Professional Documents
Culture Documents
How Different Are Young Adults From Older Adults When It Comes To Information Privacy Attitudes & Policies?
How Different Are Young Adults From Older Adults When It Comes To Information Privacy Attitudes & Policies?
com/abstract=1589864
Cookie:TShram@google.com/mobile
Cookie:TShram@www.msnbc.msn.com/id/234355
Cookie:TShram@tvguide.com/PartnerGrid
Cookie:TShram@www.dell.com/phpvm2
Cookie:TShram@voip.fabphone.co.uk/voip/promo
Cookie:TShram@www.toadhammer.com/publication
Cookie:TShram@www.comcastsupport.com/sccuser/rnn
Cookie:TShram@www.ebay.com/rtm/main
Cookie:TShram@stat.upe.com/sb/
Cookie:TShram@www.comcastrupport.com/sdCookie:TShram@user
Cookie:TShram@bing.com/search
Cookie:TShram@www.google.com/mobile
Cookie:TShram@onlinestores.metaservices.microsoft.com/swervices/witching
Cookie:TShram@www.librarything.com/tag
Cookie:TShram@www.google.com/talk
Cookie:TShram@ytsa.net/tase
Cookie:TShram@community.adobe.com/help/api/thumbs
Cookie:TShram@google.com/verify
Cookie:TShram@google.ca/verify
Cookie:TShram@www.microsoft.com/windows.mobile
SNID
27=1JR2BZwybn9ozsGG7nzQprKfpqOX_Ai6QDcxTmOf4Q=SSDlBYXE3on3iWwc
google.com/verify
9728
2320728704
30067751
406026352
30030938
*
ach-search
UjiezX7sFgNwJhrie19zsC69Vu8=
community.adobe.com/help/api/v1/thumbs/
1536
2784647552
30759988
3564042032
30025733
*
sik_client_guid
47aeeb428-73bc-ada9-bb60-728dc6367a7
www.comcastsupport.com/sdcxuser/rrn/
1088
284664448
30089887
2560430544
30016461
*
SynZCSI
K_25_503=10036:80001
tvguide.com/PartnerGrid
Chris Hoofnagle
UC Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley Center for Law and Technology
Jennifer King
UC Berkeley School of Information
Su Li
UC Berkeley School of Law, Center for the Study of Law and Society
Joseph Turow
Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania
HOW DI F F ERENT
ARE YOUNG ADUL TS
F ROM OL DER ADUL TS
WHEN I T COMES TO
I NF ORMATI ON PRI VACY
ATTI TUDES & POL I CI ES?
APRI L 14, 2010
Wr suoorsrrnzr vouwo-znurr Arnrczws nzvr zw
zsvrnzrrow ron rwcnrzsrn vnrvzcv rvrw vnrrr rnrv
vznrrcrvzrr rw zw owrrwr nrzrrrv rnzr rs ovrrrzrn ro
rwcnrzsr rnrrn nrvrrzrrow or vrnsowzr nzrz. (srr vzor zo)
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1589864
Chris Jay Hoofnagle, J .D., is director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology's
information privacy programs and senior fellow to the Samuelson Law, Technology &
Public Policy Clinic. He is an expert in information privacy law. Hoofnagle co-chairs the
annual Privacy Law Scholars Conference. He is licensed to practice law in California and
Washington, DC.
Jennifer King, MIMS, is a Ph.D. candidate at the UC Berkeley School of Information.
Most recently she was a researcher at the Samuelson Law, Technology, and Public Policy
Clinic at UC Berkeley's School of Law. Her research areas include information privacy
and security, usability and human-computer interaction, video surveillance and other
sensor networks. With Chris Hoofnagle, King has published three reports exploring
Californians privacy attitudes, available at SSRN.com.
Su Li, Ph.D., recently joined Berkeley Law as its new Statistician in Empirical Legal
Studies. Her research interests include gender and social inequality, economic sociology,
social network analysis, and the sociology of education. Li received her Ph.D. in
Sociology and a Masters in Mathematical Models for Social Science at Northwestern
University. An expert in quantitative methodology, Li was Assistant Professor of
Sociology at Wichita State University before joining Berkeley Law.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D., is Robert Lewis Shayon Professor of Communication at the
Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania. Among his several
books are Niche Envy: Marketing Discrimination in the Digital Age (MIT Press, 2006)
and Breaking Up America: Advertisers and the New Media World (U of Chicago Press,
1997). Since 1999 he has conducted national telephone surveys that have moved forward
public discourse on digital media, marketing, and privacy. Several can be found at the
Annenberg Public Policy Center website, APPCPenn.org.
This survey was supported by the Rose Foundation for Communities and the
Environment, Tim Little, Executive Director, under grant 025629-003, Chris J ay
Hoofnagle, Principal Investigator; and by The Annenberg School for Communication
Michael Delli Carpini, Dean.
1
Ariel Maislos, chief executive of Pudding Media, quoted in Louise Story, Company Will Monitor Phone
Calls to Tailor Ads, New York Times, Sept. 24, 2007, available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/business/media/24adcol.html.
2
Marwick, A., Murgia-Daz, D., and Palfrey, J . (2010). Youth, Privacy and Reputation Literature Review.
Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard University.
3
J oseph Turow et al., Americans Reject Tailored Advertising and Three Activities that Enable It, SSRN
ELIBRARY (2009), http://ssrn.com/paper=1478214.
4
Roger [no surname], There is No Privacy, Virginia Pilot, April 4, 2009, p. B9.
5
Gina Keating, Disney CEO Bullish on Direct Marketing to Consumers, Reuters, J uly 23, 2009,
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56M0ZY20090723?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
6
Margo Gardner and Laurence Steinberg, Peer Influence on Risk Taking, Risk Preference, and Risky
Decision Making in Adolescence and Adulthood: An Experimental Study, Developmental Psychology
41:4, 625-635. No one 23 or 24 years of age was in the sample.
7
Raynes-Goldie, Kate. "Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning: Understanding privacy in the age of
Facebook" First Monday [Online], Volume 15 Number 1 (2 J anuary 2010); Lenhart, Amanda and Madden,
Mary. Teens, Privacy, and Online Social Networks. Pew Internet & American Life Project, April 18.
2007. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-Privacy-and-Online-Social-
Networks.aspx; and more generally danah boyds excellent bibliography of Social Networking Studies at:
http://www.danah.org/researchBibs/sns.html.
8
Lenhart and Madden, Id.
9
See Raynes-Goldie (2010).
10
Id. at Fn. 3.
11
Id.
12
A two-stage procedure was used to weight this dual-frame sample. A first-stage weight was applied to
account for the overlapping sample frames. The first stage weight balanced the phone use distribution of
the entire sample to match population parameters. The phone use parameter was derived from an analysis
of the most recently available National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data along with data from recent
dual-frame surveys. (See Blumberg SJ , Luke J V, Wireless substitution: Early release of estimates from the
National Health Interview Survey, J uly-December, 2008. National Center for Health Statistics. May
2009.) This adjustment ensures that the dual- users are appropriately divided between the landline and cell
sample frames.
The second stage of weighting balanced the total sample demographics to population parameters. The
total sample was balanced to match national population parameters for sex, age, education, race, Hispanic
origin, region (U.S. Census definitions), population density, and telephone usage. The basic weighting
parameters came from a special analysis of the Census Bureaus 2008 Annual Social and Economic
Supplement (ASEC) that included all households in the continental United States. The population density
parameter was derived from Census 2000 data. The telephone usage parameter came from the analysis of
NHIS data.
We conducted all analyses in this report using SPSS on a weighted random sample. Due to the unique
way that SPSS handles weight, we applied the standardized weight in all analyses so that the sample was
corrected by population proportion but not by population size. That is, the sample size was not inflated to
the original population size in our analysis. Using the standardized weight prevents the risk of unduly
reducing standard errors in significance tests and thereby prevents the risk of having type I errors in the
analysis.
13
Since Tables 15 and 16 involve indexed variables, on top of the tests on the comparisons of percentages
we conducted additional t-tests and Scheffe tests to compare the means of the created indexed variables.
See text for details.
14
In Table 2, when comparing the 18-24 year olds to the rest of the sample, the differences in the
percentages between the two groups are statistically significant at .05 level according to a two-sample t-
test. Interestingly, the Scheffe tests of differences between 18-24 year olds and each of the other groups
show no significance at .05 level. With respect to Table 3, although answers to this question are
significantly related to age, neither Scheffe tests nor t-tests show clear patterns of significance between
young adults and the rest of the sample or between the youngest adults and each of the older groups.
15
The comparison between the 18-24 year olds and the rest of the sample was statistically significant at .05
level according a two sample t-test.
16
N is small because only people who answered more concerned in the previous question were asked
this question.
17
18-24 year olds have a higher percentage choosing the no penalty option.
18
The slightly inconsistent N is caused by rounding errors as explained in the methods section.
19
Enhancing Child Safety and Online Technologies: Final Report of the Internet Safety Technical Task
Force. The Berkman Center for Internet & Society, December 31, 2008. Available at:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/isttf/