ensuring trust, privacy, and etiquette in web 2.0 applications

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

computer

42

COVER FEATURE

as we did a generation ago, but with the world. We useinormation rom ree Web-based encyclopedias likeWikipedia written collaboratively by volunteers. We useshort postings (tweets) to inorm our riends and amilyabout what we are doing at each moment and to check thenews. We discuss politics on Internet orums, instead o at the local pub or bar. We write sotware together withpeople living on the other side o the globe whom we havenever met.In addition to opportunities to share experiences, thesedevelopments oer many new options such as social net-working, increased creation o user-generated content(UGC), and more community involvement and activism; butthey also introduce obvious ethical dilemmas and risks.What we put on the Internet so eagerly can be misused.SNSs like MySpace may connect people, but they can alsobe vehicles or bullying and harassment. Exploiting per-sonal inormation has generally become easier becausepeople disclose such inormation more requently withoutreecting on the possible consequences.

2

The standards that we as sotware developers shouldollow when developing applications are well-defned andunderstood. We have a moral duty to protect the public’s

Published by the IEEE Computer Society

0018-9162/09/$25.00 © 2009 IEEE

W

eb 2.0 applications use World WideWeb technology to enhance creativity,communication, collaboration, and thesharing o inormation and content. TimO’Reilly frst used the term Web 2.0 in2004 to describe a second generation o the Web basedon user communities and a range o special services, suchas social networking sites (SNSs), blogs, wikis, video- andphoto-sharing sites, and olksonomies, that oster—eachin its own way—collaboration, participation, and the easyexchange o inormation among users.

1

These emerging applications are changing the way weinteract with others. We share our private photographsand videos on the Web—not just with amily and riends,

Amela Karahasanovic and Petter Bae Brandtzæg,

SINTEF ICT and the University of Oslo

Jeroen Vanattenhoven,

IBBT-CUO, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Bram Lievens, Karen Torben Nielsen, and Jo Pierson,

IBBT-SMIT, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

An analysis of three user studies of Web2.0 applications reveals the most impor-tant requirements related to ethical issues.The development of features that supportthese requirements should be tailored tothe type of application and specific com-munity needs.

EnsuringTrusT, Privacy,and ETiquETTEin WEb 2.0aPPlicaTions

43

JuNe 2009

what PROBLEMS dO USERS ExPERiEncE?

To investigate user problems with Web 2.0 applications,we surveyed 200 members o our Norwegian SNSs.

5

Table2 shows the number and percent o reported reasons orstopping using an SNS or using it less over time. Bully-ing, harassment, and low trust were typical ethics-relatedwelare and the privacy o those aected by our sotware.We also have pragmatic reasons or doing this: Peoplewant others to treat them morally.

3

Those who have a badexperience with an SNS might stop using it or use it less.People worried about what is going to happen to the con-tent they put on a video-sharing site like YouTube mightnever start using it.The emergence o Web 2.0 applications requires recon-sideration o ethical norms governing their developmentand use, prompting questions such as: What kinds o prob-lems do users o these applications experience? What dopeople really worry about when they provide personalinormation, discuss the latest news, or put their photo-graphs on the Web? What do existing real-lie communitiesexpect rom Web 2.0 applications? What should developersdo to promote trust in such applications and guaranteeuser privacy?

RESEaRch fOcUS

For the past three years, we have participated in CitizenMedia (www.ist-citizenmedia.org), a European researchproject that explores how exploiting multimedia UGC, suchas photographs and video ootage, in innovative ways inuser communities and social networks might improve thedaily lives o European citizens.Considering ethical issues raised by the new technol-ogy was part o our research. Developers have attemptedto implement ethical rules in sotware applications, suchas designing e-mail programs that stop users rom unethi-cal behavior.

4

We believe that people should judge whatis ethical or unethical, but that the applications shouldsupport users with respect to ethical behavior. In otherwords, developers can promote social norms or etiquettewithin the Web 2.0 environment to create a basis or trustand privacy.To investigate user concerns regarding typical Web 2.0applications such as blogs and SNSs, we conducted onestudy in Norway with 200 participants

5

and two studiesin Belgium: one consisting o 30 members o two onlinecommunities

6

and the other consisting o 50 individualparticipants and 85 amilies.

7

The studies, outlined in Table1, included all age groups rom young people to seniorcitizens, all skill levels rom profcient technology usersto nonusers, and dierent types o communities rom in-ormal to well-structured. The ocus was on applicationstargeting nonproessional users, supporting social net-working, and sharing o UGC.Based on these studies, we identiied the most im-portant requirements o Web 2.0 applications related totrust, privacy, and etiquette. The “Key Concepts” sidebardiscusses these ideas as well as the dierences betweenethics and laws.

tabl 1. ovviw f h di n Wb 2.0 aliain.

Su 1

PurposeInvestigate problems experienced by users o SNSsFocusExisting applicationsLevelMacroCountryNorwayMethodSurveySubjects200 members o our SNSs

Su 2

PurposeInvestigate opinions and ears related to inormation andcommunication technologyFocusExisting and uture technologyLevelIndividualCountryBelgiumMethodCase study; blogs and diaries used or data collectionSubjects30 members o two online communities

Su 3

PurposeInvestigate eects o existing practices on usage o socialWeb 2.0 applicationsFocusExisting and uture technologyLevelGroupCountryBelgiumMethodCase study; interviews, observations, content analysis,logging, and monitoring used or data collectionSubjectsNeighborhood community consisting o 85 amilies and awell-structured community consisting o 50 members

tabl 2. ran f ing ing a ial nwking i ing i l v i.

