Data Protection and Privacy

DATA PROTECTION AND PRIVACY
BRM RESEARCH PROJECT
Group Name – Think Tanks

Group No. – 5
Group Members
Nikhil Chugh - M-19-06
Rupal Dhule - M-19-12
Riya Doshi - M-19-15
Pallavi Karadekar - M-19-24
Vaibhav Keertane - M-19-26
Akash Ladhe - M-19-30
Jayesh Nikam - M-19-38
Hiral Paleja - M-19-39
Group Name - Think Tanks
Logo -
Tag Line - Think before you click
Why Think Tanks?
Think Tanks signify a group of people brought together to develop ideas on a particular subject
and to make suggestions for the actions. As a team we are required to find the problem statement
in a given sector and draw conclusions from the data collected from various sources. So the
name Think Tanks signifies the objective for which the team is being formed.
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Privacy concern exists wherever personally identifiable information or other sensitive

information is collected and stored. In this era of digitalization how secure your personal data is
online is a big question. Data privacy is a global issue. One of the biggest problem people are
making on social media is sharing/publishing their personal information for example their
pictures etc. This increases the threat of data privacy. There is a need to find out how aware
people are about their data privacy and protection on online platforms, to better understand their
perspective. A study was conducted on empirical data focusing on mobile personal information
management using tools such as Questionnaire, In-depth Interview. Survey method was carried
out on sample size of 250 respondents and interview of 3 users. From this we could figure out
that factors such as age, educational qualification, privacy settings on apps, and awareness about
usage contributed majorly towards data privacy and factors such as gender, location did not have
much impact. In terms of data privacy, majority of people say that they are hesitant to share their
financial data and bank account numbers.
Based on the results conclusions from the report are as follows - Whatsapp is the most preferred
app on basis of data privacy, Facebook being the least preferred. The usage of software that
protects personal data is dependent on designation of respondents as who have more knowledge
can install the software as they are more aware of risk associated with it. People generally do not
prefer to use local internet connection as they are aware of its exposure to virus and most of the
threats. Understanding of terms and condition is not related to educational qualification.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sr Particulars Page No.

