Information Privacy in a Digitalized World: Private Issue or Public Matter?

  • Franz LehnerEmail author
  • Aleksandra Dzepina
Part of the Professional and Practice-based Learning book series (PPBL, volume 21)


The right on informational privacy is – at a first glance – not related to the world of work, but rather describes the right of an individual regarding the disclosure and utilization of personal data. Comprehensive and complete informational privacy is an illusion, anyway. The increasing overlapping between private and working life on the one hand and the nowadays use of information technology on the other hand means that the idea of informational privacy needs to be rediscussed. This contribution provides a critical reflection of the concept of informational privacy and attempts to develop a new understanding of the digital economy.


Information privacy Informational self-determination Information behavior Information protection Digital agenda Privacy concerns Privacy paradox 


  1. AWP (2016). Kosten und fehlendes Knowhow bremsen Digitalisierungsvorhaben. AWP Finanznachrichten, 416, n.p.Google Scholar
  2. Bélanger, F., & Crossler, R. E. (2011). Privacy in the digital age: A review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 35, 1017–1041. doi:10.1159/000360196.Google Scholar
  3. Bitkom. (2016). Digitale Agenda der Bundesregierung nach zwei Jahren zu großen Teilen umgesetzt. Retrieved October 12, 2016, from
  4. Choi, B., et al. (2016). The effects of general privacy concerns and transactional privacy concerns on Facebook apps usage. Information Management, 53(7), 868–877. doi:10.1016/ Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. E. (2000). Examined lives: Informational privacy and the subject as object. Stanford Law Review, 52, 1373–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dachwitz, I. (2017). ePrivacy-Novelle: EU-Kommission bleibt beim Datenschutz auf halber Strecke stehen. Retrieved January 26, 2017, from
  7. Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61–80. doi:10.1287/isre.1060.0080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eco. (2016). 2 Jahre Digitale Agenda: Internetwirtschaft und Politik ziehen gemeinsame Bilanz. Retrieved September 30, 2016, from
  9. Federal Trade Commision (FTC). (2012). Protecting consumer in an era of rapid change: Recommendations for businesses and policymakers. Retrieved March 3, 2017, from
  10. Freiling, et al. (2014). Technische Sicherheit und Informationssicherheit. Informatik-Spektrum, 37(1), 14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. GDV. (2015). Positionspapier des Gesamtverbandes der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft zur Digitalen Agenda 2014–2017 der Bundesregierung. Retrieved from September 29, 2016, from
  12. Gluck, J. et al. (2016). How short is too short? Implications of length and framing on the effectiveness of privacy notices. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS) (pp. 321–340).Google Scholar
  13. Hansen-Oest, S., & Heidrich, J. (2016). Neu verordnet: Welche Änderungen die neue EU-Datenschutz-Regulierung in Deutschland bringen wird. C’t Magazin für Computertechnik, 166.Google Scholar
  14. Hofstetter, Y. (2014). Sie wissen alles: Wie intelligente Menschen in unser Leben eindringen und warum wir für unsere Freiheit kämpfen müssen. München: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
  15. Hornung, G., & Schnabel, C. (2009). Data protection in Germany I: The population census decision and the right to informational self-determination. Computer Law & Security Review, 25(1), 84–88. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2008.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Juris GmbH. (2015). Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (BDSG). Retrieved January 10, 2017, from
  17. Kelley, P. G. et al. (2009). A “nutrition label” for privacy. In Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security SOUPS. Article No. 4, doi:10.1145/1572532.1572538.Google Scholar
  18. Kelley, P.G. et al. (2010). Standardizing privacy notices: An online study of the nutrition label approach. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1573–1582). doi:10.1145/1753326.1753561.Google Scholar
  19. LDA. (2013). Akteneinsichts- und Informationszugangsgesetz. Retrieved October 15, 2016, from
  20. Malhotra, N. K., et al. (2004). Internet Users’ Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a casual model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336–355. doi:10/1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Norberg, P. A., et al. (2007). The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41, 100–126. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00070.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pavlou, P. A. (2011). State of the information privacy literature: Where are we now and where should we go? MIS Quarterly, 35, 977–988.Google Scholar
  23. Podlech, A. (1976). Aufgaben und Problematik des Datenschutzes. Datenverarbeitung im Recht, 5, 23–39.Google Scholar
  24. Rössler, B. (2001). Der Wert des Privaten. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  25. Roßnagel, A. (2007). Informationelle Selbstbestimmung in der Welt des Ubiquitous Computing. In F. Mattern (Ed.), Die Informatisierung des Alltags (pp. 265–289). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-71455-2_14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rouvroy, A., & Poullet, Y. (2009). The right to informational self-determination and the value of self development: Reassessing the importance of privacy for democracy. In S. Gutwirth et al. (Eds.), Reinventing data protection (pp. 45–76). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9498-9_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schaaf, C. (2015). Datensicherheit und Informationsschutz. In T. Jäger (Ed.), Handbuch Sicherheitsgefahren (pp. 533–542). Wiesbaden: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-02753-7_45.Google Scholar
  28. Smith, H., et al. (1996). Information privacy: Measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 20, 167–196. doi:10.2307/249477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith, H. J., et al. (2011). Theory and review information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review. MIS QuarterlyInformation Privacy Research, 35(4), 989–1015.Google Scholar
  30. Spink, A., & Cole, C. (2007). Information behavior: A socio-cognitive ability. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(2), 258–274. doi:10.1177/147470490700500201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stewart, K. A., & Segars, A. H. (2002). An empirical examination of the concern for information privacy instrument. Information Systems Research, 13(1), 26–49. doi:10.1287/isre. Scholar
  32. Stigler, G. J. (1980). An introduction to privacy in economics and politics. Journal of Legal Studies, 9(4), 645–648. Article 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Toker, K. A. (2013). Data protection. In S. Idowu et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of corporate social responsibility (pp. 752–759). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Trute, H.H. (2003). Verfassungsrechtliche Grundlagen. In A. Roßnagel (Ed.), Handbuch Datenschutzrecht (pp. 156–187).Google Scholar
  35. Weichert, T. (2013). Grenzen des Datenschutzes: Im internationalen Kontext. Retrieved October 14, 2016, from
  36. Weka Media. (2016). Datenschutz-Grundverordnung: Viele Unternehmen nicht vorbereitet. Retrieved October 14, 2016, from
  37. Westin, A. F. (1969). Privacy and freedom. Administrative Law Review, 22(1), 101–106.Google Scholar
  38. Wilson, T. D. (2000). Human information behavior. Special issue on information science research. Informing Science, 3(2), 49–55.Google Scholar
  39. ZVEI. (2015). Positionspapier-Kurzfassung: Digitale Agenda. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of PassauPassauGermany

Personalised recommendations