-sourcing. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp), pages 501–510, 2012.Search in Google Scholar

[38] M. Maceli. Librarians’ Mental Models and Use of Privacy-Protection Technologies. Journal of Intellectual Freedom & Privacy, 4(1):18–32, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

[39] E. Markos, G. R. Milne, and J. W. Peltier. Information Sensitivity and Willingness to Provide Continua: A Comparative Privacy Study of the United States and Brazil. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 36(1):79–96, 2017.Search in Google Scholar

[40] P. Mayring. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2):1–10, 2000.Search in Google Scholar

[41] T. Mettler and J. Wulf. Physiolytics at the Workplace: Affordances and Constraints of Wearables Use from an Employee’s Perspective. Information Systems Journal, 29(1):245–273, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

[42] M. G. Morgan. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge University Press, 2002.Search in Google Scholar

[43] A. Morton and M. A. Sasse. Desperately Seeking Assurances: Segmenting Users by Their Information-seeking Preferences. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE Annual International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST), pages 102–111, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

[44] P. Murmann and S. Fischer-Hübner. Tools for Achieving Usable Ex Post Transparency: A Survey. IEEE Access, 5:22965–22991, 2017.Search in Google Scholar

[45] H. Nissenbaum. Privacy as Contextual Integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1):1119–157, 2004.Search in Google Scholar

[46] H. Nissenbaum. Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford University Press, 2010.Search in Google Scholar

[47] D. A. Norman. Some Observations on Mental Models. In Mental Models, pages 7–14. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., 1983.Search in Google Scholar

[48] M. Oates, Y. Ahmadullah, A. Marsh, C. Swoopes, S. Zhang, R. Balebako, and L. F. Cranor. Turtles, Locks, and Bathrooms: Understanding Mental Models of Privacy Through Illustration. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2018(4):5–32, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

[49] J. Reitman Olson and H. H. Rueter. Extracting Expertise from Experts: Methods for Knowledge Acquisition. Expert Systems, 4(3):152–168, 1987.Search in Google Scholar

[50] S. Petronio. Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. State University of New York Press, 2002.Search in Google Scholar

[51] S. Spickard Prettyman, S. Furman, M. Theofanos, and B. Stanton. Privacy and Security in the Brave New World: The Use of Multiple Mental Models. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Human Aspects of Information Security, Privacy, and Trust (HAS), pages 260–270, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[52] F. Raja, K. Hawkey, and K. Beznosov. Revealing Hidden Context: Improving Mental Models of Personal Firewall Users. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS), pages 1–12, 2009.Search in Google Scholar

[53] J. R. Reidenberg, T. Breaux, L. F. Cranor, B. French, A. Grannis, J. T. Graves, F. Liu, A. McDonald, T. B. Norton, R. Ramanath, N C. Russell, N. Sadeh, and F. Schaub. Disagreeable Privacy Policies: Mismatches Between Meaning and Users’ Understanding. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 30(1):39–88, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[54] K. Renaud, M. Volkamer, and A. Renkema-Padmos. Why Doesn’t Jane Protect Her Privacy? In Proceedings of the 14th Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS), pages 244–262, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

[55] A. Rouvroy and Y. Poullet. The Right to Informational Self-Determination and the Value of Self-Development: Reassessing the Importance of Privacy for Democracy. In Reinventing Data Protection?, pages 45–76. Springer, Dordrecht, 2009.Search in Google Scholar

[56] E.-M. Schomakers, C. Lidynia, D. Müllmann, and M. Ziefle. Internet Users’ Perceptions of Information Sensitivity – In-sights from Germany. International Journal of Information Management, 46(1):142–150, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

[57] E.-M. Schomakers, C. Lidynia, L. Vervier, and M. Ziefle. Of Guardians, Cynics, and Pragmatists - A Typology of Privacy Concerns and Behavior:. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Internet of Things, Big Data and Security (IoTBDS), pages 153–163, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

[58] E.-M. Schomakers, C. Lidynia, and M. Ziefle. Hidden within a Group of People - Mental Models of Privacy Protection:. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Internet of Things, Big Data and Security (IoTBDS), pages 85–94, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

[59] J. Šišková and E. Lőrinczová. Implementation of GDPR into Payroll Accounting in the Czech Republic. In Proceedings of the 10th Hradec Economic Days (HED), pages 1–8, 2020.Search in Google Scholar

[60] H. J. Smith, T. Dinev, and H. Xu. Information Privacy Research: An Interdisciplinary Review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4):989–1016, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

[61] S. A. Smith and S. R. Brunner. To Reveal or Conceal: Using Communication Privacy Management Theory to Understand Disclosures in the Workplace. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(3):429–446, 2017.Search in Google Scholar

[62] D. J. Solove. A Taxonomy of Privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(3):477–560, 2006.Search in Google Scholar

[63] E. F. Stone, H. G. Gueutal, D. G. Gardner, and S. McClure. A Field Experiment Comparing Information-privacy Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes Across Several Types of Organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3):459–468, 1983.Search in Google Scholar

[64] P. D. Tolchinsky, M. K. McCuddy, J. Adams, D. C. Ganster, R. W. Woodman, and H. L. Fromkin. Employee Perceptions of Invasion of Privacy: A Field Simulation Experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(3):308–313, 1981.Search in Google Scholar

[65] J. Tolsdorf and F. Dehling. In Our Employer We Trust: Mental Models of Office Worker’s Privacy Perceptions. In Proceedings of the 1st Asian Workshop on Usable Security (AsiaUSEC, FC workshop), pages 122–136, 2020.Search in Google Scholar

[66] M. Volkamer and K. Renaud. Mental Models – General Introduction and Review of Their Application to Human-Centred Security. In Number Theory and Cryptography: Papers in Honor of Johannes Buchmann on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, pages 255–280. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

[67] R. Wash. Folk Models of Home Computer Security. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS), pages 1–16, 2010.Search in Google Scholar

[68] A. F. Westin. Privacy and Freedom. Athenum Press, 1967.Search in Google Scholar

[69] R. W. Woodman, D. C. Ganster, J. Adams, M. K. Mc-Cuddy, P. D. Tolchinsky, and H. Fromkin. A Survey of Employee Perceptions of Information Privacy in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 25(3):647–663, 1982.Search in Google Scholar

[70] E. Wästlund, J. Angulo, and S. Fischer-Hübner. Evoking Comprehensive Mental Models of Anonymous Credentials. In Proceedings of the 2011 IFIP WG 11.4 international conference on Open Problems in Network Security (iNetSEc), pages 1–14, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

[71] E. Zeng, S. Mare, and F. Roesner. End User Security and Privacy Concerns with Smart Homes. In Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS), pages 65–80, 2017.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo