ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
International Journal of Information Management
j o ur n a l ho me p a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / i j i n f o m g t
Privacy in social networks: An analysis of Facebook
Özgür Külcü
∗, Türkay Henko˘glu
DepartmentofInformationManagement,UniversityofHacettepe,Beytepe,Ankara,Turkey
a r t i c l e i n f o
Articlehistory:
Keywords:
Socialnetworks Facebook
Personalandsensitivedata Privacy
a b s t r a c t
TheonlywaytobeawareoftherisksandthreatsofFacebook,themostcommonlyusedsocialnetworking siteintheworldandTurkey,istobeacarefuluserchangingthedefaultsettingsorsimplynottohavea Facebookaccount.InTurkey,thereisstillnostudyinwhichpersonalinformationsharedthoughsocial networkingsiteshasbeenevaluatedintermsofprivacy.Forthisreason,thefindingsobtainedofthisstudy haveagreatimportanceinthegeneralpictureofthecurrentsituationanddrawingattentiontotherisksof theissueinTurkeywheretherearenolegalarrangementseffectivelyprotectingtheusersfromsuchsites.
ThisstudyaimstoinvestigatetheFacebookprivacyofinformationprofessionalswhoaremembersof KUTUP-L,andtodeterminethesensitivityandlevelofawarenessofinformationprofessionalsinTurkey.
Facebookuserprofilesof400informationprofessionals,allKUTUP-Lmembers,havebeenanalyzedin astudyexamining32differentprivacysettings.Aprivacyscorehasbeencalculatedforeachuser,and therelationsbetweenprivacyresultshavebeenanalyzed.Thefindingsattheendofthestudyshowthat informationprofessionalsinTurkeydopayattentiontoprivacy,andmostoftheuserschangethedefault settingsinordertoprotecttheirpersonalinformation.
©2014ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
1. Introduction
Socialnetworkshaveanimportantplaceamongthetoolswhich areusedbothasdigitalinformationinfrastructuresinwhichper- sonal or institutional ideas,messages and news are produced, sharedandconsumed,and asan interfacetoaccess newinfor- mation.Beinginformationaccessandcommunicationtools,social networksarewidelyused,andtheyenabledifferentculturesto interactoneanother.Amongthemostvisitedinternetsiteswhose pagesarethemostdisplayedonesthroughouttheworldandin Turkey,thepopularsocial networking site Facebookcomesthe first(Alexa,2013).Thesitehasbecomeoneofthelargestinfor- mationsharingplatformsandis usedbymore thanonebillion usersactivelypermonth.Onecanaccessimportantpersonalinfor- mationorlinks throughsearching onFacebook.Therearerisks andresponsibilitiesthatmayleavetheusersindifficultsituations withregardtotheprotectionofinformationonsocial network- ingsitesandtheprivacyofpersonaldata.Theincreaseofsecurity risksduetotheproliferationofinformationsharingservicesonthe internet,increasingamountofinformation,andtherapiddevelop- mentininformationandcommunicationtechnologieshascaused
∗Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+903122978200;fax:+903122992014.
E-mailaddresses:kulcu@hacettepe.edu.tr,ozgurkulcu@gmail.com(Ö.Külcü), henkoglu@hacettepe.edu.tr(T.Henko˘glu).
the protection of privacy to be one of the most controversial andworrisomeissues(King&Raja,2012).Thelargestamountof information in theinternetcomesfrom social networkingsites (EuropeanCommission,2011).Themainreason fortheneedto beconsciousabouttheuseofsocialnetworkingsitesandattach- ingimportancetoprivacyisthemisuseofpersonalinformation bysocialnetworkingsitesorthemisuseoftheviewablecontent byotherusers.Awarenessbythecontentownerconcerningthe administrationofdigitalinformationhasacrucialroleinthepro- tectionofpersonaldata.Itisimpossibletoforeseeandfollowin whereintheworldtheinformationsharedintheinternetwould beusedwithinafewminutesandhowmanycopiesoftheinfor- mationwouldbeproduced.Legalandtechnicalprecautionsonthe issue,ontheotherhand,areusuallyineffective.Furthermore,many socialnetworkingsitesimprovetheiradvertisingpoliciesusingthe personaldatatheyhavealreadyobtainedandtheyplaceadson thesiteinaccordancewiththepersonalinterestsoftheusers.Use ofpersonaldataforsuchpurposesisclearlyindicatedintheuser agreementacceptedbytheuserwhensigningupforthesite.More- over,theserviceprovidercanchangethecontentoftheagreement withouthavingtheconfirmationoftheuser(Facebook,2012a).
Itisnecessarytomakethepersonalinformationsecurethrough making the legal arrangementsabout the waysocial network- ing sites can use personal data, and the useor distribution of theinformation not allowedto bedisplayed bytheuser with- outhis/herconfirmation.Nevertheless,animportantandessential http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.07.006
0268-4012/©2014ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
responsibilityfallstotheuserintheprotectionofprivacysince personalinformationisprovidedandsharedonsocialnetworking sitesbytheuserhimself/herself.Itisimpossibletolegallyprotect theinformationinthesocialnetworkbecausetheinformation,over whichchangesaremadebytheuser,isprovidedbytheusersby theirownwill.Thefactthatthereisnotanylegalarrangement aboutpersonaldatainTurkeyincreasestheimportanceoftheissue andimposesmoreresponsibilitiesontheusers.For thisreason, userawarenesscomesintotheforefrontinthesecureuseofsocial networkingsitesandstudiesemphasizetheimportantpositionof users.Intheliterature,thereisnostudyanalyzinguserprofilesin Turkeywhichputsforwardthesensitivityandawarenesslevelof theusersontheprotectionofpersonaldataandprivacy.Inthis study,unlikepreviousones,theissueofprotectionofprivacyhas beenanalyzedconsideringlegalapproaches;Facebookuserprofiles havebeenanalyzeddirectlyforthefirsttimeinTurkey,andaneval- uationofthecurrentsituationhasbeenmadeonthebasisofclear findings.Thisstudyrevealsthedeficienciesinthelegalarrange- ments,andtheuserswillbenefitfromthefindingsofthestudyin thesenseofbeingabletoactmoreconsciouslyagainsttherisksin thecurrentsituation.Theresearchquestionstobeansweredinthis studyare
•WhatistheawarenessofthemembersoftheTurkishProfessional Librarians’Discussion List (KUTUP-L) using social networking sitesininformationservicesconcerningtheprotectionofper- sonalinformationonFacebook?
•Inwhatcategoriesintherateofsensitivityishigher?
•Whatistheattitudeofgroupmembersconcerninghidingsensi- tiveinformation(religiousbeliefs,politicalviews,etc.)thatmight leadtodiscrimination?
•Whatarethecategoriesaboutwhichgroupmembersshareinfor- mation?
•Whatistheattitudeofgroupmembersabouttheprotectionof personaldatabygender?
•Isthereanydifferenceinthelevelofprotectionofprivacyaccord- ingtotheyearofsigningup?
•Isthereanydifferenceinthenumberoffriendsandphotosshared bytheusersaccordingtoprivacylevels?
