Advertisement

Informational Privacy and Registered Certified Mail: What Do the People Want?

  • Caroline SheedyEmail author
  • Maria Moloney
Chapter
First Online:
  • 875 Downloads
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy book series (TREP, volume 50)

Abstract

The increasing use of digital channels for communication, both domestic and commercial, has led National Postal Operators (NPOs) to explore other revenue streams. The increase in use of all things digital has been described as ‘among the most consequential thing to happen to humanity’ (Bostron 2007). There is evidence that it is indeed impacting society in terms of communication, healthcare, governance and education levels.

Keywords

Trusted Third Party Fair Exchange Informational Privacy Fair Information Practice Letter Mail 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Accenture. (2009). How global organisations approach the challenge of protecting personal data, s.l.: Accenture.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, A. L. (1998). Coercing privacy. William & Mary Law Review, 40, 723.Google Scholar
  3. Bostron, N. (2007). Technological revolutions: Ethics and policy in the dark. In N. M. de S. Cameron & M. E. Mitchell (Eds.), Nanoscale: Issues and perspectives for the nano century (pp. 129–152). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Cavoukian, A. (2010). Privacy by design: Origins, meaning, and prospects for assuring privacy and trust in the information era. In G. O. Yee (Ed.), Privacy protection measures and technologies in business organizations: Aspects and standards (pp. 170–208). Chicago: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  5. Cavoukian, A. (2014). Privacy by design. Report of the Information & Privacy Commissioner Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  6. Chun, S. A., Shulman, S., Sandoval, R., & Hovy, E. (2010). Government 2.0: Making connections between citizens, data and government. Information Polity, 15(1–2), 1–9.Google Scholar
  7. Copenhagen Institute for Future Studies. (2011). Role of mail 2020. s.l.: International Post Corporation.Google Scholar
  8. Culnan, M. J., & Armstrong, P. K. (1999). Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organization Science, 10(1), 104–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Electronic Privacy Information Centre. (2010). EU data protection directive. [Online]. http://epic.org/privacy/intl/eu_data_protection_directive.html. Accessed 28 Jan 2011.
  10. Featherman, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 451–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Federal Trade Commission. (2012). Protecting consumer privacy in an era of rapid change: A proposed framework for businesses and policymakers. [Online]. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/PrivacyReport_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2012.
  12. Gellman, R. (2012). Fair information practices: A basic history. [Online]. http://bobgellman.com/rg-docs/rg-FIPShistory.pdf. Accessed 6 Nov 2012.
  13. Hearn, J. (2014). Delivering the goods to households: Would further regulation help or hinder? In The role of the postal and delivery sector in a digital age (p. 146). Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  14. Introna, L. D. (1997). Privacy and the computer: Why we need privacy in the information society. Metaphilosophy, 28(3), 259–275.Google Scholar
  15. Introna, L. D. (2000). Workplace surveillance, privacy and distributive justice. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 30(4), 33–39.Google Scholar
  16. Kelly, G., Mulgan, G., & Muers, S. (2002). Creating public value. An analytical framework for public service reform. [Online]. Strategy Unit discussion paper accessed at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/downloads/files/public_value2.pdf. Accessed Oct 2011.
  17. Kim, K., & Prabhakar, B. (2000). Initial trust, perceived risk, and the adoption of internet banking. Proceedings of the international conference on information systems (Vol. 21, pp. 537–543). Brisbane: Association for Information Systems Atlanta.Google Scholar
  18. Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336–355.Google Scholar
  19. Microsoft.com. (2014). Get delivery and read receipt confirmations. Microsoft Office Support. http://office.microsoft.com/en-ie/outlook-help/get-delivery-and-read-receipt-confirmations-HP010080428.aspx
  20. Moloney, M., & Church, L. (2012). Informational privacy preservation through universal service obligations. Journal of Internet Technology and Secured Systems, 1(1/2), 11–14.Google Scholar
  21. Moore, A. D. (2007). Toward informational privacy rights. San Diego Law Review, 44(4), 809–845.Google Scholar
  22. Ofcom. (2013). Review: Mail integrity and postal common operational procedures. Review report from Ofcom. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/mail-integrity/summary/condoc.pdf
  23. Office of Inspector General for USPS. (2013). Primer on postal challenges. Washington, DC: U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General.Google Scholar
  24. Oppliger, R. (2004). Certified mail: The next challenge for secure messaging. Communications of the ACM, 47(8), 75–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oppliger, R. (2007). Providing certified mail services on the internet. Security and Privacy, 5(1), 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oppliger, R., & Stadlin, P. (2004). Fair exchange. Computer Communications, 27(13), 1229–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shankar, V., Urban, G. L., & Sultan, F. (2002). Online trust: A stakeholder perspective, concepts, implications and future directions. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., & Xu, H. (2011). Information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 989–1015.Google Scholar
  29. Stewart, K. A., & Segars, A. H. (2002). An empirical examination of the concern for information privacy instrument. Information Systems Research, 13(1), 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tauber, A. (2010). Requirements and properties of qualified electronic delivery systems in eGovernment: An Austrian experience. International Journal of E-Adoption, 2, 45–58.Google Scholar
  31. Tauber, A. (2011). A survey of certified mail systems provided on the internet. Computers and Security, 30(6–7), 464–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tauber, A. A. J., & Boldrin, L. (2012). An interoperability standard for certified mail systems. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 34(5), 452–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. The Irish Data Protection Commissioner. (2012). EU Directive 95/46/EC – The data protection directive, Chapter I – General provisions. [Online]. http://dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=92. Accessed 6 June 2012.
  34. The Ponemon Institute. (2010). 2010 privacy trust study of the United States Government. Traverse City: The Ponemon Institute.Google Scholar
  35. UN News Centre. (2013). Posts consider postal e-services strategically important for future, 23.01.2012. Retrieved 31 October, from news.upu.int/no_cache/nd/posts-consider-postal-e-services-strategically-important-for-future/Google Scholar
  36. Whitley, E. A. (2009). Informational privacy, consent and the “control” of personal data. Information Security Technical Report, 14(3), 154–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Escher Group (IRL) Ltd.DublinIreland

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options