The Market Failure of Anonymity Services

Roßnagel, Heiko

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12368-9_28

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, there are studies connected to the branch of economic research, which brings together work aimed at making sense of the PET market's evolutionary dynamics and at identifying the main technological and economic barriers to the wide diffusion of these technologies (e.g. Caulfield et al 2016;Borking 2011;Roßnagel 2010;Acquisti 2004;Feigenbaum et al 2002). Second, connected to the branch of ICT and information system research, there are studies adopting a highlytech and PET-specific focus meant to evaluate the PET and to illustrate the technical enhancements that can improve their usability and their effectiveness (e.g.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These predictive variables are particularly important in the realm of PETs. These technologies, in fact, tend to be difficult to assess in terms of actual performance (Roßnagel 2010), are in many cases not particularly user-friendly (Roßnagel 2010;Galletta et al 2004), and are often difficult for consumers to install and configure (Lee et al 2017). Different to performance and effort expectancy, which cover the technical benefits that the use of a technology brings to its users, the construct of social influence relates to the presence and the impact of social forces in fostering or limiting the adoption of a technology, i.e.…”

Section: Modelling Technology Acceptance: From Tam To Utaut2mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although most of the available technologies are still very hard for ordinary Internet users to master (Shelton et al 2015;Kang et al 2013;Borking 2011;Roßnagel 2010), others that are easier to use are becoming popular and their penetration is constantly increasing, both on the demand side (e.g. GlobalWebIndex 2018a) and on the supply side (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Hands off my data: users’ security concerns and intention to adopt privacy enhancing technologies

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the number of data leak scandals and data infringements increase by the day, people are becoming more concerned than ever about their online security. As a result, software and applications designed to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unauthorized processing of users' online personal data, referred to as privacy enhancing technologies (PETs) are gaining momentum. Yet, research investigating what drives users' intention to adopt these technologies is still scant. Drawing on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2), this study develops a research framework and tests it with a research design combining structural equation modelling and multi-group analysis. As participants, we recruited 198 members of four online communities where discussion of PETs takes place. Besides confirming the UTAUT2 variables' predictive power on the intention to use PETs, the results of applying the baseline model also provide interesting insight on the mediating role UTAUT2 core constructs play in the relationship between security concerns and intention to adopt PETs. The multi-group analysis, in contrast, revealed that the underlying mechanisms of the theoretical framework we tested work differently when the users' level of expertise is taken into account. This work concludes with managerial implications addressed to both PET providers and any business dealing with online consumer data.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modelling Technology Acceptance: From Tam To Utaut2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hands off my data: users’ security concerns and intention to adopt privacy enhancing technologies

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, only a specialized segment of the user population insists on the use of PET. Investigations frequently show that strong anonymity technology that requires personal discipline and imposes an extra burden upon users is only accepted by special-interest groups [34][35][36]. General user populations frequently show little acceptance of security or privacy measures that impair user experience.…”

Section: Anonymity and Privacy Enhancing Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Service providers and system vendors don't gain any benefits by making their own products more difficult to use by adding the latest privacy technologies, while their competition is still selling cheaper and provides a smoother user experience without them. Privacy economics might simply kill any good intentions, as argued by Roßnagel in [34]. Privacy economics refers to economic considerations and constraints concerning one's information privacy-both for system owners and users [40].…”

Section: Economics Balance Of Effort and Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Clean Privacy Ecosystem of the Future Internet

Fritsch

2013

Future Internet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article speculates on the future of privacy and electronic identities on the Internet. Based on a short review of security models and the development of privacy-enhancing technology, privacy and electronic identities will be discussed as parts of a larger context-an ecosystem of personal information and electronic identities. The article argues for an ecosystem view of personal information and electronic identities, as both personal information and identity information are basic required input for many applications. Therefore, for both application owners and users, a functioning ecosystem of personal information and electronic identification is important. For the future of the Internet, high-quality information and controlled circulation of such information is therefore argued as decisive for the value of future Internet applications.

show abstract

Why Do People Pay for Privacy-Enhancing Technologies? The Case of Tor and JonDonym

Harborth

Pape

2019

ICT Systems Security and Privacy Protection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today's environment of data-driven business models relies heavily on collecting as much personal data as possible. One way to prevent this extensive collection, is to use privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs). However, until now, PETs did not succeed in larger consumer markets. In addition, there is a lot of research determining the technical properties of PETs, i.e. for Tor, but the use behavior of the users and, especially, their attitude towards spending money for such services is rarely considered. Yet, determining factors which lead to an increased willingness to pay (WTP) for privacy is an important step to establish economically sustainable PETs. We argue that the lack of WTP for privacy is one of the most important reasons for the non-existence of large players engaging in the offering of a PET. The relative success of services like Tor corroborates this claim since this is a service without any monetary costs attached. Thus, we empirically investigate the drivers of active users' WTP of a commercial PET -JonDonym -and compare them with the respective results for a donation-based service -Tor. Furthermore, we provide recommendations for the design of tariff schemes for commercial PETs.

show abstract

The Market Failure of Anonymity Services

Cited by 6 publications

References 35 publications

Hands off my data: users’ security concerns and intention to adopt privacy enhancing technologies

Hands off my data: users’ security concerns and intention to adopt privacy enhancing technologies

The Clean Privacy Ecosystem of the Future Internet

Why Do People Pay for Privacy-Enhancing Technologies? The Case of Tor and JonDonym

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About