2. Security,privacyandpersonaldataonFacebook
Informationforwhich privacy needstobeprotected canbe classifiedinto two categories:personal dataof primary impor- tanceand sensitivedata ofsecondary importance which might affecttheattitudeofthesocietytowardtheindividualincaseof sharing.Personaldataisdefinedinthedataprotectiondirective 95/46/ECoftheEuropeanUnion(EU)asanyinformationrelating toanidentifiedor(directlyand/orindirectly)identifiablenatural person(EuropeanCouncil,1995).Thesamedefinitionisadopted bythe“DraftLawonProtectionofPersonalData”whichwaspre- paredinaccordancewiththedataprotectiondirective ofEUin Turkeyin2008.Thedraftlawalsoincludestheexpression“legal person”alongwith“naturalperson”takingplaceintheEUdirec- tive.Asclearlystated inthedraftlaw,thepersonal datawhich might posea risk tothe privacy of privatelife and family life arecomposedoftheinformationaboutindividuals’race,political view,philosophicalbelief,religion,sectorotherbeliefs,foundation, associationandunionmembership,health,privatelifeandconvic- tion(T.C.Premiership,2008).Amongtheprimarydataconcerning userprivacyaretelephonenumber,identityrecords,addressinfor- mation,e-mailaddress,photos,identitynumber,institutionalor studentnumber,educationbackground,onlineuseraccounts,posts onsocialnetworkingsites,bankinginformationandhealthrecords (EuropeanCommission,MEMO/12/41,2012a).IPaddress,genetic
information,biometric information,location information,online identityandcookiestakenfromthevisitedinternetsitesareother importantdatathatrevealculturalandsocialidentity.
Theprotectionoftheusers’privacy onFacebook hasbeena matterofdiscussionsincethefirstdaythesocialplatformbegan, whichcausesprivacypoliciestochangeeachyear.Inthebeginning, in2005,visibilityofpersonalinformationwasrestrictedbyFace- book;yet,in2010,thesedatawereopenedtoeveryoneandthe userswereofferedthechoiceofrestrictingthevisibilityoftheir personalinformation(Opsahl,2010).Ononehand,thisalteration inFacebookdefaultsettingsenabledeveryonetoseethedatain theuserprofile;ontheotherhand,theuserswereprovidedwith thechoicetochangeallsettingsintheprofiletoprotecttheirpri- vacy.However,thealterations basedontheservicesagreement havesometimesbecomedisconcertingfortheusers.Theuserswho donotfrequentlyvisittheirFacebookaccounts,eventhoughthey areinformedviatheire-mailaddress,ignoretheiraccountinfor- mation,whichincreasesthepossiblerisks.Anotherimportantissue isthecomplexityinaccessingandapplyingtheprivacysettings which have tobeoffered totheusers due tolegal obligations, eventhoughthesettingscontrastwiththefundamentalsharing principleofFacebook.Theprivacysettingsofthetimetunnelis oneoftheexamplesofthecomplexityofuser’saccess(Vaknin, 2011).
Useof Facebook in a secure way requiresusers to bemore and more conscious and professional each year, and partic- ularly to be more aware of the protection of personal data.
Users who are not well aware of the protection of personal data or who do not have enough information about the sett- ingstoprotecttheirprivacyonFacebookdonotknowwhichof theirpersonal informationis available.Onecanaccessallofan individual’spersonaldataandcharacteristicsbasedontheinfor- mationacquiredthroughFacebook(Kosinskia,Stillwella,&Graepe, 2013).
TheinformationdefinedwhensigningupforFacebookcanbe displayedby anyFacebook userunless theprivacy settingsare changed.Forthisreason,inordertomeasuretheprivacyofaFace- bookprofile,inotherwordsthesensitivityofauseronprivacy,one mustconsidertherestrictionsonthedefaultsettingswhichenable otheruserstodisplaytheFacebookprofile.Through aFacebook profileofwhichprivacysettingsarenotchanged,onecanaccess thepersonaldataofprimaryimportanceand,inthecaseofshar- ing,sensitivedataofsecondaryimportancewhichmightaffectthe attitudeofthesocietytowardtheindividual.
2.1. Legalapproachestodataprotectioninsocialnetworks
Establishing a systemin which data protectionis efficiently provided and the freedom of transferring personal data is not restrictedbysocialnetworkingsitesisonlypossiblewithimprove- mentsinthequalityoflawsondataprotection.Thereportofa researchstudyconductedbytheEuropeanCommissionin2011 putsforththeusers’concernsaboutdataprotectioninsocialnet- workingsitesandalsoincludesdetailsaboutthereasonsforthe necessaryreformsin thelawonpersonal dataprotectiontitled 95/46/EC (EuropeanCommission, 2011). In fact, the newdraft directiveondataprotectiondated25/01/2012withreferencenum- ber IP/12/46 was prepared in order to eliminate the concerns indicated in this report due to the ineffectiveness of the cur- rentdirective95/46/ECinpracticetheEU(EuropeanCommission, 2012b).
WhenthelegalconditionsinTurkeyareanalyzed,itcanbeseen thatthecurrentregulationsaregenerally relatedtotheowner- shipandremovalofcontent.Althoughtheissuesaboutpublishing andinformationsharingintheinternetinTurkeyareregulatedby thelawnumbered5651(LawonRegulationofPublicationsonthe
InternetandSuppressionofCrimesCommittedbyMeansofSuch Publication),therearecontroversialpracticesthatarenotclearly determinedbythelaw.Thepracticeswhicharenotclearlydeter- minedbythelawareprovidedwithlegalgroundsbymeansofthe articleswithintheagreementsmadewithusers.Thisapproachis adopteduniversally(APA,2013).Havinganalyzedtheuseragree- mentsofsocialnetworkingsitesthathavebecomepopular,itis astonishingtoread thatsocial mediamanagement do nothave responsibilityforcontrollingthecontentanditisonlytheuserpro- vidingthecontentwhoisresponsibleforillegalcontent(Facebook, 2012b).Inaddition,thecaseofrepublishingorsharingthelinkofan illegalcontentbelongingtoanotherusershouldnotbeoverlooked.
Incaseitisconvincedthat“thecontentisadopted”,asindicatedin theparagraph2ofthearticle4ofthelawnumbered5651,the responsibility ofthecontentprovider continues(Law no.5651, 2007).Therefore,eachsharingonsocialnetworkingsitesmeans anindividualresponsibilityforthesharinguser.Itisnotalways possibletowithdrawandcontrolorlayaclaimontheillegalcon- tentpublishedviasocialnetworkingsites.Thisisalsoreferredin theuseragreementsofsocialnetworkingsites,anditwaslaiddown asaconditionthatpostsofthethirdpartiesmustbeevaluatedin termsoflegalconditions(Facebook,2012b).Withintheframework oflegalarrangementsinTurkey,thestrategiesthatcanbeapplied withregardtocontentdonotservethepurposeoftheprotection ofusers’privacyorregainingprivacy.Thesestrategiescanonlybe usedforpreventingcontentsfrombeingrepublishedanddisplayed bymorepeople.
Inthearticle135and136oftheTurkishPenalCode,recording, illegaldeliveryoracquisitionofpersonaldataisregardedascrime.
However,itisunclearinwhichsituationstheseactsareillegal.With aparagraphaddedtotheArticle20oftheConstitution,everyone hasbeenprovidedwiththerighttorequesttheprotectionofhis/her personaldata,therightofbeinginformedof,havingaccessto,and requestingthecorrectionanddeletionofhis/herpersonaldata,and tobeinformedwhethertheseareusedinconsistentlywithenvis- agedobjectives.Itwasalsostatedinthesameparagraphthatthe principlesandproceduresregardingtheprotectionofpersonaldata shallbelaiddowninlaw(T.C.Constitution,1982).Nevertheless,in Turkey,thereisnotyetanylawontheprotectionofpersonaldata whichregulatestheprinciplesandproceduresregardingthepro- tectionofpersonaldata.Variousproposalswerepreparedwithin theframeworkoftheattemptstoenactalawontheprotectionof personaldatawhichbeganin1989.However,theprocesscouldnot becompleted.Finally,thedraftlawpreparedin2008wasdeclared voidduetotheinterruptionbyelections1.Studiestorenewthis draftlawhavebeenproceedingsince2011.
3. Literaturereview
Sinceonecanaccessmanycharacteristicsofusersbymeans oftheinformationacquiredfromthesocialnetworkingsitesfor variouspurposes, theissue ofprivacy andsecuritydraws great attention.Having thelargestrateofuse,Facebook hasbeenthe mostpopularsubject matterfor thestudiesin this field. There aremanystudiesintheliteraturecarriedoutusingthemethods suchassurvey,face-to-faceinterview,andanalysisofuserprofiles.
Thecommonpurposeofthesestudiesistomeasuretheexisting levelofprivacyanduserawareness,andtodrawattentiontothe risksanddangersoftheissue.Itisstatedthatsurveyandinterview methodsarepreferredinstudiesconcerninguserbehaviorwhile
1Article77oftheRulesofProcedureofTheGrandNationalAssemblyofTurkey:
Governmentbillsandprivatemembers’billsthatarenotconcludedinalegislative termaredeemednullandvoid.However,theGovernmentandthemembersofthe GrandNationalAssemblyofTurkeymayrenewthesebills.
themostreliablemethodtoevaluatetheexistinglevelsofprivacy, securityandawarenessofusersiscollectingdatafromtheuser profiles.Therearemanystudiesintheliteratureinwhich,using thismethod,theexistingsituationispresentedandthechangein thelevelofawarenessismeasuredafteranalyzingthesameuser profilessometimelater.
InMcKeon’sstudy,inwhichthedevelopmentofprivacyonFace- bookisshowningraphics,theincreaseintherateofpersonaldata obtainedregularlyfromtheprofilesofFacebookuserseachyear between2005and2010isanalyzed.Itwasfoundoutinthestudy that,in2005,onecouldonlyaccesstheinformationsuchasthe name,photo(s),genderandprofession/educationoftheusersata moderatelevelwhilein2010itwaspossibletoaccessanyinfor- mationintheprofilesofthesameusergroup,exceptforcontact informationandbirthdate(McKeon,2010).Stutzman,Grossyand Acquisticarried outa study using5076Facebook userprofiles, users’sensitivityonprivacy,andbehavioralchangeindisclosing personaldatabetweentheyears 2005and 2011.It canbeseen inthestudythatthere isa decreaseintheamountofpersonal dataavailabletoeveryonewhilethereisanincreaseintheamount ofsharingwiththeusersinthefriendlist.Thestudyalsodraws attentiontothefactthatthealterationsmadein2010basedon Facebookprivacypoliciesledthepersonaldatahiddenbyusersto becomeavailabletoeveryoneandthedegreeofprivacytodecrease (Stutzman,Grossy,&Acquisti,2012).
WithintheframeworkofastudyconductedbyKosinskia,Still- wellaandGraepe,“likes”sectionsofmorethan58,000Facebook userprofileswereanalyzedinordertodeterminewhat kindof information canbeaccessedand howonecaneasilyaccessthe information.Itwasstatedinthestudythattheanalysisofdigital recordsthroughwhichpersonaldatathat indicateusertenden- ciesandaffecttheuserbehaviorcanbeusedinproductpromotion and canbeone ofthereliablemethodstomeasureindividuals’
psychologicalcharacteristics(Kosinskiaetal.,2013).
Protectionof privacyin socialnetworking sitesis alsoakey itemofthestudiesconductedwithinthescopeof“EUKidsOnline”
projectwhichaimstoprovidechildrenwithsecureinternetusage intheEUcountries.Itisconsideredimportantthatsuchstudies raiseawarenessabouttheissueamongchildren,59%ofwhom,use socialnetworkingsites.FindingsfromtheEUKidsOnlineproject showthatprofilesof26%ofthechildrenintheEUareavailableto everyone.Thisrateis46%inTurkeyandoccupiessecondplacein thisstatisticafterHungary(EUKidsOnline,2012).
Thestudy inwhich Nosko,Wood and Molemaanalyzed the information onFacebook userprofiles groupbygroup includes interestingfindingsaboutprotectionofprivacy.Thestudywhich systematicallyanalyzewhatinformationismorefrequentlyshared bywhom,putsforwardthatageandgenderareimportantfactorsin hidingsensitiveinformation.Itisalsonotedinthestudythatsen- sitivedatathatmightposearisktouserscanbeaccessedthrough Facebook,andtheseviewsaresupportedbythefindings(Nosko, Wood,&Molema,2010).
4. Method 4.1. Sample
Facebookprofilesof400userswhoseuseraccountsareaccessi- blewererandomlyselectedoutof2458informationprofessionals whoaremembersoftheKUTUP-Lgroupandwereanalyzedinthe study.Itaimedtoreachunquestionablefindingsaboutusers’atti- tudestoandawarenessofprivacypracticesbyinvestigatingthe userprofilesthroughcontentanalysis.ThemembersoftheKUTUP- Lgrouparecomposedofinformationmanagementgraduatesand professionalsandacademiciansworkingintherelatedfields.Being
thecommonandsingleplatformbymeansofwhichmostofthe informationprofessionalsservinginvariousinformationcenters inTurkey,follow professionaldevelopments, KUTUP-L playsan importantrole.Theageoftheusers2whichmightaffecttheresults ofthestudywastakenintoconsiderationwhileselectingthegroup whoseprofilesweretobeanalyzed.
HidingpersonaldataonFacebookisalsorelatedtotheabil- itytomanagetheprivacysettings.Informationprofessionalshave beenwidelyusingsocialnetworkingsitesinrecentyearsnotonly asapersonalcommunicationtoolbutalsoforprovidinginforma- tionservicesandasaprofessionaltoolforin-housecommunication inlibraries.Furthermore,informationcentershaveinitiatednew servicesonsocial networksbecauseoftherapidincreaseinthe ratesofusageinallagegroups.Forthisreason,itwasdecided,in ordertoassesstheprivacysituationinTurkey,tocollectdatafrom FacebookuserprofilesofKUTUP-Lmembersmostofwhomwere educatedindepartmentsof“InformationManagement”andwho areassumedtohaveenoughawarenessabouttherulesofsharing onsocialnetworkingsites.
4.2. Datacollectionandresearchmethod
E-mailaddressesof 2458information professionals who are KUTUP-LgroupmemberswereacquiredfromtheirFacebookpro- files. The e-mail addresses which are used by theinformation professionals intheir Facebook accountsand opentoeveryone wereputintoorderusingarandomlistingmethodandeveryuser inthelistwasassignedanidentitynumbertobeusedinrandom selection.Althoughrandomlyselected,975memberswhodonot haveaFacebookaccountorwhoseonFacebookisdifferentfromthe onetheyuseasamemberofKUTUP-L,andalsotheKUTUP-Lmem- beraccountscreatedtorepresenttheinstitutionororganization werenotincludedinthesample.However,soasnottochangethe possibilityofselection,theprocesswasrepeatedwithoutexclud- ingthesee-mailaddresses.Usingthismethod,Facebookprofilesof 400KUTUP-LmembersaccessedthroughFacebookuseraccounts wereanalyzedbetweenMarch20andApril25,2013.Itwascon- firmedwhethertheFacebook accountsincludedintheanalysis belongedtotheKUTUP-Lmembersinthesamplebymatchingthe e-mailaddresseswithnames.Consideringthepossibilityofmul- tipleFacebookprofilesbelongingtoasingleuserand analyzing theprofilesusingthee-mailaddressescontributedtothereliabil- ityoftheresearch.Facebookaccountswithoutanyfriendlistor group/networkmembershipwereusedintheprocessofmatching theuserswiththeirFacebookaccountsinordertoeliminatethe possibilityofaffectingtheresultofthestudy.
Thirty-twouserprofilesectionsweredetermined(according tothesettingofbeingaccessibleby“everyone”)viaaFacebook accountcreatedfordeterminingthesectionsofFacebookprofiles tobeanalyzed.Thesesectionswereclassifiedinto10mainsections byconsideringthedefinitionofpersonaldataofprimaryimpor- tanceandsensitivedataofsecondaryimportancewithinthelegal framework,whichhasbeendescribedinSection2,andtheclassifi- cationsofsectionsbasedonthefeaturessimilaronFacebook.One pointwasgivenforeachsectionaccessibletoeveryoneclassified underthe10mainsectionsdeterminedbeforehand,andeachuser’s totalpointswerecalculatedinaccordancewiththedatacollection algorithminAppendix.Itwasacceptedthat,intheevaluation(out of10points),theuserprofileswithhigherscoreswouldhavelower
2 AlthoughFacebookdoesnotallowusersundertheageof13tocreateaccounts, itappliesadifferentconfigurationforminorswithintheframeworkofitsprivacy policies.Minorsbetweentheageof13and18canonlysharetheircontactinforma- tion,photos,statusupdatesandothersharingswith“friendsoffriends”.Thechoice of“everyone”referringtoallusersintheinternetcanonlybechosenbyadults.
Table1
Distributionofpercentageandfrequencyoftheprotectionofprivacy.
Mainsections Subsections N %
Friends 214 53.5
Photos 119 29.8
Contactinformation Website,e-mail,Networks 296 74.0
Phones 399 99.8
Address 396 99.0
Basicinformation Religiousviews 391 97.8
Languages 371 92.8
Politicalviews 398 99.5
Birthday 383 95.8
Favorites Music 288 72.0
Books 320 80.0
Movies 329 82.3
TVPrograms 312 78.0
Likes Games 345 86.3
Athletes 371 92.8
Sportsteams 351 87.8
Sports 384 96.0
Activities 364 91.0
Otherlikes 182 45.5
Interests 360 90.0
Inspirationalpeople 394 98.5
Living/Town 193 48.3
Work/Education 198 49.5
Relationships/Family 323 80.8
Sharings 233 58.3
privacythantheprofileswithlowerscores.Inordertoevaluatethe relationshipsbetweenprivacystatusandvariablesintheuserpro- files,dataonthe22subsectionslistedinTable1,inadditiontothe 10mainsectionsineachuserprofile,analyzed.
Withinthescopeoftheresearchquestionsrelatedtothedata acquiredfromuserprofilesofKUTUP-Lmembersunder10cate- gories,thefollowinginvestigationshavebeencarriedout:
•Privacystatesofeachelement,beingapartofpersonaldataon Facebooksetbytheuserswerenoted.
•Consideringtheusers’datesofsigningupforFacebook,privacy statesofFacebookuserssignedupbetweentheyears2007–2009 andofthosesignedupbetweentheyears2010–2013havebeen compared.
•It has been investigated how changes in Facebook settings affectedtheusers.
•Ithasbeendetectedwhichpersonaldatahavebeengivenmore importancebytheusers.
•Ithasbeeninvestigatedwhatkindofprivatedatacanbereached throughinformationsharedbyusers(suchasphotos).
•Thedifferencebetweenthesharings(e.g.friendandphotoshar- ings)oftheuserswhodoordonotpayattentiontotheprotection ofpersonaldatahasbeeninvestigated.
•Theimportancelevelsgivenbywomenandmentoprivacyhave beencompared.
Inordertodeterminetherateofprivacyaccordingtotheyears ofsigningupforFacebook,313userswhosesigning-updatesare knownforcertainweredividedintotwogroupsaccordingtothe signing-upperiodsas2007–2009and2010–2013,andprivacystate wasanalyzedover10mainsections.Inanothermeasurement,the privacyscorescalculatedover10pointsweredividedintothree groupsnamelyhigh,moderateandlowprivacylevels,andthedis- tributionoverthesegroupswasevaluateddependingongender.
In addition,anindependentsample t-test wasappliedin order tomeasurethedifferenceintheprivacystatesbasedonsigning- updatesandgender.Kruskal–Wallis(K–W)andMann–Whitney (M–W)testswereappliedtomeasurethedifferenceinthenumber
Table2
Privacyratesaccordingtosigning-updatesandgender.
Userssignedupinthe periodof2007–2009
Userssignedupinthe periodof2010–2013
Female Male
N % N % N % N %
Photos 82 32.5 26 42.6 63 30.4 56 29.0
Likes 104 41.3 32 52.5 93 44.9 81 42.0
Living/Town 114 45.2 36 59.0 105 50.7 88 45.6
Work/Education 135 53.6 24 39.3 106 51.2 92 47.7
Friends 143 56.7 21 34.4 118 57.0 96 49.7
Favorites 153 60.7 51 83.6 134 64.7 120 62.2
Sharings 153 60.7 40 65.6 137 66.2 96 49.7
Contactinformation 173 68.7 56 91.8 151 72.9 139 72.0
Relationships/Family 208 82.5 50 82.0 168 81.2 155 80.3
Basicinformation 222 88.1 56 91.8 188 90.8 163 84.5
offriendsandphotossharedbytheusersdependingonlevelsof privacy.Independentsamplet-test,K–WtestandM–Wtestwere appliedduringtheanalysisofthedata,andSPSS20wasusedto acquirefrequency,percentageandmeanvaluesofthedata.
Asinpreviousstudies(Stutzmanetal.,2012)thecontentof users’profilesectionswerealsoexaminedindetail,yetnodiscrim- inationwasmadebetweentheprofileswithnodataentryandthe oneswithdatahiddenfromothers(nottobeseenbyeveryone).In otherwords,theinformationcontentinthesectionswhichwere blockedtootherswerealsoanalyzed,anditwasassumedthatthe privacywasprotectedunlesstherewasinformationinthesections.