No.
1 Introduction 5
2 Literature Review 8
3 Research Methodology 20
4 Data Analysis 23
5 Findings 46
6 References 49
7 Annexure 50
4
INTRODUCTION
The protection of privacy is an important issue in modern information society. The release of
personal information in electronic communication environments may cause severe privacy issues
in the future, if people are completely unaware of their privacy. Secondary uses of data promote
these problems further. Data privacy is the relationship between collection and dissemination of
data,
technology , the public expectation of privacy , and the legal and political issues surrounding
them.
Privacy concerns exist wherever personally identifiable information or other sensitive
information is collected and stored – in digital form or otherwise. Improper or non-existent
disclosure control can be the root cause for privacy issues. Data privacy issues can arise in
response to information from a wide range of sources, such as: Healthcare records, Criminal
justice, investigations and proceedings, Financial institutions and transactions, Biological traits,
such as genetic material ,Residence and geographic records, Ethnicity, Privacy breach, Location-
based service and geolocation Data privacy, also called information privacy, is the aspect of
information technology that deals with the ability an organization or individual has to determine
what data in an electronic device can be shared with third parties. Data protection is the process
of safeguarding important information from corruption, compromise or loss. The importance of
data protection increases as the amount of data created and stored continues to grow at
unprecedented rates.
Data protection on mobile devices has its own challenges. It can be difficult to extract data from
these devices. Inconsistent connectivity makes scheduling backups difficult, if not impossible.
And mobile data protection is further complicated by the need to keep personal data stored on
mobile devices separate from business data. As smartphone technology becomes more and more
mature, its usage extends beyond and covers also applications that require security. However,
since smartphones can contain valuable information, they normally become the target of
attackers. A physically lost or a hacked smartphone may cause catastrophic results for its owner.
To prevent such undesired events, smartphone users should be aware of existing threats and
countermeasures to be taken against them. Therefore, user awareness is a critical factor for
smartphone security. This study investigates the awareness level of smartphone users for
different security-related parameters and compares the awareness levels of different user groups
categorized according to their demographic data. It is based on a survey study conducted on a
population with a different range of age, education level, and IT security expertise. According to
the obtained results, in general, the awareness level of participants is fairly low, which needs
considerable improvement. In terms of age, the oldest group has the lowest level followed by the
youngest group. Education level, in general, has a positive effect on the awareness level. Having
knowledge about IT is another factor increasing the security awareness level of smartphone
5
users.
Proliferation of smartphones clearly shows their wide adoption by the public. Today
smartphones have even reached to the point of addiction for many and have become an
indispensable instrument in people’s daily lives . Smartphones can be used for many different
purposes besides phone calls: these include not only sending/receiving e-mails but also staying
online in social media using programs such as Twitter, Google+, and Facebook as well as
conducting electronic financial transactions. The flexible structure of smartphones gives
designers and developers the ability to imagine and develop new and innovative applications.
Therefore, today smartphone users have a large application portfolio to be installed and used for
different purposes. The related figures can be seen from Google Play Store and Apple App Store
containing about 3.8 million and 2 million applications, respectively, as of the first quarter of
2018 .The number of cumulative app downloads has reached 178.1 billion mobile apps in 2017,
which is a clear indication about smartphone usage. In computer history, the market share of
smartphones overtook the leadership of desktops in 2016, and mobiles, desktops, and tablets had
52.52%, 43.63%, and 3.85% of the market share as of June 2018, respectively
On the one hand, there are many advantages in using smartphones, but on the other hand, there
are many security threats as well. New mobile malware threat statistics show not only a dramatic
increase in the number of new malwares but also an increase in sophistication and complexity.
Symantec observed 18.4 million mobile malware detections in total in 2016, which is an increase
of 105 percent in 2015. The total count of malware detected over 6 months by McAfee Labs in
2016 is 37 million. The number of threat families in the Google Play Store increased by a
whopping 30% in 2017, making even the official Android App Store a risky proposition for users
according to McAfee 2018 Q1 Mobile Threat Report. These numbers show clearly the level of
risk for mobile devices.
Users are much more likely to be actively protecting their home computer/laptop than their
smartphone/tablet. Although many people are still reluctant to use their mobile devices for
important transactions such as financial activities, this use pattern is changing with youngsters
who are no longer so reluctant to use mobile devices for such transactions. Therefore, mobile
devices are more likely to be at risk than a home computer. Although smartphones are generally
considered as private devices, they can also be used for organizational tasks in the scope of the
“bring your own device” (BYOD) concept .As a result, security for smartphones becomes
crucial.
As indicated in some of the latest studies, user awareness is a critical factor for smartphone
security. Smartphones become a valuable target for attackers because of the information they
contain. It is, therefore, critical for smartphone users to take precautionary measures, including
awareness of vulnerabilities and threats as well as adoption of security controls against threats.
Technology awareness is defined as a user’s raised consciousness of and interest in knowing
about technological issues and strategies to deal with them and show the technology awareness
as one of the stimuli for determining the attitude in their awareness-centric model.
In this scope, this study aims to investigate the levels of awareness of smartphone users on
different security-related parameters and compare these levels based upon age, education level,
6
and cybersecurity knowledge level.
Although there are studies investigating the security awareness level of computer users, only a
limited number of them have focused on smartphone security, which has a different user
behavior pattern than normal computers. Also, most of the studies investigate smartphone
awareness in a restricted environment such as a university with students and/or faculties
However, this study aimed to collect data from a wide range of population in terms of
demography. In addition, smartphone proliferation continues, and people become more and more
familiar with this technology. Thus, there is a requirement to observe the latest awareness level
of users. Based upon this, the authors believe that this study provides valuable information to the
literature to understand current awareness levels of smartphone users from different demographic
perspectives for the purpose of developing methods to improve it.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section presents related studies. Section 3
explains the methodology used for the study. In Section 4, the essential statistical analysis results
are presented and discussed. Section 5 includes the conclusions, theoretical and practical
implications, and future research recommendations.
Objective:
The study is aimed at understanding the factors contributing towards the data privacy.
Sub objective:
1) To know about the awareness of data privacy in public.
2) To ascertain the willingness of the public for sharing data online.
3) To understand the impact of social media usage on data privacy.
4) To find out the level of data privacy and protection for various mobile applications
7
LITERATURE REVIEW
Information technology have quickly become a important part of people’s lives. Whether for
business or pleasure, there is now a demand to have the world and all the information in it at our
fingertips anytime, anywhere, and to find out as much as we can about ourselves and our lives
with the help of technology. Since the arrival of early social networking sites in the early 2000s,
online social networking platforms have expanded exponentially, with the biggest names in
social media in the mid-2010s being Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat. The massive
influx of personal information that has become available online and stored in the cloud has put
user privacy at the forefront of discussion regarding the database's ability to safely store such
personal information. The extent to which users and social media platform administrators can
access user profiles has become a new topic of ethical consideration, and the legality, awareness,
and boundaries of subsequent privacy violations are critical concerns in advance of the
technological age. As technology improved over time the need for Privacy and protection of data
increased with increase in data breaches. The researches started to begin on data privacy and
protection. The qualitative examination of considerations and behaviours surfaced four major
themes in privacy considerations about the self and others (security, identity, social disclosure,
and convenience). The pat surveys clearly demonstrated that heightened security concerns in the
consumer electronics industry is having a negative effect on the market. The surveys found that
for nearly half (47 per cent) of respondents, security concerns and privacy risks ranked among
the top three barriers to buying an IoT device or service. With those planning to buy a connected
device this year, over two thirds (69 per cent) said they knew that these products were capable of
being hacked, and therefore could result in stolen data or device malfunctions. The first phase
was about empowering users with mobile devices and email on the move. The second was about
basic transactional apps that enabled working on the move, and the third is about the
transformation of work using mobile technologies. From problems with security and data
breaches, to serious consequences from users oversharing on social platforms, the relationship
between privacy and social media can be strained at best. Data privacy breaches related to the
infrastructure of the social network itself. Issues originating with the users themselves. These
days millennial are using platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat, so there is
need to understand behaviour of millennial over data privacy and protection. The concern on
data privacy and protection increased with time. With this research paper we tried to reflect light
upon some issues awareness among the people about data privacy. With fruitful involvement of
government on the issues of data breaches rules are changed and improved over time on data
privacy this research paper focuses on awareness about the rights of data privacy among people
and also the data privacy and protection measures takes by companies for big data.
8
RESEARCH SUMMARY 1
To support the proposition that privacy should be approached as a much more flexible notion and
to explain the theory of contextual integrity, a study was conducted on empirical data focusing
on mobile personal information management. The data was from a project studying university
students’ use of a mobile social network (Facebook); this group is of particular interest since
they illustrate common use of a network that is highly integrated into their daily lives. We do not
claim that these students represent the broader population but rather that this sub-population
represents a particular set of values in an extreme, highly social, highly mobile setting. Their
practices illuminate aspects of privacy that so far have been ignored. The project itself focuses on
broader issues; here we focus on their information-sharing and privacy perceptions.
The data consist of qualitative semi structured interviews with 60 students as well as data
collection from their online profiles. All participants accessed their online social network mostly
from their mobile device (iPhone, Blackberry), resulting in very integrated use where other types
of text communication such as text messaging were placed side by side in terms of importance.
The study was conducted to examine three parts from Nissenbaum’s theory in an aim to provide
real-life examples of how privacy is perceived, negotiated and articulated: social
appropriateness, distribution and change of norms. We apply our own data selectively and that
one particular online social network does not contain generalizable behavior.
It was seen that participants were ready to share their personal information and location details
online but only with specific group of people on facebook, and as most of them were unaware
about the option of sharing their data with specific groups so they kept sharing it without any
restrictions.
9
RESEARCH SUMMARY 2
Abstract –
As sharing personal media online becomes easier and widely spread, new privacy concerns
emerge – especially when the persistent nature of the media and associated context reveals
details about the physical and social context in which the media items were created. Through
data analysis on a corpus of privacy decisions and associated context data from a real-world
system, we identify relationships between location of photo capture and photo privacy settings.
Our data analysis leads to further questions which we investigate through a set of interviews with
15 users. The interviews reveal common themes in privacy considerations: security, social
disclosure, identity and convenience. Finally, we highlight several implications and opportunities
for design of media sharing applications, including using past privacy patterns to prevent
oversights and errors.
Introduction –
In this work, it is examine how users of Flickr, a popular photo-sharing web site, manage their
privacy policies for photographic content. The users we studied upload photos to the Flickr web
site using ZoneTag, a mobile application running on high-resolution, location-aware camera
phones. Concentrating on these users and the existence of contextual data that is associated with
their actions puts us in a unique position to explore critical aspects of privacy, including:
• Users’ considerations in making privacy decisions about online content.
• The content- and context-based patterns of privacy decisions in an online photo sharing
environment.
• Ways in which different people make privacy policy decisions “in the moment”, and their
strategy of dealing with such decisions in mobile settings.
• User behavior regarding location disclosure and systems that maintain, and sometimes expose,
long-term and persistent information about their location.
Findings-
The qualitative examination of considerations and behaviors surfaced four major themes in
privacy considerations about the self and others (security, identity, social disclosure, and
convenience). This preliminary taxonomy emphasizes the complexity and potential for conflict
in the factors behind privacy choices and offers a vocabulary for thinking and communicating
about this difficult landscape. We observe that security of others (their children, presumably) is
an overwhelming concern for parents, while the security theme is only mentioned by a single
non-parent. Overall, identity was a consideration for virtually all interviewees, with concern for
exposing photos of others voiced even more often than concern with managing one’s own
identity.
10
Choice under uncertainty — Users are uncertain about the content of, audience for, and norms
regarding particular disclosures. This uncertainty limits users’ ability to make the best decision at
capture time.
Dealing with complexity — Making the best available disclosure choice is often difficult and
demanding of attention and time, sometimes prohibiting careful decisions for each photo in the
moment. Users may regret a decision shortly after making it or just mistakenly over- or under
disclose information. Users sometimes adopt strategies for reducing the complexity of the
decision.
Compromises and dissatisfaction — Disclosure decision making can involve significant
compromises, as multiple factors and preferences provide reasons for conflicting decisions.
Unsatisfactory decisions are much more frequent than regretted decisions; that is, users often do
not prefer other available options but are unhappy with the chosen option because some reasons
speak against it.
11
RESEARCH SUMMARY 3
Mobile devices (e.g., smart phones, tablets, and laptops) have been increasingly used by
individuals over the past few years. Moreover, many individuals have multiple types of mobile
devices; a 2014 survey found 73 percent of smartphone users to have a tablet and sometimes
work with both devices simultaneously (Salesforce 2014). Thus, the paradigm of developing
applications has shifted from traditional locally-installed applications to cloud-computing
applications.
Mobile cloud-computing applications (MCC apps) are internet-based multiplatform applications
that can be installed on various types of mobile devices with different operating systems. MCC
apps reside on users’ devices, but the associated data are transferred to and processed by cloud
servers. MCC apps have some specific attributes that differentiate them from other types of
applications (e.g., mobile applications), including: (a) data for MCC apps are stored mainly in
cloud servers, which may be geographically dispersed; (b) data for MCC apps can be
simultaneously accessed by multiple devices; (c) MCC apps support almost all highly used
operating systems (e.g., iOS, Android, Windows); and (d) the providers of MCC apps
automatically back up users’ data on cloud servers, without users’ efforts. Moreover, some MCC
apps might be launched by web browsers, and may also let the users have an offline copy of their
data. Despite fulfilling many mobile device users’ needs and serving important functions, MCC
apps raise privacy concerns about disclosing personal information to these apps. In a 2014
survey by Cloud Security Alliance, most of the respondents expressed concerns about the fact
that cloud providers can use users’ data for secretive purposes without their consents (Cloud
Security Alliance 2014). The safety of transferring data to cloud and data theft in cloud by
hackers, other cloud users, and the providers are the main privacy challenges of giving
information to the cloud. Although prior privacy calculus studies focus on intention to adopt a
technology, this paper concentrates on individuals’ willingness to disclose personal information.
This enables to examine not only intention to use MCC apps, but also individual’s willingness to
provide personal information to MCC apps that send the information to remote locations as the
condition of using such applications. This paper studies how individuals weigh the privacy costs
and benefits of disclosing personal information to MCC apps and proposes a model. Analyses of
data collected through an online survey with 439 responses provides insights into the predictors
of disclosing personal information to MCC apps. The results show that the main inhibitor of
disclosing personal information to MCC apps is perceived privacy concerns and the main
enablers are perceived usefulness and trust. Moreover, perceived ease of use does not directly
affect the disclosing of information to MCC apps. The paper’s theoretical and practical
implications are discussed.
12
RESEARCH SUMMARY 4
Smartphones are becoming enriched with confidential information due to their powerful
computational capabilities and attractive communications features. The Android smartphone is
one of the most widely used platforms by businesses and users alike. This is partially because
Android smartphones use the free, open-source Linux as the underlying operating system, which
allows development of applications by any software developer.
Smartphones are becoming a more integrated and prevalent part of people’s daily lives due to
their highly powerful computational capabilities, such as email applications, online banking,
online shopping, and bill paying. With this fast adoption of smartphones, imminent security
threats arise while communicating sensitive personally identifiable information (PII), such as
bank account numbers and credit card numbers used when handling and performing those
advanced tasks. Traditional attacks (worms, viruses, and Trojan horses) caused privacy
violations and disruptions of critical software applications (e.g., deleting lists of contact numbers
and personal data). Malware attacks on smartphones were generally “proof of concept” attempts
to break to the phone’s system and cause damage. However, the new generation of smartphone
malware attacks has increased in sophistication and is designed to cause severe financial losses
(caused by identity theft) and disruption of critical software applications. Because smartphones
are becoming more diverse in providing general purpose services (i.e., instant messaging and
music), the effect of malware could be extended to include draining batteries, incurring
additional charges, and bringing down network capabilities and services.
With the development of innovative features and services for smartphones, security measures
deployed are currently not commensurate because those services and features, such as MMS and
Bluetooth, are driven by market and user demands, meaning that companies are more inclined to
provide more entertainment features than security solutions. In turn, this further increases
vulnerabilities and opens doors for hackers to deploy attacks on smartphones.
Furthermore, operating systems of smartphones allow the installation of third-party software

applications, coupled with the increase in processing power as well as the storage capacity. This
poses more security challenges because hackers could exploit those vulnerabilities, which are
further compounded by users’ lack of security awareness. Smartphone attackers are becoming
more adept in designing and launching attacks by applying attack techniques already
implemented on desktop and laptop computers; smartphones’ enhanced features, such as music
players and video games, produce easy-to exploit targets by sending seemingly benign files via
music or video game applications to users and lure them into downloading such files. These
attackers could exploit such vulnerabilities to spread worms autonomously into smartphones.
Therefore, hackers usually use a combination of technical expertise along with some social
engineering techniques to trap users into accepting and downloading benign applications, which
are used later to execute malicious code and affect critical applications running on smartphones.
13
RESEARCH SUMMARY 5
Nowadays Marketers use consumer information to guide their marketing and promotion efforts
for decades. Information and data they have relied on typically have been market level
information but not specific data. Market level is consumer information that reflects the
generalized characteristics of a consumer group, market segment, media audience, or geographic
region. Market level information, however, is not the primary source of concern in issues
involving consumer privacy. The consumer are majorly concerned about their personal, or
specific data. Individual specific information includes data such as addresses, names, lifestyle
interests, demographic characteristics, shopping preferences, and purchase histories of the
individuals. Direct marketing people of marketers have long used such kind of data, but today
advances in fragmented consumer markets, computer technology, mass media audiences, and
demands for greater economic efficiency have encourage much broader use of data which is
personal and vital. Although the judicial support is great news for marketers they must not ignore
public sentiment and consumer desires which are the major determinants of information practices
and regulations.
The study extends efforts to identify the types of personal information that generate consumer
concerns. It continues the efforts to identify the situations and factors that give rise to consumer
privacy concerns .Furthermore, this study offers an assessment of the trade-offs consumers are
willing to make when they exchange personal and vital information for shopping benefits. The
findings consistently reveal a strong relationship between respondents' level of concern over the
ways companies use personal information and respondents' information-related beliefs and
behaviors. Consumers who were very concerned were significantly more likely than other
respondents to believe there should be limits on how much information companies can collect
from consumers. Secondly, believe it is wrong for companies to provide customer mailing lists to
other companies or organizations, and (3) have requested that a company or organization remove
their name from a mailing or telephone calling list.
Understanding the role of each factor is very helpful for developing policy that effectively
responds to consumer concerns, the important factors from a public policy perspective are the
type of information collected and the amount of control consumers have over subsequent
dissemination. Not only are these two factors primary drivers of consumer concern but they also
represent areas that fall under the domain of public policymakers. Amendment and other reasons,
public policymakers must remain on the sidelines as individual companies decide on the proper
amount of communication and on how best to communicate information of interest to specific
consumers. Finally, the implementation and promotion of self-regulatory policies must be
accomplished by the marketers themselves.
14
RESEARCH SUMMARY 6
The study is conducted on privacy concerns on Location-Based Services() on the data obtained
by 168 respondents in Singapore the purpose of this study is the nature of control of information
privacy in the context of location-based services on three privacy assurance approaches that are
self-regulatory control, Industry regulatory control and Government regulatory control. A
general finding from this research is that individuals would resist online transactions or
adoptions of new technologies in the presence of significant privacy concerns. It has also been
observed that individual tend to have lower privacy concerns if they have control on the
collection of personal information and use of that information by others.
This research paper provides an overview of prior relevant literature to establish a theoretical
foundation for studying privacy, privacy concerns, control, and privacy assurance approaches
because prior studies has shown lack of clarity between privacy and control, some researches
have perceived privacy as a control but this research paper establishes the linkage of different
control agencies over Privacy. The study argues that there are two types of privacy concerns I.e.
general and context specific concerns : Individuals general concerns for information privacy
reflect their inherent needs and attitudes toward maintaining privacy whereas Context-specific
concerns for information privacy, tie the individuals assessments of privacy concerns to a
specific context with a specific external agent, demanding that consumers be involving in a
dynamic assessment process in which their privacy needs are evaluated against their information
disclosure needs are weighed against information disclosure needs. The argument further says
that privacy concerns are context-specific, based in the specifics of by whom, why, when, and
what type of personal information is being collected, distributed, and used.
The Research mainly focus on the privacy concerns over Location-Based services in which the
self-regulatory approach consists of technological and non-technological approaches. An array of
non-technological self-protection approaches has been discussed in terms of reading privacy
policies refusal to reveal personal information, misrepresentation of personal information,
removal from mailing lists, negative word-of-mouth, complaining directly to the online
companies, and complaining indirectly to third-party organizations and individuals to protect
their information privacy by directly controlling the flow of their personal information to others
PETs are quite numerous, with technologies such as anonymous web surfing and communication
tools, cookie management tools, and the Platform for Privacy Preference and its user agents.
Government regulation is another approach that relies on the judicial and legislative branches of
a government for protecting personal information and Industry self-regulation is another
approach that mainly consists of industry codes of conduct and self-policing trade groups
and associations as a means of regulating privacy practices. These findings have important
implications for service providers and consumers as well as for regulatory bodies and technology
developers.
15
16
RESEARCH SUMMARY 7
In this paper, it proposed a new multi-dimensional privacy concept fit to the complex features of
online social interactions. Further, we propose that role related constructs are critical source of
privacy concern in online social networks. The four dimensions of privacy concern ,virtual
territorial privacy, factual privacy, interactional privacy, and psychological privacy, aggregate to
form general privacy concern which predicts individual’s risk belief. Data were collected on the
Amazon Mechanical Turks platform. Empirical results support the validity of the proposed scale
of the multi-dimensional privacy concern construct. We also find evidence that the different
dimensions of privacy concern may be influenced differently by role related constructs (role
overload and role conflict). It is needed to define the privacy of Internet users; understand its
dimensions, its antecedents, and its consequences. Online survey was conducted for data
collection. Mainly facebook was used. Seven-point scales, anchored with “1 = strongly disagree”
and “7 = strongly agree”, are used. The percentage of people who have been exposed to the
invasion of privacy on the site and who have heard extensively about privacy invasion on the site
from media are 17.6% and 61.4% respectively. The main data collection is implemented with the
Surveymonkey platform. The final sample size is 276. In our sample, 28.6% are female, 64.5%
hold a Bachelor‟s degree or above. The majority of the respondents are between 21 and 30 years
of age, with the average being 25. Over half (53.3%) of the respondents are Indian, followed by
White (23.6%). SmartPLS for data analysis was used.
17
RESEARCH SUMMARY 8
The survey received responses from 327 millennial regarding online privacy issues on Facebook.
The survey questions covered different aspects of privacy awareness, privacy factors, privacy
behaviour and demographical information. The privacy awareness questions covered information
related to the users’ Facebook profile, usage and contained a few questions that explicitly
checked the user’s awareness on a particular privacy-related subject. The privacy factors covered
users’ preferences in sharing information within their network on Facebook.
Privacy behaviour focuses on all questions/statements regarding the users’ acceptance of

