32 | IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | wINTEr 20121932-4529/12/$31.00©2012IEEE

AhAron YAdin

Millennials and Privacy in the Information Age: Can They Coexist?

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MTS.2012.2225461

Date of publication: 19 December 2012

ALE OKADA/WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | wINTEr 2012 | 33

rapid advancement in information technol-ogies (IT) has created dramatic changes in many aspects of soci-

ety. Changes in communication’s economics now enable fast, easy, and cheap mass dissemination of information. This dissemination triggers new and innovative solu-tions, which already affect our lives. Many other potential changes will follow.

A very well-known and suc-cessful example is Facebook, the popular online service for social networking. Approximately seven years after its launch, Facebook has over 800 million users [10]. How-ever, currently Facebook is much more than a social network, due to additional possibilities exploited by its user community. Due to its open infrastructure, it is possible to establish two-way communication between any website and the Face-book platform. Users and organiza-tions are using this platform in new ways, some that were not originally anticipated by Facebook’s creators. The wealth of available applica-tions and uses has been driven mainly by user needs and ease of implementation.

Facebook provides diverse means for content creation includ-ing links, stories, blog posts, and photo albums. The new technolo-gies, particularly information and communication technologies (ICT), for which Facebook is a con-crete example are having an enor-mous social and economic impact and are the force behind the transi-tion to a post-industrial information society [20]. The new information society, in which knowledge plays a significant role, gives rise to new ethical issues. These ethical issues are sometimes related to infringe-ment on intellectual property rights, ignoring individuals’ privacy, and even compromising security [29]. For that reason many scholars have addressed implications of the Inter-net and IT on society.

Generational DifferencesGenerational research that started to appear in scientific papers over half a century ago was first attributed to Karl Mannheim [19], who analyzed the impact of gen-erational experiences on people. Since then, the generational cohort was developed and is used to define a group of people who were born within the same time period. A generational group experiences similar events that shape its atti-tude and traits [17]. According to Strauss and Howe [37], who researched similarities and dif-ferences between generations over 550 years, one cycle of history spans about 80 years and is divided into four turnings or generational cohorts. Strauss and Howe define the last four generations in the 20th century as follows.

1) Members of the Silent Genera-tion were born prior to 1946. This generation, which was influenced by the two world wars and the Great Depres-sion, is considered loyal and collaborative, shares values and behavior, and is willing to sacrifice personal interests for the common good [18], [32].

2) Baby Boomers were born between 1946 and 1964. This generation was affected by events such as the Vietnam war, rock and roll, the arrival of television, and economic prosperity. This generation is considered to be idealistic, optimistic, and highly com-petitive [18], [32].

3) Members of Generation X were born between 1964 and 1980, and were affected by new media channels, beyond television, including games, video cassette recording (VCr), fax machines, and the personal computer. People in this generation are characterized as skeptical and independent, relying on their individual abilities rather than institutional help [18].

4) Millennials (also referred to as Gen Y) were born between 1981 and 2000. People belong-ing to this generation were influenced by the rapid expan-sion of technology and media, violence, widespread drug usage, and unprecedented immigration growth [18]. The Millennials are the most tech-nological savvy generational group, feeling confident and natural using a variety of tech-nologies (mobile phones, per-son digital assistants (PDAs), computers, games, electronic gadgets, etc.). Millennials use the Internet extensively for finding solutions to their prob-lems and expect to constantly be in touch with friends and peers using a variety of com-munication links. They even tend to prefer Internet net-working over telephone-based voice communication [25].

Digital Economywe are witnessing a paradigm shift from the old traditional industrial economy to a new economy char-acterized by information, services, and intangible resources. Many scholars have addressed this newly forming economy using names like “knowledge-based economy” and “digital economy” [42], [35], to name a few. In essence the digital economy is about using ICT for coordination, innovation, selection, and learning [12], creating new and novel business models. The digital economy is expanding economic potential [28]. Utilizing new busi-ness models and using informa-tion and ideas rather than tangible materials, the digital economy has changed business practices, work organizations, and institutional structures. As such, the business focus has moved towards creation, maintenance, distribution, and trading of knowledge.

rapid technological develop-ment has advanced the process of data acquisition and storage. Vast

34 | IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | wINTEr 2012

amounts of data accumulated by commercial organizations, such as supermarkets, credit card com-panies, telephone companies, and various service providers, have generated a need to analyze large databases, looking for hidden pat-terns and relationships. This pro-cess of knowledge discovery is the basis of a relatively new set of tools for data mining. In their book Principles of Data Mining [14], the authors state that “Data min-ing is the analysis of (often large) observational data sets to find unsuspected relationships and to summarize the data in novel ways that are both understandable and useful to the data owner.” For com-mercial organizations, extract-ing such information provides additional value in an attempt to improve the customer experience. Millennials, with their tendency to share many aspects of their lives, provide the perfect settings for obtaining relevant data.

Commonly Used TechnologiesIn his book Mass Customization [30], Joe Pine analyzes market trends and argues that organiza-tions will have to abandon the old business practices that utilize mass production and adopt to a new world where “variety and custom-ization supplant standardized prod-ucts.” Pine emphasizes that in the new digital economy, developing just one product does not meet the users’ requirements and is not suf-ficient anymore.

E-commerce addresses some of the issues raised by Pine by provid-ing the means for customization which present more choices and a higher degree of flexibility for cus-tomers. Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s CEO, is widely quoted as saying: “If I have 3 million customers on the web, I should have 3 million stores on the web” [34]. The understand-ing that providing customers with a high level of customization, almost as if it was a totally different store,

is one of Amazon’s – a leading e-commerce enterprise – success factors. Although Amazon offers million of titles to choose from, the system presents customers with a new buying experience designed to ease information overload. The system applies mass customization principles to the products’ represen-tations rather than to the products themselves [31], by offering many personal search capabilities, includ-ing suggestions based on previous preferences. The once innovative technique is currently a common practice and is addressed by all recommender systems [34] that are widely used as an integral part of most e-commerce sites.

recommender systems collect, analyze, and use product knowledge accumulated from various sources. This knowledge is used to provide consumers with intelligent sugges-tions and guide them in their search for the best product or service to suit their needs. Many organizations such as Amazon.com, Netflix.com, Half.com, CDNOw, J.C. Penney, and Procter & Gamble have been using recommender systems that lead to an increase in web sales and better customer loyalty [15]. Millen-nials who are technology savvy and highly influenced by friends pro-vide one of the main target groups for such recommender systems.

E-commerce infrastructures have significant advantages for organizations of all types. These systems overcome physical limi-tations, and provide a 24/7 global exposure. However, the next stage, as predicted by the “square wheel” model [5] involves redesigning busi-ness processes around technology to produce more value and increase competitiveness. This continu-ous improvement process creates an agile organization, capable of exploiting future market opportuni-ties. Using ICT for collecting and analyzing large amounts of digital information is today a common practice among most organizations. This has been followed by the rise

of data mining tools to be used for hidden information discovery. Com-bining information gathered from various online sources is extremely valuable and provides relevant mar-keting insight about customers, their behavior, and preferences.

Through their generational traits, Millennials not only are the most influenced crowd, they are an important ingredient in a new cycle. Their need to broadcast their expe-riences provides the raw data for new knowledge used by the recom-mender systems. These systems rec-ommend new products, services, or usage patterns, which in turn starts a new cycle of information gather-ing. Combing consumers’ inno-vative usage with recommender systems creates a balanced and efficient mechanism of information sharing between consumers and retailers, in both directions. New ideas regarding products’ capabili-ties flow from the consumers to the retailers, who in turn feed them back to the consumer community as recommendations. This mecha-nism enhances products’ visibility, increases sales and profits, and when combined with the right ICT platforms (Facebook for example), can be employed at an increasing pace, for collecting user experience as well as assimilating these experi-ences among other users.

Data Mining on the WebIn her book The Gift of Fire [4], Sara Baase draws a comparison between fire and computer sys-tems. Both can be regarded as double edge swords, since both enhance human lives, but also cause some undesired and danger-ous situations. For ICT, one such potential danger is the digital trail left after each activity on the web, which may include personal infor-mation (name, addresses, billing information, etc.).

web Services [2] is a common name for a set of tools, protocols and systems that exchange data autonomously between different

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | wINTEr 2012 | 35

web-based systems. One of the aims in developing web Services was to provide a seamless virtual computing platform in which mil-lions of information systems can share their resources. However, in addition to its benefits, web Services capabilities are also used for new generations of data mining applications that exchange personal information gathered at multiple sites. Furthermore, utilizing web Services and the web activities’ digital traces, even behavioral pat-terns can be drawn.

For example, Amazon for years has provided an enhanced shop-ping experience by collecting not only sales information, but brows-ing behavior as well. However, the benefits of personalization require loss of anonymity [8]. when brows-ing sites that do not offer personal-ization, the naïve users may assume their anonymity is maintained; how-ever web applications easily reveal the user identity [36]. Although most popular browsers have added private browsing capabilities, according to researchers at Stanford University even private browsing is not really that private [1]. Furthermore, research reveals that private brows-ing is mainly used when browsing adult sites and less than 10% of the users use it for non-adult sites. while most browsers use keywords found during browsing for targeted adver-tising, recommender systems use web Services and may suggest rel-evant products that are not directly related to the current browsing ses-sion, but to other sessions performed by the same user. The main reason behind the development of such recommender systems is the added value provided for the retailers. Unfortunately these benefits, in many cases, are at the expense of sacrificing consumer privacy.

More critical examples may involve the selling of private infor-mation related to patients’ medical conditions. Such examples are not new as stated by the Washington Post in an article dating back to

1998, about CVS (The largest phar-macy drugstore chain in the U.S.) sharing prescription records with a direct mail and pharmaceutical company [26]. By using web Ser-vices, sharing consumer informa-tion, including private facts is very easy, and unfortunately it supports the famous saying attributed to Scott McNealy, Sun Microsystems’ CEO, who said in 1999: “You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it.”

The Right to PrivacyMost western cultures and civi-lizations are built on principles of freedom and individual rights, including the right to security and privacy. There is a long debate about the specific definition of these rights. However, even when considering the basic definitions adopted by the U.N. in the Univer-sal Declaration of Human rights, recent events undermine them. On one hand, increased terror threats require a higher degree of secu-rity that is sometimes achieved at the expense of privacy – as was clearly demonstrated by new imag-ing machines used to scan passen-gers at airports. On the other hand, rapid technological advancement clashes with “the right to be let alone” as defined by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis [41]. Although most people will agree that privacy has to be respected, their definitions of privacy may vary. This relates not only to schol-ars and policy makers who are debating the proper privacy defini-tion, but to the whole population.

This point regarding varia-tions in definitions of privacy was demonstrated by wikiLeaks. The wikiLeaks organization publishes mainly private, secret, and clas-sified information. Surprisingly, wikiLeaks received a high level of support from the public – for exam-ple, wikiLeaks’ Editor-In-Chief was voted as Time magazine’s Per-son of the Year 2010 by an over-whelming majority of the readers, [11]. This support is troubling,

considering the fact that many articles relate to specific identified persons whose privacy and some-times even personal security was harmed without a second thought.

Ignoring online users’ privacy is not a new trend. It was used by free email systems (such as Hot-mail) and most search engines for targeted advertisements. In trying to influence users, marketing efforts did not stop at displaying advertise-ments, but moved to a more intru-sive method of sending unsolicited (junk) mail. In many cases, current legislation limits the phenomenon and reputable businesses provide selection of the service (opt–in and opt-out). Nevertheless, according to a report released in May 2009 by the security vendor Symantec, spam mail accounts for 90.4% of all email.

Commercial organizations, strug-gling for users’ attention, are using aggressive methods in their hunt for knowledge. Even large corporations are sometimes ignoring their users’ basic privacy rights as was the case with Google Street View. To estab-lish the new service, Google needed to collect street view images, ignor-ing the privacy issues of innocent people that were passing by. The images were uploaded to the web and became publicly available worldwide. This led to many arti-cles concerning privacy issues and the fact that the new service may breach some laws [6]. As a result, Google currently blurs faces and vehicle license plates [21] and even allows users to request further blur-ring. However, during 2010, after many allegations, Google admitted to “mistakenly” collecting sensitive private data sent over wi-Fi (wire-less Fidelity) networks while snap-ping photos of the streets [7]. This of course led to a wide range of investigations by many European and state governmental authorities, with several court orders blaming Google for violation of data protec-tion laws.

One can only wonder how many additional “mistaken” collections

36 | IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | wINTEr 2012

of sensitive and private data are being performed by other Internet companies. On January 15, 2011, Facebook announced it would allow third-party developers to access the home addresses and phone numbers of its users. This was an expected move, since Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said that his com-pany’s mission is to “make the world more open and connected.” However, due to the many concerns and criticism expressed by users and security organizations, Face-book decided to suspend the new feature. Google Street View and Facebook’s attempt to share private data are just two examples of large organizations that ignore the pri-vacy issues involved. Over 25 years ago, James Moor [22] defined “pol-icy vacuum” as a significant reason for ethical misconduct. This policy vacuum exists when there is no standard policy to govern a given computer-related situation. Unfor-tunately, over the years, as tech-nology advances, new possibilities have emerged such as data mining and “digital trails” recording [39]. Combining these new capabilities with organizations’ ever growing need for new knowledge, the policy vacuum is still widening, and at an increasing pace.

Millennials and Privacy IssuesIn spite of the efforts by lawmak-ers and regulation agencies regard-ing privacy issues, Millennials, who are the major group to use social networking, as a group tend to have different views regarding information sharing and privacy. For Millennials, communication comes in many forms and the flow of information, even over geo-graphic distance, is instantaneous. More troubling is the fact that Mil-lennials treat their virtual friends, whom they sometimes have never met and probably will never meet, as if they were real friends. Fur-thermore, Millennials disclose a great deal of personal information

without paying any attention to the fact that the information becomes publicly available for everyone. This concern was intensified by conclusions of a recent survey con-ducted by the Pew research Center [3]. The survey revealed that many Millennials believe that disclos-ing personal information to online friends holds many social benefits, and as such they will continue to share their many of their personal details. Furthermore, most of them will make it a lifelong habit, since it satisfies the need to belong and be accepted.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuck-erberg addressed this issue in 2009 by saying that current web users have become more accept-ing of information sharing and that privacy has become less of a “social norm.” when com-pared to previous generations, for Millennials privacy has a very different meaning as it is dem-onstrated by their urge to share. The new social norm adopted by Millennials is that in order to be accepted and appreciated by the community, constant interesting updates such as real life experi-ences are required. These social changes are further fueled by the rapid technological develop-ments and especially the new enhanced capabilities achieved by the usage of mobile devices. The always-connected paradigm is exploited by Millennials not only to improve information shar-ing, but also to provide it instantly while the events are happening.

The Real ProblemSocial networks and the digital economy are two of the many mod-ern trends that coexist. However, the combination of social networks, or the public information stored on them, and the digital economy holds a real threat to privacy. One of the main forces behind the digital econ-omy is using ICT for creating new and novel business models. Organi-zations use and develop ICT-based

tools and methodologies to gather accurate and reliable user infor-mation. This information sheds light on the users’ perspectives and requirements, and provides neces-sary knowledge for designing new, more effective and competitive products and services. Many tech-nologies were developed to support the process of information retrieval, and all involve mining mechanisms and a wealth of theories for calcu-lating and estimating the informa-tion’s value and accuracy. However, considering the richness and the easy accessibility of the informa-tion available from social networks, many organizations’ data mining efforts were directed towards social networks.

The Internet in general and social networks in particular play an increased role in research and investigation related to due dili-gence, background, employment, as well as reputation research and even surveillance for legal and insurance matters [40]. Numerous studies analyze the many types of information found on social networks [13], [23] and how this information can be exploited. More interesting, however, are vari-ous correlations performed on the information, for example mining comments entered by teens for col-lecting information on their other family members. This informa-tion can be just background data, employment-related, and even as a basis for insurance claims denial.

A paper by Sweeney [38] notes that gender, birth date, and ZIP code are sufficient to identify 87% of the U.S population. Min-ing these three items and corre-lating them with other data from different sources can be used for sophisticated processes of deci-sion making. It is not clear how much information is obtained from social networks data mining, or by whom. However, in a Wall Street Journal article by Laura Saunders [33], the author describes cases in which state revenue agents and

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | wINTEr 2012 | 37

authorities have been mining infor-mation posted on social network websites. In a different USA Today article, Kevin Johnson [16] states that “law enforcement agencies are digging deep into the social media accounts of applicants, requesting that candidates sign waivers allow-ing investigators access to their Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Twitter and other personal spaces.” Another example is an article by John Oates [24] about 13 Virgin Atlantic employees who were fired for their comments on Facebook.

These types of practices are so widely used by many industries that in August 2010 a draft law that bans Facebook research for hiring decisions was approved in Ger-many [27]. According to this law, employers will be allowed to look for information regarding the appli-cant, using various search engines and social networks, but are not allowed to look at their Facebook profile. This German law repre-sents a new way of thinking in try-ing to reduce the policy vacuum. It not only examines traditional law in the new environment, but tries to define new laws needed to deal with the situations and problems that technology has created. Using tech-nological tools, new sophisticated cyber-crimes, in which hackers target social networks for planning malicious attacks and stealing user identities, have become very com-mon. The new law does not address these criminal acts in a new set-ting; it tries to address a common and ordinary practice of using the widely available public data for bet-ter and legitimate decision making processes. Since social networking sites have become a well-known source of information, many law-yers, private investigators, law enforcement agencies, employers, and organizations are using these new capabilities. The law is the first step in a new direction; however, it addresses only potential employers. The notion that every individual is responsible for protecting their

personal information may have been valid for prior generations. Millenni-als, who record their lives, almost in real time, believing that the informa-tion is shared only by “real” friends, have to be better protected, espe-cially, since every piece of informa-tion, even if deleted, will continue to exist for a very long time.

Missing: Limits and BoundariesTechnology is moving forward at an increasing pace and it will con-tinue advancing in the foreseeable future; Millennials will continue to expose their lives, ignoring potential negative implications and undermining the “old” privacy norms. These two trends lead to large and fast growing volumes of digital and searchable information. Utilizing already available, data mining tools provides a wealth of benefits for an increasing number of organizations and commercial companies. The new knowledge obtained will create new demands for additional, more sophisticated tools for mining and correlating information from various sources. what is missing and increasingly required are the proper definitions of limits and boundaries. Since Millennials continue posting grow-ing pieces of their lives, actions that cannot be undone, new legis-lation should limit the purpose and use of information obtained from the web. Usually, people know it is forbidden to use a credit card even if it was found on the street. How-ever, using other and sometimes much more sensitive personal information obtained on the web is considered to be legitimate. Laws that regulate conflicting interests should play a more active role bal-ancing “the right to be left alone” and “the right to know.” It is time for some new laws addressing the policy vacuum that continues to widen quickly, or else, current innocent social networks’ status updates may haunt the naive user for years to come.

Author InformationThe author is with the Max Stern Yezreel Valley College (YVC), Israel; aharony@yvc.ac.il.