Onecanrealizewhetherthesectionssuchastime tunnelwere restrictedbytheusersoasnottobeseenbyeveryone.However, itisnotpossibletohavecertaininformationabouttheavailability orrestrictionoftheinformationaboutphotosandfriends.Thefact thatusersmakelessinformationonFacebookpubliclyavailable duetotheirconcernaboutwhethertheirpersonaldatawouldbe collectedbyFacebookisregardedasoneoftheindicationsofaware- nessandthatprivacyisprotected.Forthisreason,nonavailability andrestrictionofpersonaldataonFacebookprofileareregarded asthesameinmeasuringtheusers’privacyandawarenesslevels.
TheuserprofilesintheanalysisareavailabletoallFacebook users.Evenso,asamatterofrespectforprivacyoftheusers,per- sonaldataacquiredthroughFacebookprofileshavebeenpreserved inadatabasewithatimestamp.
5. Findings
Eachrateandnumbervalueforthemainsectionsandsubsec- tionsshowninTable1wascalculatedindependentlyofothers.If auserdidnothaveprivacyinanyofthesubsections(e.g.address, telephoneore-mail),thenhe/shewasregardedasnothavingpri- vacyinthemainsection(e.g.contact)relatedtothesubsection either.Asitispossibletoaccesstheinformationaboutgenderof usersthroughtheirnames,users’restrictionofinformationabout theirgenderwasnotevaluatedasaseparateparameter.Accord- ingtothedistributionofpercentageandfrequencyrelatedtothe protectionofprivacy showninTable1,morethan95%ofFace- book users,who are KUTUP-L members,do not share personal information namely address, phones, political views, birthday, inspirationalpeople,sportsandreligiousviews.Themostshared informationisphotos,followedbyotherlikes,living/hometown andwork/education.
Privacyrates of Facebook users in relationto main sections dependingonsigning-updates(of313peoplewhosesigning-up datesareknownforcertain)andgender(207femaleand193male KUTUP-Lmembers)areshowninTable2.
Fig.1shows thedataobtainedfromTable1andtheprivacy ratesaccordingtoyearsofsigning-upforFacebook.Accordingto Fig.1,thereisnotasignificantdifferencebetweenprivacyratesof
61userswhosignedupforFacebookintheperiodof2010–2013 and252userswhosignedupintheperiodof2007–2009.Thereis adecreaseintheprivacyratesofthedatasuchasfriends,family informationandwork/educationinformationintheprofilesofthe userswhosignedupforFacebookintheyearsbetween2010and 2013.
DependingonthedataobtainedfromTable2,Fig.2showsthe privacyratesaccordingtogender.Femaleusersaremoresensitive thanmaleusersparticularlyintheprivacyofsharings,friends,basic informationandtown/livinginformation.Thereisnotanycategory inthegraphicsinwhichmaleusersaremoresensitivethanfemale userswhileitisaninterestingfactthatthesectiontheprivacyof whichwasgiventheleastimportancebothbyfemalesandmales isphotos.
Thedistributionofpercentageandfrequencyof193maleand 207femaleFacebookuserscanbeseeninTable3.Thedistribu- tionswerecalculatedaccordingtothelevelsofprivacywhichwere determinedovertheprivacyscoresoftheusers.Approximatelythe halfofthefemaleusers(50.2%)takepartinthehighlevelofprivacy whilemaleshaveanequaldistributioninthehighandmoderate levelofprivacy.Only83(20.8%)outofatotalof400userscomposed bymalesandfemalestakeplaceinthelowlevelofprivacy.
Twoindependentsamplet-testswereappliedinordertounder- stand whether the average privacy scores of the users differ dependingonthedatesofsigningup(2007–2009and2010–2013) andgender(female–male).Beforeeachtest,Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K–S)testwasappliedtotesttheappropriatenesstonormaldis- tribution,and,incasethenormaldistributionwouldbeaffected bythenumberofsamples(Field,2009), coefficientof skewness and coefficient of Kurtosis werecalculated as well. Asa result oftheK–Stest,averageprivacyvaluesof theyears 2007–2009, theyears2010–2013,malesandfemaleswerestatisticallysignifi- cant(respectivelyD(252)=0.134,p=0.000,D(61)=0.135,p=0.007, D(193)=0.109,p=0.000,D(207)=0.157,p=0.000).Nevertheless, accordingtothecoefficientof skewnessandcoefficientof Kur- tosisvalues,itwasobservedthatmeasurementsshowednormal distribution.
According to the independent sample t-test results shown in Table 4, the difference between the averages of the years
Table3
Distributionofmaleandfemaleusersbasedonthelevelofprivacy.
Gender
Male Female Total
N % N % N %
Highlevelofprivacy 74 38.3 104 50.2 178 44.5 Moderatelevelofprivacy 74 38.3 65 31.4 139 34.8
Lowlevelofprivacy 45 23.3 38 18.4 83 20.8
Fig.1. Privacyratesaccordingtotheyearsofsigning-upforFacebook.
Fig.2. Privacyratesaccordingtogender.
“2007–2009” ( ¯X=4.10)and “2010–2013” ( ¯X=3.57) is statisti- callyinsignificant(t(311)=1545,p=0.123).Thedifferencebetween theaveragesofprivacyscoresofmalesandfemales,ontheother hand,isstatisticallysignificant(t(398)=2003,p=0.046).Theaver- ageprivacyscoreofmales( ¯X=4.37)ishigherthanthatoffemales ( ¯X=3.90).
Of400KUTUP-LuserswhoseFacebookprofileswereanalyzed, 216(54%) usershidetheirfriendswhile119(29.8%)users hide theirphotos.Theaveragenumberoffriendsoftheuserswhodo nothidetheirfriendsis293.8whiletheaveragenumberofphotos oftheusers whodo not hidetheirphotos is79.4. Theaverage numberoffriendsandphotos basedontheprivacylevelofthe usersisshowninTable5.Dependingonthelevelsofprivacy(low,
Table4
PrivacystatesaccordingtodatesofsigningupforFacebookandgender.
Groupingstrategy(Factor) N X¯ SH SD t p
Dateofsigningupfor Facebook
2007–2009 252 4.10 2.377 311 1.545 0.123
2010–2013 61 3.57 2.405
Gender
Female 193 4.37 2.474 398 2.003 0.046
Male 207 3.90 2.263
moderate,high),K–Wandmediantestswereappliedinorderto measurethedifferencebetweenthenumberoffriendsandphotos whichwerepermittedbytheuserstobeavailabletoeveryonedue tothefactthattheresultofK–Stestappliedtotestthenormal distributionofnumberofphotosandfriendswassignificantlysig- nificant(p=0.000)andsimilarlythecoefficientofskewnessand coefficientofKurtosiswerenotvalued±1(therewasnotanormal distribution).
Dependingontheprivacylevels,thereisa significantdiffer- encebetweenthenumberoffriends(H=75.972,SD=2,p=0.000) andbetweenthenumberofphotos(H=62.573,SD=2,p=0.000).
Table5
Kruskal–Wallistestresultsofnumberoffriendsandphotos.
N Rankmean H SD p
Friend
Highlevelofprivacy 178 154.83 75.972 2 0.000 Moderatelevelofprivacy 139 214.72
Lowlevelofprivacy 83 274.63 Photo
Highlevelofprivacy 178 154.75 62.573 2 0.000 Moderatelevelofprivacy 139 217.60
Lowlevelofprivacy 83 269.96
Note:Bonferronicorrectionusedtoadoptthesignificancelevel0.0167foreach effect.
Thisresultisalsoconfirmedbythemediantest.Thenumbersof photosandfriendsavailabletoeveryoneinthethreegroupsare notequal.Asa resultofK–Wtest,itcanbeseenthattheusers permittedmoreoftheirfriendsandphotostobeseenbyevery- onethroughFacebookdependingontheprivacylevel.Asaresult ofM–Wtestsappliedtofinddifferingsections,itwasfoundthat thereisasignificantdifferencebetweenthenumbersoffriends andphotosofthesubjectsinallprivacylevels(p<0.0167).Asta- tistical difference was found in terms of number of friends in thelevelsofhigh-moderate,high–lowandmoderate–lowformed depending on privacy level (respectively U=8575, r=−0.300, U=3053,r=−0.524,U=3949.500,r=−0.271). Similarly,a statis- tical differencewas observed in terms of number of photos in thelevelsofhigh–moderate,high–lowandmoderate–lowformed dependingonprivacylevel(respectivelyU=8365.500,r=−0.284, U=3249.500,r=−0.461,U=4140.500,r=−0.236).Afteranalyzing r2valuesinthecomparisonoftwogroups,itwasseenthatrates oftotalvarienceinthenumbersoffriendsandphotosinbetween 5.76%(rmin=−0.236)and27.04%(rmak=−0.524)differdepending onprivacylevel.
6. Dataanalysisandevaluation
ThedistributionconcerningKUTUP-Lmembers’sensitivityto theprotectionoftheirpersonaldataand theirprivacyonFace- book hasbeen shown in Table 1 in detail. It canbe seen that morethan 95% ofFacebook users hideimportant and sensitive personaldata,namelyaddress,phones,birthday,inspirationalpeo- ple,sports,politicalviewsandreligiousviews.Thesectionshaving thelowestprivacyratesarephotos,town/livinginformationand work/educationinformation. As a resultof the K–Wand M–W testscarriedouttomeasurethedifferencebetweenthenumber offriendsandphotos,dependingontheprivacylevel,itwasfound thatasthelevelofprivacyincreasesthereisadecreaseintheavail- abilityoffriendsandphotos.Thisprovesthatthenumberoffriends andphotossharedonFacebookisrelatedtothelevelofprivacy andawareness.Nevertheless,althoughonecandrawthisconclu- sionfromthestatisticaldata,thedifferencevalueinthenumberof photosandfriendsisrelativelylowdependingonthelevelofpri- vacy,whichmeansthatfurthervariants,notincludedinthestudy, mighthavearole inthisdifference.In thestudycarriedoutby Stutzman,GrossyandAcquisti,itwasstatedthatmorethan70%of theuserssharedtheirbirthday,living/town,work/educationand e-mail/networksinformation.Itisobservedinthisstudythatonly 32%ofKUTUP-Lmemberssharedthesedata.Fromthis pointof view,itcanbesaidthatKUTUP-Lmembersaresensitiveinprotec- tingpersonalandsensitiveinformation.However,insomecases,it ispossibletocomeacrosssomeprofilesonwhichtheusershares birthdaypartyphotoswithdate/locationstampalthoughhe/she doesnotsharehis/herbirthdayinthebasicinformationsection.
Similarly,insomeprofiles,onecangetinformationfromthelikes sectionabouttheuser’spoliticalview,whiletheuserdoesnotshare anyinformationabouthis/herpoliticalviewinthesamesection.
AsKosinskia,StillwellaandGraepestatedintheirstudy,onecan accessmanydataandcharacteristicsofanindividualthroughdata miningonsuchinformation(Kosinskiaetal.,2013).Thefindings ofthisstudyhasshownthatthereisadifferenceintheattitudes ofusersconcerningtheconceptionofdelicatedataandinforma- tionbehaviorexpressedinthedefinitionsintheSection2.1.Itis clearthatallusersmakechangesthatcouldprotecttheirprivacy whilecustomizingtheirprivacysettings;however,theyhaveinef- ficienciesindiscriminatingbetweenthesensitiveandunimportant information.
InthestudyinwhichStutzman,GrossyandAcquistiinvesti- gatedthechangesinFacebookuserprofilesbetweentheyears2005
and2011,itwasputforththattheprivacyincreasedbetweenthe years2005and2009;yet,duetothechangesinthedefaultsettings andinterfacepoliciesofFacebookin2010,theamountofpersonal dataavailabletoeveryoneincreased,whichledtoadecreaseinthe levelofprivacy(Stutzmanetal.,2012).In2010,therewasarapid increaseintheamountofinformationavailabletoeveryoneinthe accountsoftheuserswhoarenotsensitiveaboutprivacyorwho arenotawareofthechangemadebyFacebook.Itcanbeseenthat similarresultswereobtainedinMcKeon’sstudy(McKeon,2010).
Inhisstudy,dependingontheresultsofthepreviousstudies,the users’datesofsigningupforFacebookweretakenintoconsider- ationandtheprivacystatesofFacebookuserssignedupbetween theyears2007–2009and ofthosesignedupbetweentheyears 2010–2013werecomparedinordertomeasurethereactionofthe userstothechangesmadebyFacebookandtheirconsciousness abouttheissue.Itisknowthat,withinthecontextofthechanges thathavebeenmadeintheFacebookinterfacesince2010,thedata unavailabletoeveryonewerenotdisclosedandtherewerenotany changesthatmightaffecttheanalysisinthelastthreeyears.There- fore,itispossibletodeterminewhatkindofbehaviortheusers,who signedupforFacebookintheyearsbetween2007and2009,exhib- itedupontheinterfacechangesmadeinaccordancewithFacebook policies.AccordingtothetestresultsshowninTable4,thechanges madebyFacebookin2010(Opsahl,2010)didnotcauseasignificant differenceintheprivacyleveloftheuserswhoareKUTUP-Lmem- bers.Thisfactrevealsthat,inthethree-yearperiodasof2010,the olduserswereawareofthechangesandcustomizedtheirprivacy settingsinthesamelevelwiththenewusers.Also,theresearch findingsputforwardthattheshortcomingsuponwhichattention wasdrawninpreviousstudies(Stutzmanetal.,2012)arenottrue for theawareness of KUTUP-Lusers. Anotherinteresting figure showninTable4isthattheuserssignedupbetweentheyears 2010and2013showanaverageofprivacyover60%.Configuration ofthedefaultprivacysettings,onaccountofFacebookpolicies,ina waythatareavailabletoeveryonedidnotmakeanegativeeffecton theprivacyleveloftheusersinthelastthreeyears.Thisfactindi- catesthatKUTUP-Lusershavemadechangesinthedefaultsettings onFacebookinordertoprotecttheirpersonaldata.