technology, attitude towards promotional messages and related privacy concerns. Demographic
information covered basic demographical information such as age, gender, occupational status
and so on. The responses were then collected and numerical analysis was carried out to
determine the most pressing privacy concerns for Indian millennial on Facebook.
The majority of the survey respondents were male (female, 22 per cent). Almost two-thirds (64
per cent) of the respondents were aged 21 to 25 years old, followed by those aged 25 to 30 (29
per cent). Those aged 21 to 30 years old form the major chunk of the millennial population in
India. The percentage of respondents aged 18 to 20 years and 31 to 34 years old was 5% and 1%,
respectively. The majority of the respondents were postgraduates (64%), 27% were employed,
7% were undergraduates and the remaining
2% of the samples were unemployed.
18
HYPOTHESIS
H0: There is no significant difference between the public and the private type of account on the
social media.
H1: There is significant difference between the public and the private type of account on the
social media.
H0: There is no significant impact of education qualification of respondents on reading terms and
condition.
H2: There is significant impact of education qualification of respondents on reading terms and
condition.
H0: There is no significant impact of education qualification of respondents on understanding

terms and condition.
H3: There is significant impact of education qualification of respondents on understanding terms
and condition.
H0: There is no significant impact of age on posting of their whereabouts on the social media.
H4: There is significant impact of age on posting of their whereabouts on the social media.
H0: There is no correlation between designation of the respondents and the frequency of posting
on social media.
H5: There is correlation between designation of the respondents and the frequency of posting on
social media.
H0: The usage of local internet is independent of the place of residing of the respondents.
H6: The usage of local internet is dependent on the place of residing of the respondents.
H0: The usage of software that protects personal data is independent of the designation of the
respondents.
H7: The usage of software that protects personal data is dependent on the designation of the
respondents.
H0: There are no specific preferences shown by the respondents towards various mobile
applications on the basis of data privacy.
H8: There are specific preferences shown by the respondents towards various mobile
19
H0: There are no specific preferences shown by the respondents towards concern for sharing
various personal information.
H9: There are specific preferences shown by the respondents towards concern for sharing
20
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
TYPE OF RESEARCH
The topic for the research study is To understand the factors contributing towards the data
privacy.
The data are collected from Research works of various scholars, Newspapers and Articles,
journals and magazines, regular users, IT professionals from IT companies.
SOURCES OF DATA
For the study purpose both primary and secondary data are used. The primary data collected
from the IT Professionals, users and IT companies which shows their behavior and responses.
The secondary data collected from records of the company, previous privacy data breaching
cases, past research papers and articles. The primary and secondary data have been collected to
cover every aspect of the study. These data used in combination as per need of the study.
INSTRUMENTS FOR DATA COLLECTION
For collection of data the following instruments have been used:
(a) Questionnaire
For our study purpose a set of questions has been prepared to collect information relating to the
Data privacy cost and benefit. Sets of such forms are distributed to groups of 200-250 people and
the answers are collected relating to research topic. In this study a structured questionnaire has
been used with different types of questions such as closed ended and open ended. Special case
has been taken to select the scales for the questions for collection of responses very effectively.
(b) Telephone, Mobile Phone

Telephone and other devices can be used for collecting data verbally from respondents located
away having their contact numbers.
21
(c) Interview
In this method we personally met the respondents and asked them necessary questions on
qualitative basis of data privacy.
RESEARCH METHODS
For collection of primary data for this research work survey has been used.
(a) Survey Method

Survey is used to collect quantitative information about items in a population. Surveys are
used in different areas i.e. different age groups, communities, technical and non-technical people
etc. for collecting the data. The respondents are contacted by the research person personally,
telephonically or through mail. It is an efficient way of collecting information from a large
number of respondents. In these Statistical techniques used to determine validity, reliability, and
statistical significance.
SAMPLING
(a) Introduction
This research is a systematic study to examine or investigate the predictors that contributing to
the data privacy in metropolitan cities in India and finding out the relevant information for
solution. For this study data are to be collected from the respondents of metropolitan cities in
India which is a sample.
For this research study purpose IT Professionals, regular users, IT companies located in different
parts of Mumbai region was asked questions for data collection.
(b) Statistical Tools for Data Analysis

For data analysis measures of central tendency, standard deviation, variance will be used.
For testing of hypothesis F Test and T test, Anova will be used.
(c) Hypothesis
Various hypotheses have been tested with the help of statistical tools.
22
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
To carry out the research study the following limitations were expected and faced during the
research study:
a) Some respondents do not give timely responses. Sometimes, the respondents may give fake,
socially acceptable and sweet answers and try to cover up the realities.
b) The data collected by the third party may not be a reliable party so the reliability and
accuracy of data goes down.
c) Data collected in one location may not be suitable for the other one due variable
environmental factor. Secondary data can also raise issues of authenticity and copyright.
d) Time, cost and location factors become major difficulties in completion of research.
e) Sample size may not be exact representative of the universe. There is possibility of some
error to a limited extent.
f) The major disadvantages of interview are there is a chance of biasness. The informants may
not answer some personal questions.
However, to overcome the limitations and maintain the effectiveness of research work sincere
efforts were put.
23
DATA ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Account_type Reading_terms_before_installation
Allow_application_to_trace_location Understant_terms_and_conditions Frequency_of_posting
Tagging_people_on_photo Mention_location_of_photo
Changing_privacy_setting_after_uploading_photos Age Gender Qualification City Designation
Marital_status
/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV VARIANCE RANGE MIN MAX
/SORT=MEAN (D).
Descriptives
Notes
Output Created 16-Apr-2020 22:31:44
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 201
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User defined missing values are treated as missing.
Cases Used All non-missing data are used.
Syntax DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Account_type
Reading_terms_before_installation
Allow_application_to_trace_location
Understant_terms_and_conditions
Frequency_of_posting Tagging_people_on_photo
Mention_location_of_photo
Changing_privacy_setting_after_uploading_photos
Age Gender Qualification City Designation
Marital_status
/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV VARIANCE
RANGE MIN MAX
/SORT=MEAN (D).
Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.016

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.016
Descriptive Statistics
Minimu Std.
N Range m Maximum Mean Deviation Variance
Qualification 201 5 1 6 3.81 1.117 1.247
Frequency_of_posting 201 4 1 5 3.20 1.464 2.143
Reading_terms_before_installation 201 2 1 3 2.34 .705 .497
Designation 201 4 1 5 2.18 1.269 1.611
Changing_privacy_setting_after_up 201 2 1 3 2.18 .740 .548

loading_photos
Mention_location_of_photo 201 2 1 3 2.06 .788 .621
Age 201 4 1 5 2.01 1.200 1.440
Understant_terms_and_conditions 201 2 1 3 1.98 .891 .794
Allow_application_to_trace_locatio 201 2 1 3 1.90 .997 .994

n
24
Marital_status 201 2 1 3 1.72 .482 .232
City 201 2 1 3 1.57 .704 .496
Gender 201 2 1 3 1.51 .530 .281
Tagging_people_on_photo 201 1 1 2 1.46 .499 .249
Account_type 201 1 1 2 1.39 .490 .240
Valid N (listwise) 201
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Photographs Phone_number Actual_DOB Email_address Life_events

/SORT=MEAN (D).
Descriptives
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
Syntax DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Photographs
Phone_number Actual_DOB Email_address
Life_events
RANGE MIN MAX
/SORT=MEAN (D).

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.015
25
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Life_events 201 4.00 1.00 5.00 3.6020 1.37142 1.881
Email_address 201 4.00 1.00 5.00 3.1294 1.26221 1.593
Photographs 201 4.00 1.00 5.00 2.8955 1.58872 2.524
Phone_number 201 4.00 1.00 5.00 2.7811 1.26564 1.602
Actual_DOB 201 4.00 1.00 5.00 2.6965 1.13245 1.282
26
social media.
social media.
T-Test
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
Cases Used Statistics for each analysis are based on the cases
with no missing or out-of-range data for any
variable in the analysis.
Syntax T-TEST
/TESTVAL=0
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=Account_type
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.015
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Account_type 201 1.39 .490 .035
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper
Account_type 40.335 200 .000 1.393 1.32 1.46
condition.
condition.

and condition.
Oneway
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
27
Split File <none>
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as
missing.
Cases Used Statistics for each analysis are based on cases with
no missing data for any variable in the analysis.
Syntax ONEWAY Reading_terms_before_installation
Understant_terms_and_conditions BY Qualification
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES HOMOGENEITY
/MISSING ANALYSIS.

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.156
Descriptives
95% Confidence Interval
Std. for Mean
Mea Deviatio Std. Lower Upper Maxim
N n n Error Bound Bound Minimum um
Reading_terms_befor Below SSC 10 1.70 .675 .213 1.22 2.18 1 3
e_installation
SSC or 19 1.84 .602 .138 1.55 2.13 1 3
Equivalent
HSC or 29 2.45 .632 .117 2.21 2.69 1 3
Equivalent
Graduate 87 2.51 .645 .069 2.37 2.64 1 3
Post Graduate 54 2.33 .752 .102 2.13 2.54 1 3
and above
Other 2 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
Total 20 2.34 .705 .050 2.25 2.44 1 3
1
Understant_terms_an Below SSC 10 2.00 .943 .298 1.33 2.67 1 3
d_conditions
SSC or 19 2.26 .872 .200 1.84 2.68 1 3
Equivalent
HSC or 29 2.03 .778 .145 1.74 2.33 1 3
Equivalent
Graduate 87 1.90 .928 .099 1.70 2.09 1 3
Post Graduate 54 1.96 .910 .124 1.71 2.21 1 3
and above
Other 2 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
Total 20 1.98 .891 .063 1.85 2.10 1 3
1
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Reading_terms_before_installation 3.116 5 195 .010
Understant_terms_and_conditions 4.138 5 195 .001
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Reading_terms_before_installation Between Groups 11.768 5 2.354 5.242 .000
Within Groups 87.546 195 .449
Total 99.313 200
Understant_terms_and_conditions Between Groups 2.231 5 .446 .555 .734

Within Groups 156.645 195 .803
Total 158.876 200
Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons
28
Bonferroni
Mean 95% Confidence Interval
Difference (I- Std. Sig Lower Upper
Dependent Variable (I) Qualification (J) Qualification J) Error . Bound Bound
Reading_terms_before_installation Below SSC SSC or -.142 .262 1.0 -.92 .64
Equivalent 00
HSC or -.748* .246 . -1.48 -.02
Equivalent 04
0
Graduate -.806* .224 . -1.47 -.14
00
6
Post Graduate -.633 .231 . -1.32 .05
and above 09
9
Other -.300 .519 1.0 -1.84 1.24
00
SSC or Equivalent Below SSC .142 .262 1.0 -.64 .92
00
HSC or -.606* .198 . -1.19 -.02
Equivalent 03
7
Graduate -.664* .170 . -1.17 -.16
00
2
Post Graduate -.491 .179 . -1.02 .04
and above 09
8
Other -.158 .498 1.0 -1.64 1.32
00
HSC or Equivalent Below SSC .748* .246 . .02 1.48
04
0
SSC or .606* .198 . .02 1.19
Equivalent 03
7
Graduate -.057 .144 1.0 -.48 .37
00
Post Graduate .115 .154 1.0 -.34 .57
and above 00
Other .448 .490 1.0 -1.01 1.90
00
Graduate Below SSC .806* .224 . .14 1.47
00
6
SSC or .664* .170 . .16 1.17
Equivalent 00
2
HSC or .057 .144 1.0 -.37 .48
Equivalent 00
Post Graduate .172 .116 1.0 -.17 .52
and above 00
Other .506 .479 1.0 -.92 1.93
00
Post Graduate and above Below SSC .633 .231 . -.05 1.32
09
9
SSC or .491 .179 . -.04 1.02
Equivalent 09
8
HSC or -.115 .154 1.0 -.57 .34
Equivalent 00
Graduate -.172 .116 1.0 -.52 .17
00
Other .333 .482 1.0 -1.10 1.77
00
Other Below SSC .300 .519 1.0 -1.24 1.84
00
SSC or .158 .498 1.0 -1.32 1.64
Equivalent 00
29
HSC or -.448 .490 1.0 -1.90 1.01
Equivalent 00
Graduate -.506 .479 1.0 -1.93 .92
00
Post Graduate -.333 .482 1.0 -1.77 1.10
and above 00
Understant_terms_and_conditions Below SSC SSC or -.263 .350 1.0 -1.30 .78
Equivalent 00
HSC or -.034 .329 1.0 -1.01 .94
Equivalent 00
Graduate .103 .299 1.0 -.79 .99
00
Post Graduate .037 .309 1.0 -.88 .95
and above 00
Other .000 .694 1.0 -2.06 2.06
00
SSC or Equivalent Below SSC .263 .350 1.0 -.78 1.30
00
HSC or .229 .265 1.0 -.56 1.01
Equivalent 00
Graduate .367 .227 1.0 -.31 1.04
00
Post Graduate .300 .239 1.0 -.41 1.01
and above 00
Other .263 .666 1.0 -1.72 2.24
00
HSC or Equivalent Below SSC .034 .329 1.0 -.94 1.01
00
SSC or -.229 .265 1.0 -1.01 .56
Equivalent 00
Graduate .138 .192 1.0 -.43 .71
00
Post Graduate .072 .206 1.0 -.54 .68
and above 00
Other .034 .655 1.0 -1.91 1.98
00
Graduate Below SSC -.103 .299 1.0 -.99 .79
00
SSC or -.367 .227 1.0 -1.04 .31
Equivalent 00
HSC or -.138 .192 1.0 -.71 .43
Equivalent 00
Post Graduate -.066 .155 1.0 -.53 .40
and above 00
Other -.103 .641 1.0 -2.01 1.80
00
Post Graduate and above Below SSC -.037 .309 1.0 -.95 .88
00
SSC or -.300 .239 1.0 -1.01 .41
Equivalent 00
HSC or -.072 .206 1.0 -.68 .54
Equivalent 00
Graduate .066 .155 1.0 -.40 .53
00
Other -.037 .645 1.0 -1.96 1.88
00
Other Below SSC .000 .694 1.0 -2.06 2.06
00
SSC or -.263 .666 1.0 -2.24 1.72
Equivalent 00
HSC or -.034 .655 1.0 -1.98 1.91
Equivalent 00
Graduate .103 .641 1.0 -1.80 2.01
00
Post Graduate .037 .645 1.0 -1.88 1.96
and above 00
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
30
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Photographs Phone_number Actual_DOB Email_address Life_events
/SORT=MEAN (D).
Descriptives
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
Syntax DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Photographs
Phone_number Actual_DOB Email_address
Life_events
RANGE MIN MAX
/SORT=MEAN (D).

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.006
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Life_events 201 4.00 1.00 5.00 3.2736 1.51319 2.290
Email_address 201 4.00 1.00 5.00 3.2388 1.30870 1.713
Phone_number 201 4.00 1.00 5.00 3.2090 1.40218 1.966
Photographs 201 4.00 1.00 5.00 3.0348 1.50791 2.274
Actual_DOB 201 4.00 1.00 5.00 2.9751 1.25075 1.564
ONEWAY Place_to_post_whereabouts BY Age

/MISSING ANALYSIS.
Oneway
Notes
Comments
Input Data C:\Users\Home\Desktop\Nikhil SPSS.sav
Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
missing.
Cases Used Statistics for each analysis are based on cases
with no missing data for any variable in the
analysis.
Syntax ONEWAY Place_to_post_whereabouts BY Age
/MISSING ANALYSIS.

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.087
31
ANOVA
Place_to_post_whereabouts
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 5.093 4 1.273 .460 .765
Within Groups 312.678 113 2.767
Total 317.771 117
32
on social media.
social media.
CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=Frequency_of_posting Designation
/PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES XPROD
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
missing.
Cases Used Statistics for each pair of variables are based on
all the cases with valid data for that pair.
Syntax CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=Frequency_of_posting Designation
/PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES XPROD
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.078
Mean Std. Deviation N

Frequency_of_posting 3.20 1.464 201
Designation 3.81 1.117 201
Correlations
Frequency_of_post
ing Designation
Frequency_of_posting Pearson Correlation 1 .171*
Sig. (2-tailed) .015
Sum of Squares and Cross- 428.637 55.955

products
Covariance 2.143 .280
N 201 201
Designation Pearson Correlation .171* 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .015
Sum of Squares and Cross- 55.955 249.433

products
Covariance .280 1.247
N 201 201
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
33
NPAR TESTS
/CHISQUARE=Use_of_local_internet Types_of_cities
/EXPECTED=EQUAL
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING ANALYSIS.
NPar Tests
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
missing.
Cases Used Statistics for each test are based on all cases with
valid data for the variable(s) used in that test.
Syntax NPAR TESTS
/CHISQUARE=Use_of_local_internet
Types_of_cities
/EXPECTED=EQUAL
/MISSING ANALYSIS.

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.031
Number of Cases Alloweda 157286
a. Based on availability of workspace memory.
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Use_of_local_internet 201 3.04 1.099 1 4
Types_of_cities 201 1.57 .704 1 3
Chi-Square Test
Frequencies
Use_of_local_internet
Observed N Expected N Residual

Daily 27 50.3 -23.3
Once in a week 36 50.3 -14.3
Once in a month 40 50.3 -10.3
Never 98 50.3 47.8
Total 201
Types_of_cities

Tier 1 (Metro cities) 111 67.0 44.0
Tier 2 (eg. Amravati, Ahmedabad) 65 67.0 -2.0
Tier 3 (small cities) 25 67.0 -42.0
Total 201
Test Statistics
34
Use_of_local_inter
net Types_of_cities
Chi-Square 62.264a 55.284b
df 3 2
Asymp. Sig. .000 .000
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The
minimum expected cell frequency is 50.3.
b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The
35
respondents.
respondents.
NPAR TESTS
/CHISQUARE=Designation Data_Privacy_App_Usage
/EXPECTED=EQUAL
/MISSING ANALYSIS.
NPar Tests
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
missing.
Cases Used Statistics for each test are based on all cases with
valid data for the variable(s) used in that test.
Syntax NPAR TESTS
/CHISQUARE=Designation
Data_Privacy_App_Usage
/EXPECTED=EQUAL
/MISSING ANALYSIS.

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.012

Designation 201 3.81 1.117 1 6
Data_Privacy_App_Usage 201 1.77 .424 1 2
Chi-Square Test
Frequencies
Designation

Below SSC 10 33.5 -23.5
SSC or Equivalent 19 33.5 -14.5
HSC or Equivalent 29 33.5 -4.5
Graduate 87 33.5 53.5
Post Graduate and above 54 33.5 20.5
Other 2 33.5 -31.5
Total 201
Data_Privacy_App_Usage

Yes 47 100.5 -53.5
No 154 100.5 53.5
36
Total 201
Test Statistics
Data_Privacy_App
Designation _Usage
Chi-Square 150.970a 56.960b
df 5 1
Asymp. Sig. .000 .000
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The
b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The
37
NPAR TESTS
/FRIEDMAN=Data_Privacy_Whatsapp Data_Privacy_Instagram Data_Privacy_Snapchat
Data_Privacy_Facebook Data_Privacy_Linkedin
/MISSING LISTWISE.
NPar Tests
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
missing.
Cases Used Statistics for all tests are based on cases with no
missing data for any variables used.
Syntax NPAR TESTS
/FRIEDMAN=Data_Privacy_Whatsapp
Data_Privacy_Instagram Data_Privacy_Snapchat
Data_Privacy_Facebook Data_Privacy_Linkedin
/MISSING LISTWISE.

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.078

Data_Privacy_Whatsapp 200 1.95 1.363 1 5
Data_Privacy_Instagram 200 2.84 1.106 1 5
Data_Privacy_Snapchat 200 3.17 1.069 1 5
Data_Privacy_Facebook 200 3.57 1.123 1 5
Data_Privacy_Linkedin 200 3.49 1.686 1 5
Friedman Test
Ranks
Mean Rank
Data_Privacy_Whatsapp 1.95
Data_Privacy_Instagram 2.84
Data_Privacy_Snapchat 3.17
Data_Privacy_Facebook 3.57
Data_Privacy_Linkedin 3.49
Test Statisticsa
N 200
Chi-Square 136.912
df 4
38
Asymp. Sig. .000
a. Friedman Test
39
NPAR TESTS
/FRIEDMAN=Concern_Financial_data Concern_Medical_status Concern_live_location
Concern_Aadhar_Number Concern_Bank_Account_Number
/MISSING LISTWISE.
NPar Tests
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
missing.
Cases Used Statistics for all tests are based on cases with no
missing data for any variables used.
Syntax NPAR TESTS
/FRIEDMAN=Concern_Financial_data
Concern_Medical_status Concern_live_location
Concern_Aadhar_Number
Concern_Bank_Account_Number
/MISSING LISTWISE.

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.009

Concern_Financial_data 201 2.78 1.576 1 5
Concern_Medical_status 201 2.45 1.280 1 5
Concern_live_location 201 2.78 1.137 1 5
Concern_Aadhar_Number 201 3.27 1.080 1 5
Concern_Bank_Account_Number 201 3.73 1.568 1 5
Friedman Test
Ranks
Mean Rank
Concern_Financial_data 2.78
Concern_Medical_status 2.45
Concern_live_location 2.78
Concern_Aadhar_Number 3.27
Concern_Bank_Account_Number 3.73
Test Statisticsa
N 201
Chi-Square 80.625
40
df 4
Asymp. Sig. .000
a. Friedman Test
41
Statistics
Importance of Importance of
posting Importance of Importance of posting Email Importance of
Photographs posting Phone no. posting Actual DOB address posting Life events
Mean 3.27 3.24 3.21 3.03 2.98
Importanc Satisfaction
e (I) (S) I-S Opportunity Score = I+(I-S)
Photograph 3.27 3.60 0 3.27
Phone no. 3.24 3.13 .11 3.35
Actual DOB 3.21 2.90 .31 3.52
Email 3.03 2.78
Address .25 3.29
Life events 2.98 2.70 .28 3.25
42
FINDINGS
social media.
social media.
Managerial decision:
P value (0.05) > 0.00, i.e., H1 is accepted and H0 is rejected.
Yes, account setting for privacy is very important on social media and we can see the difference
when the account kept private will have less threat than public account.
condition.
condition.
We can conclude from mean value of HSC and higher education qualification respondent that
their use of online data and their awareness about associated terms and condition have higher
impact than those who have less education background. Because older people are more risk
associated than younger for example financial, health or any important data have more chances
of danger than young so agreeing terms and condition after reading is always better for such
prospect.

and condition.

P value (0.05) < 0.00, i.e., H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected.
43
It is observed from mean value that people perceiving intended meaning or interpret the
understanding of terms and condition has no effect of educational qualification as the younger
generation people are more Tec savvy than older.

P value (0.05) < 0.00, i.e., H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected.
Yes, as all people can share their whereabouts on social media as there is no effect of age on
posting but from observation, we can say that younger generation often post their whereabout
than older and also they post mostly life events, photographs followed by phone number and
email address.
on social media.
social media.
We can conclude that there is relation between the designation of respondents and their
frequency of posting on social media.
It is observed from analysis that the urban cities use most of the data than the 2 and 3 tier cities
because of internet availability and speed also the people generally do not prefer to use local
internet connection as it is exposed to virus and most of the threats. So urban people use personal
internet than local internet.
44
respondents.
respondents.
Yes, the usage of software that protects personal data is dependent on designation of respondents
as proven from analysis that the graduate person followed by post graduate who have knowledge
can install the software as they are more aware of risk associated with it; also, it is observed that
the people normally don’t install data privacy application unless they are aware or threat
experienced in the past.
From the test we can see that they prefer WhatsApp followed by IG, Snapchat, LinkedIn,
Facebook for sharing their information on the basis of data privacy.
Also we can conclude that people are mostly afraid or have doubts in sharing medical and
financial information than live location or photos; here bank account number is generally we
have to share for any online transaction but we can protect it with digit pin or password so it is
more incline towards how we protect the information.
45
REFERENCE
Xu Heng, Teo Hock-Hai, Tan Bernard C. Y, Agarwal Ritu, 2012, Effects of Individual Self-
Protection, Industry Self-Regulation, and Government Regulation on Privacy Concerns: A Study
of Location-Based Services, Articles in Advance.
Nikkhah Hamid Reza, Sabherwal Rajiv, 2017, Mobile Cloud-Computing Applications: A

Privacy Cost-Benefit Model, Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems.
Ahern Shane, Eckles Dean, Good Nathan, King Simon, Naaman Mor and Nair Rahul, 2007,
Over-Exposed? Privacy Patterns and Considerations in Online and Mobile Photo Sharing,
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Zhang Nan Andy, Wang Chong Alex, Xu Yan, 2011, Privacy in Online social Networks Thirty
Second International Conference on Information Systems.
Pandey Neeraj, Gudipudi Bhargav, 2019, Understanding ‘what is privacy’ for millennials on
Facebook in India, Journal of Data Protection & Privacy.
Barkhuus Louise, 2012, The Mismeasurement of Privacy: Using Contextual Integrity to

Reconsider Privacy in HCI, Mobile Life Stockholm University.
Phelps Joseph, Nowak Glen, and Ferrell Elizabeth, 2000, Privacy Concerns and Consumer
Willingness to Provide Personal Information, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
Omar Marwan, Dawson Maurice, 2013, Research in Progress-Defending Android Smartphones

from Malware Attacks, 2013 Third International Conference on Advanced Computing and
Communication Technologies.
46
ANNEXURES
TRANSCRIPTIONS OF QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW
1ST INTERVIEW
1) What does data privacy mean to you?

Data privacy can be related to how a piece of information shared by an individual is used by the
data collectors, they should clearly mention the use of it to the person from whom they
are collecting the data. Many a times it happens that the terms and conditions by the
companies are very ambiguous and not clearly understood by a layman and the users are
always worried about the misuse of the data that they share.
2) Do you think people are less concerned about their right to data privacy?
It’s not that people are less concerned or something about their rights to data privacy. People
generally don’t know about their rights and they are unaware as to what can be done from
the data they are sharing with the businesses.
3) What precautions should one take while being active on social media?
One should not frequently share about their whereabouts on social media and if one does so
he/she should limit the number of people who can view about that, probably they should
share it with the ones they are close to. One should avoid sharing their location on social
media as you can be tracked by anyone of your friends list once you share that.
Nowadays Businesses follow the day to day activities of their clients by following them on social
media and then try to sell their products to you using your personal information. You
should be careful about the data that you share, with whom are you sharing and what are
you sharing on social media.
4) Do you think that professional degree educated people are more aware about data privacy
and data protection than that of others?
Well I think that people with a professional degree are made aware about data privacy, data
protection throughout their academics. They attend various seminars, webinars, events,
etc related to their rights against data privacy. They are made aware about the misuse of
the data that they share online and precautions that they should take before sharing data
with anyone.
47
All of this training and knowledge which the professional degree people gets in the course of
their education makes them more aware about data privacy and data protection than that
of others.
5) Do you allow cookies sharing option? And for what type of sites do you allow it?
I usually try to avoid the cookies sharing option with the website as they keep a track of what
you do on their website once you share cookies with them and then pitch you according
to their preferences and you might end up buying unnecessary due to some impulse
action done by you.
However there are some websites which doesn’t allow you to proceed unless and until you
accept cookies sharing option with them, there I end up sharing with them as I don’t like
to go back again and search for another similar kind of website.
6) What do you think about the websites which demands compulsory cookies sharing option
to be on for access?
I think those websites are just doing their business and that’s normal in the course of business.
When you share cookies with a website they get access to the amount of time you spend
on their website, the links you click on their website, your options you chose, items you
keep in basket, etc.
All of this helps them to give you a better personalized experience for the next time you visit
their website. As a business it is necessary to know more and more details about your
users which helps them to sell more to their users, so according to me it is completely
fine about the websites which demands compulsory cookies sharing option to be on for
access as everyone would not be ready to share their information for free.
2ND INTERVIEW

In my opinion, Data privacy should be taken very seriously and should be kept as highest
priority since if you private data is leaked in wrong hands, the consequences can be
disastrous. The consequences can be like credit fraud, identity forgery, etc.
Rather than less concern, one can say majority of people have no concern about their
right to data privacy at all. How many of these people even know that you can ask for
your account info in whatsapp which gives you a nice statistics of your activity on the
app. There is a scarce amount of people who know about their right to know about
48
account info of their whatsapp account which can give us nice statistics of your activity
on the app.
Not talking about your political views and spread any sensitive rumors that may cause
civil unrest. The recent news of an employee being dismissed from the organization due
to sharing a sensitive video related to corona is a good precedence to recognize
consequences of such actions on social media.
In my opinion even if an individual is aware about data privacy and data protection, if
they don’t take it seriously and apply it in real life then it doesn't matter if the individual
is highly educated individual or not. But yes compared to other individuals, the ones that
are highly educated ,i.e., the ones with a professional degree are much more aware when
compared in both qualitative or quantitative aspect.
I seldom times allow cookie sharing options. This option is enabled for the nost trusted
website that i use like Bloomberg, Banking websites and as such. It is highly
recommended to follow such practices as allowing cookie storage for vulnerable websites
may lead to us getting exploited by hackers.
6) What do you think about the websites which demands compulsory cookies sharing option
to be on for access?
It is highly recommended to avoid non trusted websites which demands compulsory
cookies sharing option for accessing it. For trusted and secure websites we may allow it.
If for a non trusted website we really need to access it then allowing cookies while
staying in incognito mode is a good practice.
3RD INTERVIEW

Data privacy means a lot to me and my organization it’s a big challenge in front of the entire
IT team. In the coronavirus pandemic due to increase in work from home hours there is a
threat to important data throughout the globe. For me Data privacy is the first priority and
even I urge people do read the privacy policy of every app you install.
49
Yes, obviously I believe that almost above 40% people in the entire globe are less concerned
as they don’t follow the preventive measures while browsing online. Prevention is always
needed Example- people should invest their time in reading the privacy policy and term and
condition before installing any application online and people should think twice before they
give permissions like for example- location, storage etc.
One of the biggest problem people are making on social media is sharing/publishing their
personal information for example their pictures etc. This increases the threat of data privacy.
Social media connects people from the entire world and some may ill-intentioned people
may see everything on your post. So, people should take simple precaution like they should
not share any personal and vital information on social media
I think data privacy is a globe issue. Big and famous organizations even today are facing
challenges with regards to Data privacy. Yes, professional degree holder is more aware of
data privacy and data protection but it’s important that they should practice and take
measures. People need to understand the importance of data protection and privacy
measures.
Some website may not be secure so allowing cookies for every website is not a great idea.
Cookies are not harmful, but they may carry sensitive information. So I allow cookies on
applications that I trust. For example- LinkedIn and Apple
6) What do you think about the websites which demands compulsory cookies sharing option to
be on for access?
I think it’s always recommended that not to allow cookies for the website you don’t trust. If
the website is not safe, it uses third party cookies and if you still allow cookies then it may
lead to problematic situation.
50
QUESTIONNAIRE
Quantitative
1. Do you allow your mobile applications to trace your location?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Sometimes
2. Do you read all the terms and conditions before installing an app?
A. Always
B. Never
C. Sometimes
2a. If you read the terms and conditions do you understand it?
A. No
B. Maybe
3. Where do you post about your whereabouts on social media?
A. WhatsApp
B. Facebook
C. Instagram
D. Nowhere
E. Other
4. How frequently do you post on social media?
51
A. Everyday
B. Once in a week
B. Once in a month
C. Once in a 3 months
D. Very rarely
5. Do you tag the people in the photo which you upload on Instagram/Facebook
A. Yes
B. No
6. Do you mention the location where the photo has been taken while uploading on the
Instagram/Facebook
A. Yes
B. No
C. Only specific locations
7. Do you keep your Social media account private or public?
A. Public
B. Private
8. Do you change the privacy settings after uploading the photo on social media?
A. Yes always
B. Never
C. Only personal posts
52
9. Rank the following applications on the criteria of safety:
a. Whatsapp
b. Instagram
c. Facebook
d. Snapchat
e. Linkedin
10. Rate the below options on the scale 1-5 (where 1- least important and 5 - most important
w.r.t privacy)
a. Sharing live location
b. Sharing photographs
c. Sharing phone number
d. Sharing actual DoB
e. Sharing email address
f. Sharing life events
11. Will you be ready to share your personal information if the use of your information is given?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Depends on the use
12. How frequently you use the local internet (for ex. train station, cafes) for surfing?
A. Daily
B. Once in a week
C. Twice a week
D. Sometimes
53
13. Do you know by keeping birthdate as a password anyone can hack your account
A. Yes
B. No
14. Rate your awareness(from 1 to 5) with regards to privacy threats while using local internet
connection
A. 1
B. 2
C. 3
D. 4
E. 5
15. Are you currently using any software that block ad, protects data privacy?
a. Yes
b. No
16. Rank the following according to your level of concern for sharing them
a. Account password
b. Financial data
c. Medical history
d. Private conversations
e. Online purchase history
f. Web browsing history
g. Photos
h. Email address/Birthday
54
17. Rate the below options on the scale 1-5 (where 1- least satisfaction and 5 - most satisfaction)
with respect to data sharing with your friends.
a. Sharing live location
b. Sharing photographs
c. Sharing phone number
d. Sharing actual DoB
e. Sharing email address
f. Sharing life events
55
Demographic Question
1. Age
● Between 15 to 25
● Above 55
2. Gender
● Male
● Female
● Other
3. Qualification
● Below SSC
● SSC or Equivalent
● HSC or Equivalent
● Graduate
● Post Graduate and above
● Other
4. Marital Status
● Married
● Unmarried
● Other
5. In which city do you live
● Tier 1 (Metro cities)
● Tier 2 (eg. Amravati, Ahmadabad)
● Tier 3 (small towns)
● Village area
6. Designation
● Student
● Technical job
● Business
● Homemaker
● Other
56

Data Protection and Privacy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Data Protection and Privacy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Data Protection and Privacy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DATA PROTECTION AND PRIVACY

BRM RESEARCH PROJECT

Group Name – Think Tanks

Tag Line - Think before you click

Why Think Tanks?

Privacy concern exists wherever personally identifiable information or other sensitive

Sr Particulars Page No.

2) To ascertain the willingness of the public for sharing data online.

3) To understand the impact of social media usage on data privacy.

Furthermore, operating systems of smartphones allow the installation of third-party software

Privacy behaviour focuses on all questions/statements regarding the users’ acceptance of

2% of the samples were unemployed.

H0: There is no significant impact of education qualification of respondents on understanding

INSTRUMENTS FOR DATA COLLECTION

For collection of data the following instruments have been used:

(b) Telephone, Mobile Phone

(a) Survey Method

(b) Statistical Tools for Data Analysis

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.016

Frequency_of_posting 201 4 1 5 3.20 1.464 2.143

Reading_terms_before_installation 201 2 1 3 2.34 .705 .497

Designation 201 4 1 5 2.18 1.269 1.611

Changing_privacy_setting_after_up 201 2 1 3 2.18 .740 .548

Mention_location_of_photo 201 2 1 3 2.06 .788 .621

Age 201 4 1 5 2.01 1.200 1.440

Understant_terms_and_conditions 201 2 1 3 1.98 .891 .794

Allow_application_to_trace_locatio 201 2 1 3 1.90 .997 .994

City 201 2 1 3 1.57 .704 .496

Gender 201 2 1 3 1.51 .530 .281

Tagging_people_on_photo 201 1 1 2 1.46 .499 .249

Account_type 201 1 1 2 1.39 .490 .240

Valid N (listwise) 201

DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Photographs Phone_number Actual_DOB Email_address Life_events

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.000

N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.016

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

H0: There is no significant impact of education qualification of respondents on understanding

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.031

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Total 99.313 200

Understant_terms_and_conditions Between Groups 2.231 5 .446 .555 .734

Total 158.876 200

Post Hoc Tests

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.000

N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

ONEWAY Place_to_post_whereabouts BY Age

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.015

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.063

Mean Std. Deviation N

Sum of Squares and Cross- 428.637 55.955

Sum of Squares and Cross- 55.955 249.433

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.016

N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Observed N Expected N Residual

Observed N Expected N Residual

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.016