Resonumber  pere

Lack o interesting people/riends using it62 (24%)Low-quality content59 (23%)Low usability45 (18%)Harassment/bullying24 (9%) Time-consuming/isolating16 (6%)Low trust15 (6%)Overcommercialized15 (6%)Dissatisaction with moderators3 (1%)Unspecifed boring3 (1%)Other15 (6%)

tol257 (100%)

Note: There were 200 participants in all, but 57 participants reported two reasons. Tablereprinted with permission rom P.B. Brandtzæg and J. Heim, “User Loyalty and Online Communi-ties: Why Members o Online Communities Are Not Faithul,”

Proc. 2nd Int’l Conf. Intelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment

(Intetain 08), article no. 11, ICST, 2008.

COVER FEATURE

computer

44

Study participants who suered rom harassmentwere mainly members o SNSs where, as a matter o siteetiquette, users employ nicknames instead o their realnames. This suggests that an SNS code o etiquette requir-ing anonymity might acilitate a more negative outcome interms o aggression and hostility or “aming.”

8

However, several SNS users experienced harassment onsites with a bad reputation or abuse. Hence, harassmentmay be acilitated by a certain kind o SNS that has par-ticular community goals and policies regarding etiquette.Such harassment will cause users to have less trust in theSNS, and perhaps they will ultimately stop using it.Our data suggests that girls between the ages o 14 and16 are particularly vulnerable to risky behavior on suchSNSs. One explanation is that young online users are lessinhibited when they are anonymous because they eelsaer than i their identity is known. At the same time,anonymity can cause users to become rustrated and lesstrusting o others because they are insecure about whomthey are communicating with. Is the other person pre-tending to be older, younger, a girl, or a boy? However,uninhibited communication and presentation might a-cilitate contact with harm-doers. Some young users mayattract the attention o people whom they perceive to beolder men looking or excitement, not because the usershave disclosed personal inormation but because o theirprovocative behavior under anonymity.In general, the level o visual and inormational ano-nymity that a media environment provides relates to thedegree to which individuals take behavioral risks and expe-rience cyberbullying.

8

On the other hand, studies indicatethat openness regarding user identities is more likely toresult in reliable content.

9

Due to the problems caused by anonymity, etiquetteis moving in the direction o increased openness and lessanonymous participation on Web 2.0 sites. Many SNSssuch as Facebook allow people to be increasingly open andpresent themselves using their real names and pictures,while oten restricting access to authorized users only.

what dO USERS wORRy aBOUt?

Users require a general eeling o control about theirpersonal inormation. This corresponds to the controlmechanisms in dierent orms o mediated interactiondesigned to protect access to and publication o personalinormation.

10

Despite the importance o privacy, users tend not to usesuch settings when they are too complex or ambiguous,even when aware o the threats o online disclosures. Oneinvestigation ound that college students do not give muchthought to the revelation o personal data on SNSs, perhapsbecause they are used to providing such inormation inamiliar surroundings (their community), and because theyeel assured o the homogeneity o personal inormationresponses, but site overcommercialization might alsobe seen in this light in that this can imply inancialexploitation.Harassment/bullying was the ourth most importantreason or stopping using an SNS, cited by 9 percent o participants. Several, mostly older teenage girls, reportedthat they had experienced sexual harassment. A typicalpattern was that these girls reported sexual solicitationby older men or boys. Thirteen percent o the users in thetotal sample reported having had problems on sites suchas penest.no (pretty) and deiligst.no (delicious). These areanonymous SNSs where mostly young girls upload quiterevealing pictures o themselves. Users can rate how beau-tiul they are on a scale rom 1 to 10.The ollowing quote rom a 15-year-old emale illus-trates both the low trust that exists when communicationis anonymous and the sexual risks young people acewhen using Web 2.0 sites such as Habbo, a “virtual hang-out” or teens: “I used to play Habbo beore. … I did notfnd out i the people I talked to were old or young. I there-ore thought it was a huge risk that I may have talked topedophiles.”

Ethics

are standards or moral behavior o a particulargroup. Sotware engineering ethics are standards or practicingsotware engineering, such as the IEEE-CS/ACM “Sotware Engi-neering Code o Ethics and Proessional Practice” and the moregeneral IEEE Code o Ethics. Some o the principles address publicinterests and protecting the public’s privacy. Sotware engineersshould “accept responsibility in making decisions consistent withthe saety, health and welare o the public …” (IEEE Code o Ethics, 1st principle) and “work to develop sotware and relateddocuments that respect the privacy o those who will be aectedby the sotware” (IEEE-CS/ACM, principle 3.12).

Laws

and ethics dier in several ways. Some action might beillegal but ethical, and some actions might be unethical but legal.For example, it is ethical to drive ast in an emergency situation,even i it is illegal. Lying to amily and riends about income isunethical, but not illegal; lying about income to tax authorities isboth unethical and illegal.

Trust

is reliance on the truth o a statement or good intentionso a person or an organization. It involves a voluntary transer o resources—physical, nancial, intellectual, or temporal—romthe individual or organization (truster) to another (trustee) withno real commitment rom the trustee.

Privacy

is the ability o an individual or group to withdrawrom society or public attention. It is reedom rom disturbanceor intrusion and includes the ability o an individual or a group o individuals to protect inormation about themselves and therebyreveal themselves selectively. The boundaries and content o what is considered private dier among cultures and individualsbut share basic common themes.

Etiquette

is a code that inuences expectations and socialbehavior. A rule o etiquette reects oten unwritten expecta-tions and may reect an underlying ethical code.

Key coNcepts

of 00

Leave a Comment