ItcanbeseeninTable2,whichshowsthelevelsofprivacyin 10mainsectionsaccordingtotheyearofregistration,thatprivacy ratesoftheusers,signedupbetweentheyears2010and2013,con- cerningfriends(34.4%)andwork/education(39.3%)arelowerthan thatoftheusersregisteredbetween2007and2009inthesame categories:friends(56.7%)andwork/education(53.6%).Itcanalso beseeninthetablethatprivacyratesoftheusers,whosignedupin theperiodof2010–2013,withregardtothedatasuchascontacts, photos,living,basicinformation,favoritesandlikes,allofwhich mightaffectindividual’sstatusinsociety,arehigherthanthatof thosewhoregisteredintheperiodof2007–2009.The“likes”sec- tiononFacebookisnormallyoneoftheemptysectionsofthesite onwhichonlytheitems,addedbytheusers,canbedisplayed.In thisrespect,althoughabouthalfofalltheusershidetheinforma- tioninthissection,thedatanothiddenbytheremaininghalfofthe usersisofgreatimportance.
AccordingtothetestresultsinTable4,thereisasignificantdif- ferencebetweentheaveragesofprivacyscoreofmaleandfemale users.Asinthepreviousstudiesintheliterature,itcanbeseenin thisstudythatwomenaremoresensitiveaboutprivacyandthey putmorerestrictionontheirprofilethanmenviaprivacysettings.
Manystudiesinvestigatingtendenciesandbehaviorsconcerning privacyshowthatwomenaremorecautiouscomparedtomen.Itis obviousthatwomenaregenerallymorecarefulthanmeninshar- inginformation,acceptingfriendships,joininganewgroup,and examiningtheprivacypolicies.Thissituationis associatedwith thefactthatsocialpressureonwomenaremuchgreater(Nosko etal.,2012).Thesimilarresultobtainedattheendofthisstudy
supportstheviewsexplainingthebehaviorbasedongender.The figuresinTable3,whichshowthedistributionofmenandwomen accordingtothelevelof privacy,indicatethat menareequally (38.3%)distributedinhighandmoderateprivacylevels;however, itisinterestingthathalf(50.2%)ofthewomentakepartinthehigh privacylevel.
Contrarytotheresultsofthestudiesconcerningprivacyofchil- dreninTurkeycarriedoutwithinthescopeofthe“EUKidsOnline”
projectconductedbytheEU,itcanbeseenthatadultinforma- tionprofessionals payattentiontoprivacyonFacebook. In this respect,itcanbesaidthat,inTurkey,information professionals aremoreinclinedtoprotectpersonaldata,andtheyaremorecau- tiousdependingontheagefactor,whichsupportstheresultsofthe studycarriedoutbyNosko,WoodandMolema.Thisconclusionis thoughttoresultfromthefactthatinformationprofessionalsare moreexperiencedinusingsocialnetworkingsitesthanotherusers, andthatagefactordoesnotplayanimportantroleinthepercep- tionofrisksanddangersstemmingfromthemisuseofpersonal data.
InordertoavoidtherisksofFacebook,whichhasbecomeone ofthelargestinformationplatformsinwhichfourbillionpieces ofcontentaresharedeveryday,therearethreeprecautionsauser canfollow.Theseareasfollows:choosingthe“onlyfriends”option whichprovidestheprivacyprotectionsatahigherlevel;decreasing thesharedinformation;orsimplynothavingaFacebookaccount (Wilson,Gosling,&Graham,2012).Theprotectionofpersonaldata hasbecomeoneofthemostcrucialissuesofourtime.Personal dataacquiredinvariousways mayfrequentlybeusedincyber crimesandforpromotionalpurposes.Theyarealsoknowntobe causingdangersthatmightaffectanindividual’ssocialstatus.It isafactthatinTurkey,wherethereisnotyetanylegalarrange- mentonprotectionofpersonaldata,alltheresponsibilityabout thisissueistakenbytheusers.Forthisreason,theusersinTurkey, comparedtoothercountries,needtobemoreconsciousaboutthe processesandsharingsonFacebook.Thelegalconnectionbetween theuserand Facebook, pertaining tothe datacollectedor dis- tributedforvariousreasons(advertising,etc.)byFacebookormany applicationsworkingonthesite,isrestrictedtotheuserprivacy agreementputforwardbyFacebookitself.Therefore,besidesthe informationsharedbyusers,theprivacylevelofpersonaldatathey haveenteredintothesystemisequal totheleveloftheirtrust inFacebook.Thatsocialnetworkingsitesdonottaketheneces- saryresponsibilitycausesuserstofacemanydangersduetothe risksderivingfromtheindifferenceofusersandthelegaldeficien- cies.
7. Conclusionandsuggestions
Whenlegal conditions are investigated in Turkey,it can be clearlyseenthatlegalarrangementsareshortofprotectingper- sonalrightsandfreedoms.Therefore,itisofutmostimportance foruserstobemoreconsciouswhensharingtheirpersonaldatain socialnetworks.ItisclearthatinformationprofessionalsinTurkey
paymoreattentiontoprivacy and changetheirprofilesettings toprotecttheirpersonaldatacomparedtothoseusersanalyzed inpreviousstudiesintheliterature.It wasconcludedthatusers particularlyexhibitmoresensitivityintheprotectionofbasicand contactsinformationwhichisacceptedaspersonaldataofprimary importance.Womenaremoresensitiveintheprotectionofpri- vacythanmen,whilethereisnotasignificantdifferencebetween thelevel ofprivacyofthosewhosignedupforFacebookinthe last 3years andthose registeredearlier. Facebook’sdecisionto changeitsusers’privacysettingsinawaythatmadeusers’per- sonalinformation availabletothepublicwithouttheirconsent, ontheotherhand,didnotmakeanychangeinthelevelofpri- vacythankstoinformationprofessionals’consciousattitude.Itwas alsoseenthatafewusersdidnotpayattentiontothecategory of bits of information they shared(e.g. photos, etc.)and over- lookedthefactthatonecanaccessprivateinformationthrough suchsharings.Thisdeficiencycanbeovercomebyorganizingedu- cationalprogramsonsecureinternetusageforallagesofusersand bycarryingoutstudiestoraiseawarenessonmisuseofpersonal data.
IfFacebookusers becomemoreconsciousaboutprivacyand theyexhibit therequired sensitivity onthe issue, theycan be avoidofrisksbyprotectingtheirpersonaldatafromotherusers.
Moreover,makingthelegalarrangementsthatwouldpreventthe limitless use of personal data by service providers is of great importance.LookingthroughtheEUlens,ithasbeenseenthatpre- cautionstakenbymeansoflegalarrangementsandconventions arereflectedin userserviceagreements,and therehasbeenan efforttoprotectuserrightsvianewlegalarrangements(Facebook, 2013).InTurkey,ontheotherhand,sincethereisnotanylegal arrangement concerning the protectionof personal data, more responsibilitiesfalltousersintheprotectionofprivacy.Alawon protectionofpersonaldatashouldbepassedinTurkey.Thelaw shouldclearlyincludethearticlesconcerningsocial networking sites’obligationtoinformtheusersthemselvesabouttheattempt toprocess,storeandaccesstheusers’personaldata,andcollec- tion of personal data at the lowest level. Also, the lawshould includearrangementssuchasconfigurationofdefaultsettingsin awaythatwouldprotectusers’privacy,receivingtheconfirma- tionof theuserfor theuseofpersonal data, grantingthe user therighttoaskthesocialnetworkingsitetopermanentlydelete his/herpersonaldata,andprovidingthefreedomtotransferper- sonaldata.
Thefindingsobtainedfrom400KUTUP-Lmembers’Facebook profiles,whichwereanalyzedwithintheframeworkoftherisksof informationacquiredthroughFacebookuserprofilesandexisting legalarrangements,allowedthemeasurementsoftheinformation professionals’levelofsensitivityandprivacyrelatedtotheprotec- tionofpersonaldataonsocialnetworkingsites.Dealingalsowith theshortcomingsoftheexistinglegalarrangements,thisstudycon- tributestotheprotectionofpersonaldataonsocialnetworksandto theawarenessonsharingsensitiveinformationwhichmightlead todiscriminationwithinsociety.
AppendixA. Appendix
Fig.A1.Datacollectionalgorithm.
References
5651 Sayılı Kanun. (2007). ˙Internet Ortamında Yapılan Yayınların Düzenlen- mesi ve Bu Yayınlar Yoluyla ˙Is¸lenen Suc¸larla Mücadele Edilmesi Hakkında Kanun(online).Availablefrom:http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/kanunlar/k5651.html Accessed1.03.2013
Alexa. (2013). Top sites inTurkey (online). Available from: http://www.alexa.
com/topsites/countries/TRAccessed29.04.2013
APA.(2013).APAsocialmedia/forumpolicy(online).Availablefrom:http://www.
apa.org/about/social-media-policy.aspxAccessed1.03.2013.
EUKidsOnline.(2012).Avrupac¸evrimic¸ic¸ocuklarprojesiözetbulguları(online).
Availablefrom:http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%
20Kids%20II%20(2009-11)/EUKidsExecSummary/TurkeyExecSum.pdfAccessed 4.05.2013
EuropeanCommission.(2011).Attitudesondataprotectionandelectronicidentityin theEuropeanUnion.Brussels:EuropeanCommission.
European Commission. (2012a). MEMO/12/41 (online). Available from: http://
europa.eu/rapid/press-release MEMO-12-41 en.pdfAccessed12.05.2013 EuropeanCommission.(2012b).RegulationoftheEuropeanParliamentandofthe
Council(online).Available from:http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/
document/review2012/com201211en.pdfAccessed27.02.2013
EuropeanCouncil.(1995).Directive95/46/ECOfTheEuropeanParliamentandof theCouncil(online).Availablefrom:http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/
docs/95-46-ce/dir1995-46 part1 en.pdfAccessed11.05.2013
Facebook.(2012a).Sizinhakkınızdaaldı˘gımızbilgiler(online).Availablefrom:http://
www.facebook.com/about/privacy/your-infoAccessed27.02.2013
Facebook. (2012b). Verikullanımıilkesi (online). Available from:https://www.
facebook.com/fulldatausepolicyAccessed1.03.2013
Facebook. (2013). Veri kullanım ilkesi (online). Available from: http://www.
facebook.com/about/privacy/otherAccessed26.02.2013
Field,A.(2009).DiscoveringstatisticsusingSPSS(3rded.).London:SAGEPublications.
King,N.J.,&Raja,V.(2012).Protectingtheprivacyandsecurityofsensitivecustomer datainthecloud.ComputerLawandSecurityReview,308–319.
Kosinskia,M.,Stillwella,D.,&Graepe,T.(2013).Privatetraitsandattributesare predictablefromdigitalrecordsofhumanbehavior(online).Proceedingsof theNationalAcademyofSciences,1–4.Availablefrom:http://www.pnas.org/
content/early/2013/03/06/1218772110.full.pdfAccessed3.05.2013
McKeon, M.(2010). The evolution of privacy on Facebook: Changes in default profile settingsover time (online). Available from: http://mattmckeon.com/
facebook-privacy/Accessed16.03.2013
Nosko,A.,Wood,E., &Molema,S.(2010).Allabout me:Disclosurein online socialnetworkingprofiles:ThecaseofFacebook.ComputersinHumanBehavior, 406–418.
Nosko,A.,Wood,E.,Kenney,M.,Archer,K.,DePasquale,D.,Molema,S.,&Ziv- cakova,L.(2012).Examiningprimingandgenderasameanstoreduceriskina socialnetworkingcontext:Canstorieschangedisclosureandprivacysettinguse whenpersonalprofilesareconstructed?(online).ComputersinHumanBehav- ior,28(6),2067–2074.Availablefrom:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0747563212001604Accessed5.05.2013
Opsahl,K. (2010).Facebook’seroding privacy policy:A timeline(online). Avail- ablefrom:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timelineAccessed 16.03.2013
Stutzman,F.,Grossy,R.,&Acquisti,A.(2012).Silentlisteners:Theevolutionof privacyanddisclosureonFacebook.JournalofPrivacyandCondentiality,4(2), 7–41.
T.C.Constitution.(1982).TürkiyeCumhuriyetiAnayasası(online).Availablefrom:
http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/anayasa.htmAccessed4.05.2013
T.C.Premiership.(2008).Kis¸iselVerilerinKorunmasıKanunTasarısı(online).Available from:http://www2.tbmm.gov.tr/d23/1/1-0576.pdfAccessed11.05.2013 Vaknin,S.(2011).HowtoprotectyourFacebookTimelineprivacy(online).Available
from: http://howto.cnet.com/8301-1131039-20112978-285/how-to-protect- your-facebook-timeline-privacy/Accessed2.04.2013
Wilson,R.,Gosling,S.,&Graham,L.(2012).AreviewofFacebookresearchinthe socialsciences.PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience,203–220.
Dr.ÖzgürKülcüisanassociateprofessorintheDepartmentofInformationManage- ment,FacultyofLetters,HacettepeUniversity,Ankara,Turkey.Previouslyheworked asarecordsmanagerinvariouspublicorganizations.HeisnowDirectorofTeam TurkeyofInterPARES3ProjectwhichisInternationalprojectontheauthenticity, reliabilityandlongtermprotectionofelectronicrecords.Hewrotehisdoctorialthe- sis,RecordsManagementintheTermofQualityManagementandQualitySystem DocumentationinTurkishPublicUniversities,in2005.Heisalectureroninstitu- tionalinformationandrecordsmanagementatHacettepeUniversitysince2001.His mainresearchinterestsarerecordsmanagement,qualitymanagement,andquality systemdocumentation,particularlytheanalysisofinstitutionaladministrativesys- tems.Hisworkhasbeenpresentedatnationalandinternationalconferencesand hasbeenpublishedinseveraljournals.
TürkayHenko˘gluisaPhDstudentintheDepartmentofInformationManagement, FacultyofLetters,HacettepeUniversity,Ankara,Turkey.Hehasworkedinpub- licorganizationsasasystemadministratorandbeenresponsibleforinformation securityfor16years.Duringhisprofessionallife,hehasattendedmanytraining programsoninformationandcomputersecurity,computersystemsandnetwork management,andcryptography.Hismainresearchinterestsareinformationsecu- ritypolicies,informationaccessplatform,legalandethicalresponsibilitiesand freedomofinternetaccess.Hehaswroteseveralbooksoninformaticsandinfor- mationtechnologylaw.Inaddition,hisworkhasbeenpresentedatnationaland internationalconferencesandhasbeenpublishedinsomerespectedjournals.
