skip to main content
10.1145/2068816.2068823acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesimcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Analyzing facebook privacy settings: user expectations vs. reality

Published:02 November 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

The sharing of personal data has emerged as a popular activity over online social networking sites like Facebook. As a result, the issue of online social network privacy has received significant attention in both the research literature and the mainstream media. Our overarching goal is to improve defaults and provide better tools for managing privacy, but we are limited by the fact that the full extent of the privacy problem remains unknown; there is little quantification of the incidence of incorrect privacy settings or the difficulty users face when managing their privacy.

In this paper, we focus on measuring the disparity between the desired and actual privacy settings, quantifying the magnitude of the problem of managing privacy. We deploy a survey, implemented as a Facebook application, to 200 Facebook users recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk. We find that 36% of content remains shared with the default privacy settings. We also find that, overall, privacy settings match users' expectations only 37% of the time, and when incorrect, almost always expose content to more users than expected. Finally, we explore how our results have potential to assist users in selecting appropriate privacy settings by examining the user-created friend lists. We find that these have significant correlation with the social network, suggesting that information from the social network may be helpful in implementing new tools for managing privacy.

References

  1. Facebook Stirs Privacy Concerns Again. The New York Times, 2010. http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/facebook-stirs-privacy-concerns-again.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Facebook Executive Answers Reader Questions. The New York Times, 2010. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/facebook-executive-answers-reader-questions/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Is There Life After Facebook? The New York Times, 2010. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/is-there-life-after-facebook/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Price of Facebook Privacy? Start Clicking. The New York Times, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/technology/personaltech/13basics.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Marketers Can Glean Private Data on Facebook. The New York Times, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/technology/23facebook.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Global Publics Embrace Social Networking. PewResearchCenter, 2010. http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/15/global-publics-embrace-social-networking/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Facebook Climbs Toward 700 Million Users Worldwide, with Steady Growth in the US. Inside Facebook, 2011. http://www.insidefacebook.com/2011/04/21/facebook-climbs-toward-700-million- users-worldwide-with-steady-growth-in-the-us/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Facebook Facelifts Its Privacy Policy. The New York Times, 2011. http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/facebook-facelifts-its-privacy-policy/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Social Networks Offer a Way to Narrow the Field of Friends. The New York Times, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/technology/10social.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Organizing My Online Friends. The New York Times, 2011. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/organizing-my-online-friends/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. A. Acquisti and R. Gross. Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and Privacy on the Facebook. PET, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. S. Ahern, D. Eckles, N. Good, S. King, M. Naaman, and R. Nair. Over-Exposed? Privacy Patterns and Considerations in Online and Mobile Photo Sharing. CHI, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Besmer and H. R. Lipford. Moving Beyond Untagging: Photo Privacy in a Tagged World. CHI, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. L. Banks and S. F. Wu. All Friends Are Not Created Equal: An Interaction Intensity Based Approach to Privacy in Online Social Networks. CSE, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. R. Baden, A. Bender, N. Spring, B. Bhattacharjee, and D. Starin. Persona: an online social network with user-defined privacy. SIGCOMM, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. V. D. Blondel, J.-L. Guillaume, R. Lambiotte, and E. Lefebre. Fast unfolding of community hierarchies in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 10, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. P. Corbett. Facebook Demographics and Statistics Report 2010. 2010. http://www.istrategylabs.com/2010/01/facebook-demographics-and-statistics-report-2010-145-growth-in-1-year.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. L. Fang and K. LeFevre. Privacy Wizards for Social Networking Sites. WWW, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. S. Fortunato. Community detection in graphs. Phys. Rep., 486, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. P. W. L. Fong, M. Anwar, and Z. Zhao. A privacy preservation model for Facebook-style social network systems. ESORICS, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Facebook Statistics. http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. R. Gross and A. Acquisti. Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networks (The Facebook case). WPES, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. C. M. Hoadley, H. Xu, J. J. Lee, and M. B. Rosson. Privacy as Information Access and Illusory Control: The Case of the Facebook News Feed Privacy Outcry. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(1), 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. J. J. Horton, D. G. Rand, and R. J. Zeckhauser. The Online Laboratory: Conducting Experiments in a Real Labor Market. National Bureau of Economic Research, w15961, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. B. Krishnamurthy and C. E. Wills. Characterizing Privacy in Online Social Networks. WOSN, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. B. Krishnamurthy and C. E. Wills. On the Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information Via Online Social Networks. WOSN, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. B. Krishnamurthy. I know what you will do next summer. CCR, 40(5), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. C. Lampe, N. B. Ellison, and C. Steinfield. Changes in Use and Perception of Facebook. CSCW, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. K. Lewis, J. Kaufman, and N. Christakis. The Taste for Privacy: An analysis of College Student Privacy Settings in an Online Social Network. Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. H. R. Lipford, A. Besmer, and J. Watson. Understanding Privacy Settings in Facebook with an Audience View. UPSEC, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. A. Mislove, B. Viswanath, K. P. Gummadi, and P. Druschel. You are who you know: Inferring user profiles in Online Social Networks. WSDM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. M. Madejski, M. Johnson, and S. M. Bellovin. The Failure of Online Social Network Privacy Settings. Department of Computer Science, Columbia University, Technical Report CUCS-010--11, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. W. Mason and S. Suri. Conducting Behavioral Research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. SSRN, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. W. Mason and D. J. Watts. Financial Incentives and the Performance of Crowds. KDD, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. M. E. J. Newman. Fast algorithm for detecting community structure in networks. Phys. Rev. E, 69(6), 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. M. E. J. Newman. Modularity and community structure in networks. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(23), 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. G. Paolacci, J. Chandler, and P. G. Ipeirotis. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. F. Radicchi, C. Castellano, F. Cecconi, V. Loreto, and D. Parisi. Defining and identifying communities in networks. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(9), 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. F. Stutzman and J. Kramer-Duffield. Friends Only: Examining a Privacy-Enhancing Behavior in Facebook. CHI, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. K. Strater and H. R. Lipford. Strategies and Struggles with Privacy in an online Social Networking Community. BCS-HCI, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. C. Wilson, B. Boe, A. Sala, K. P.N. Puttaswamy, and B. Y. Zhao. User interactions in social networks and their implications. EuroSys, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Analyzing facebook privacy settings: user expectations vs. reality

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          IMC '11: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement conference
          November 2011
          612 pages
          ISBN:9781450310130
          DOI:10.1145/2068816

          Copyright © 2011 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 2 November 2011

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate277of1,083submissions,26%

          Upcoming Conference

          IMC '24
          ACM Internet Measurement Conference
          November 4 - 6, 2024
          Madrid , AA , Spain

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader