Privacy Settings in Online Social Networks as a Conflict of Interests: Regulating User Behavior on Facebook



This chapter shall analyze the options users of online social networks like Facebook have to adjust privacy settings. As the theoretical background of this evaluation, an institutional economics point of view shall be applied. Against this background, the following analysis of how Facebook as a provider of an online social network designs its platform in such a way that their own interests, as many users’ data to keep visible and searchable, are implemented. Both the GUI of the platform (website) and the various possibilities for mobile use, such as special “mobile” versions of the website and smartphone applications (apps) for various platforms, will be evaluated.


Mobile Device Personal Data Social Networking Site Online Social Network Privacy Setting 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Accenture: Mobile Web Watch 2010. website: (2010) [Online; last visit: 03.03.2011]Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Acquisti, A., Gross, R.: Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In: Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Cambridge, pp. 36–58. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allen, J.: Ambient power: Berlin’s pOtsdamer platz and the seductive logic of public spaces. Urban Stud. 43(2), 441 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4. Facebook for android statistic. website: (2010) [Online; last visit: 03.03.2011]Google Scholar
  5. 5. Facebook for blackberry statistic. website: (2010) [Online; last visit: 03.03.2011]Google Scholar
  6. 6. Facebook for iphone statistic. website: (2010) [Online; last visit: 03.03.2011]Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brandtzæg, P.B., Lüders, M., Skjetne, J.H.: Too many facebook “Friends”? content sharing and sociability versus the need for privacy in social network sites. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 26(11), 1006 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Camp, L.J.J.: DRM: doesn’t really mean digital copyright management. SSRN Electron. J. 78–87 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J.P., Horn, A.-K., Hughes, B.N.: Facebook and online privacy: attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 15(1), 83–108 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Facebook. Facebook principles. website: (2010) [Online; last visit: 03.03.2011]
  11. 11.
    Facebook. Facebook privacy policy. website: (2010) [Online; last visit: 03.03.2011]
  12. 12.
    Facebook. Facebook terms of use. website: (2010) [Online; last visit: 03.03.2011]
  13. 13.
    Facebook. Platform statistics. Website: (2010) [Online; last visit: 03.03.2011]
  14. 14.
    Facebook. Privacy explanation. website: (2010) [Online; last visit: 03.03.2011]
  15. 15.
    Grimmelmann, J.: Regulation by software. Yale Law J. 114(7), 1719–1758 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gross, R., Acquisti, A.: Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, Alexandria, pp. 71–80. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hodgson, G.M., Calatrava, J.: What are institutions. J. Econ. Issues 40(1), 1 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kerr, I., Bailey, J.: The implications of digital rights management for privacy and freedom of expression. J. Inf. Commun. Ethic Soc. 2(2), 85–95 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lessig, L.: Code version 2. 0. Basic Books, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lipford, H.R., Besmer, A., Watson, J.: Understanding privacy settings in facebook with an audience view. In: Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Usability, Psychology, and Security, San Francisco, pp. 1–8. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McKeon, M.: The evolution of privacy on facebook. website: (2010) [Online; last visit: 03.03.2011]
  22. 22.
    Mostyn, S.: Facebook population equivalent to third-biggest country on earth. website: (2010) [Online; last visit: 03.03.2011]Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Opsahl, K.: Facebook’s eroding privacy policy: a timeline. website: (2010) [Online; last visit: 03.03.2011]
  24. 24.
    Orwat, C., Raabe, O., Buchmann, E., Anandasivam, A., Freytag, J.-C., Helberger, N., Ishii, K., Lutterbeck, B., Neumann, D., Otter, T., Pallas, F., Reussner, R., Sester, P., Weber, K., Werle, R.: Software als institution und ihre gestaltbarkeit. Inform. Spektrum 33(6), 626–633 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ostrom, E.: Die Verfassung der Allmende: jenseits von Staat und Markt. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reidenberg, J.R.: Lex informatica: the formulation of information policy rules through technology. Tex. Law Rev. 76(3), 553 (1998)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Richter, R., Furubotn, E.G.: Neue Institutionenökonomik: Eine Einführung und kritische Würdigung. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Strater, K., Lipford, H.R.: Strategies and struggles with privacy in an online social networking community. In: Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI Group Annual Conference on HCI 2008: People and Computers XXII: Culture, Creativity, Interaction-Volume 1, Liverpool, pp. 111–119. British Computer Society, Swindon (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    techxav: If facebook were a country. website: (2010) [Online; last visit: 03.03.2011]
  30. 30.
    The Nielsen Company: The state of mobile apps. website: (2010) [Online; last visit: 03.03.2011]
  31. 31.
    Zippelius, R.: Juristische Methodenlehre: Eine Einführung. Beck, München (1985)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zuckerberg, M.: 500 million stories. blog: (2010) [Online; last visit: 03.03.2011]

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Commercial Information Technology and Quantitative Methods, Computers & SocietyTechnical University of BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations