Alexandre Fortier

Facebook: public space, or private space?

Social networks have become a central feature of everyday life. Most young people are members of at least one online social network, and they naturally provide a great deal of personal information as a condition for participation in the rich online social lives these networks afford. Increasingly, this information is being used as evidence in criminal and even civil legal proceedings. These latter uses, by actors involved in the justice system, are typically justified on the grounds that social network information is essentially public in nature, and thus does not generate a subjective expectation of privacy necessary to support a civil rights-based privacy protection. This justification, however, is based on the perceptions of individuals who are outside the online social network community, rather than reflecting the norms and privacy practices of participants in online social networks. This project takes a user-centric approach to the question of whether online social spaces are public venues, examining of the information-related practices of social network participants, focusing on how they treat their own information and that of others posted in online social spaces. Our results reveal that online social spaces are indeed loci of public display rather than private revelation: online profiles are structured with the view that ‘everyone’ can see them, even if the explicitly intended audience is more limited. These social norms are inconsistent with the claim that social media are private spaces; instead, it appears that participants view and treat online social networks as public venues.

Could we do better? Behavioural tracking on recommended consumer health websites

OBJECTIVE This study examines behavioural tracking practices on consumer health websites, contrasting tracking on sites recommended by information professionals with tracking on sites returned by Google. METHODS Two lists of consumer health websites were constructed: sites recommended by information professionals and sites returned by Google searches. Sites were divided into three groups according to source (Recommended-Only, Google-Only or both) and type (Government, Not-for-Profit or Commercial). Behavioural tracking practices on each website were documented using a protocol that detected cookies, Web beacons and Flash cookies. The presence and the number of trackers that collect personal information were contrasted across source and type of site; a second set of analyses specifically examined Advertising trackers. RESULTS Recommended-Only sites show lower levels of tracking - especially tracking by advertisers - than do Google-Only sites or sites found through both sources. Government and Not-for-Profit sites have fewer trackers, particularly from advertisers, than do Commercial sites. CONCLUSIONS Recommended sites, especially those from Government or Not-for-Profit organisations, present a lower privacy threat than sites returned by Google searches. Nonetheless, most recommended websites include some trackers, and half include at least one Advertising tracker. IMPLICATIONS To protect patron privacy, information professionals should examine the tracking practices of the websites they recommend.

Influence of need for cognition and need for cognitive closure on three information behavior orientations

Need for Cognition and Need for Cognitive Closure are two stable traits that can enlighten the understanding of inter-individual variations in information behavior. Following a qualitative phase, an information behavior scale was developed using items related to the ways in which information is needed, sought, used and shared. This scale was tested with 122 undergraduate students. Results of a factor analysis indicated three different and non-mutually exclusive aspects of information behavior: orientation to rule following, preference for familiarity and simplicity, and desire for intellectual independence. Analyses of variances for each factor, using scores for Need for Cognition and Need for Cognitive Closure as independent variables, indicated that these two traits produce significant effects on information behavior. A significant main effect of Need for Cognition was observed for the orientation to rule following and the desire for intellectual independence. A significant main effect of Need for Cognition was observed for the preference for familiarity and simplicity. Lastly, a significant interaction effect between Need for Cognition and Need for Cognitive Closure was also observed for the desire for intellectual independence.

Privacy policy disclosures of behavioural tracking on consumer health websites

Many Internet users are seeking health information online, encountering significant privacy risks in the process. Historically, these risks are associated with personally identifiable information, but behavioural tracking presents a new and increasing threat to privacy. In this paper, we analyze the disclosure, in a set of website privacy policies, of the collection of non-personally identifiable information by consumer health information websites. The websites all engage in first and third party behavioural tracking using cookies and web beacons, and are among the sites recommended by consumer health sections of the Medical Library Association or the Canadian Health Libraries Association (see Burkell and Fortier, 2012, 2013). Our analysis reveals that while the majority of these sites disclose both first party (6/7) and third party (5/7) behavioural tracking, the language used in these disclosures is difficult to understand, tending to minimize behavioural tracking and obfuscate agency in the tracking process. These results suggest that consumer health information website privacy policies do not provide optimal disclosure of behavioural tracking practices. Library and information science professionals should work with users to ensure they are aware of the behavioural tracking practices of the websites they visit, assisting them to interpret the disclosures provided in website privacy policies.

Privacy and control in online social profiles: Toward a typology of users

This poster uses Q methodology to investigate subjective perspectives on privacy of and control over social network profiles. Earlier research using interview and focus group techniques suggests that the default conception of online social networks is as public spaces where there is little or no expectation of control over content or distribution. This conception, however, applies largely to information posted by others, and participants frame their own online participation in different ways. The current study explicitly investigates these different subjective perspectives. The results suggest three different user profiles or privacy orientations: one group views their online profiles as spaces for social display, but exert control over content and audience; a second group treats their profiles as spaces for open social display, exercising little control over either content or audience; and a third group views social network profiles as places to post personal information to a controlled audience. These different perspectives lead to different privacy needs and expectations.