References[1] G. Aggarwal et al., “An analysis of private browsing mode in modern browsers,” in Proc. Usenix Security 2010. Online at: http://crypto.stanford.edu/~dabo/pubs/papers/privatebro-wsing.pdf, accessed Jan. 2, 2012.[2] G. Alonso et al., Web Services: Concepts, Architectures, and Applications. Berlin/Hei-delberg, Springer-Verlag, 2004.[3] J. Anderson and L. rainine, “Millennials will make online sharing in networks a life-long habit” 2010. Online at http://pewinter-net.org/reports/2010/Future-of-Millennials/Overview/Overview-of-responses.aspx?r=1/accessed Jan. 5, 2012 [4] S. Baase, A Gift of Fire – Social, Legal and Ethical Issues for Computers and the Internet. Prentice Hall, 2008.[5] r.J. Benson and M.M. Parker, Information Economics: Linking Business Performance to Information Technology. Prentice Hall, 1988.[6] S. Bodoni, “Google street view may breach EU law, officials say,” 2010; h t t p : / / w w w. b l o o m b e r g . c o m / a p p s /news?pid=20601085&sid=a2Tbh.fOrFB0/, accessed Dec. 23, 2010.[7] J. Bertolucci, “Google’s wi-Fi spying: what were they thinking,” PCWorld, 2010; http://www.pcworld.com/ar ticle/196397/googles_wif i_spying_what_were_they_thinking.html, accessed Jan. 5, 2012[8] r.K. Chellappa and r.G. Sin, “Personal-ization versus privacy: An empirical examina-tion of the online consumer’s dilemma,” Infor-mation Technology and Management, vol. 6, pp. 181–202, 2005.[9] M.D. Coomes and r. DeBard, Eds., Serving the Millennial Generation. Jossey Bass, 2004.[10] Facebook Statistics, “People on Face-book,” 2010; http://www.Facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics/, accessed Jan. 6, 2012 [11] M. Friedman, “Julian Assange: read-ers’ Choice for TIME’s Person of the Year 2010,” TIME NewsFed, 2010; http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/13/julian-assange-readers-choice-for-times-person-of-the-year-2010/, accessed Jan. 2 2012[12] O. Gärdin, “The new economy new challenges for the statistical system,” pre-sented at Int. Assoc. Official Statisticians Conf. (London, U.K.) 2002.[13] r. Gross and A. Acquisti, “Information revelation and privacy in online social net-works,” in Proc. 2005 ACM Workshop Privacy in the Electronic Society, 2005, pp. 71–80.[14] D.J. Hand, H. Mannila, and P. Smyth, Principles of Data Mining. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press., 2001, p. 1.[15] Z. Huang, D. Zeng, and H. Chen, “A com-parative study of recommendation algorithms in e-commerce applications,” IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 68–78, 2007.[16] K. Johnson, “Police recruits screened for digital dirt on Facebook, etc.,” USA To-day, 2010; http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-11-12-1Afacebookcops12_ST_N.htm, accessed Jan. 6, 2012.

38 | IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | wINTEr 2012

[17] V. Jones, J.H. Jo, and P.A. Martin, “Fu-ture schools and how technology can be used to support Millennial and Generation-Z stu-dents,” in ICUT 2007 (Proc. B), 1st Int. Conf. Ubiquitous Information Technology, Dubai, Feb. 12-14, 2007, pp. 886–891.[18] L.C. Lancaster and D. Stillman, When Generations Collide Who They Are. Why They Cash. How To Solve The Generational Puzzle At Work. Harper Business, 2002.[19] K. Mannheim, Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1952. [20] Y. Masuda, “Computopia: rebirth of theological synergism.” in The Information Society as Post-Industrial Society, Y. Ma-suda, Ed. Tokyo: Institute for the Information Society and 1981 by world Future Society, 1980.[21] S. Moncrieff, S. Venkatesh, and G.A. west, “Dynamic privacy in public surveillance,” Computer, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 22–28, 2009.[22] J.H. Moor, “what is computer ethics?,” Computers & Ethics, T.w. Bynum, Ed., 1985, pp. 266–275. [23] A. Muise, A. Christofides, and S. Desma-rais, “More information than you ever wanted: Does Facebook bring out the green-eyed mon-ster of jealousy?,” CyberPsychology & Behav-ior, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 441–444, 2009.[24] J. Oates, “Virgin sacks the Facebook,” The Register, Nov. 3, 2008; http://www.thereg-ister.co.uk/2008/11/03/virgin_sackings_ba_ rudeness// , accessed Jan. 5, 2012.

[25] D.G. Oblinger,” Boomers, Gen-Xers & Millennials: Understanding the new students,” EduCAUSE Rev., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 37–47, 2003.[26] r. O’Harrow, “Prescription sales, privacy fears,” Washington Post, Feb. 15, 1998.[27] Out_Law.com, “German law bans Face-book research for hiring decisions,” 2010; http://www.out-law.com/page-11336, accessed Jan. 5, 2012.[28] A. Persaud, “The knowledge gap,” For-eign Affairs, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 107–117, 2001.[29] S. Petrovic-Lazarevic and A.S. Sohal, “Nature of e-business ethical dilemmas,” Infor mation Management & Computer Secu-rity, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 167–177, 2004.[30] B.J. Pine, Mass Customization. Harvard Business School Press, 1993, pp. 34.[31] B.J. Pine and J.H. Gilmore, The Experi-ence Economy. Harvard Business School Press, 1999.[32] L. reesor L and K. Schlabach, “Manag-ing multi-generations: Strategies for crossing the generational divide in the workplace,” NASPA Leadership Exchange, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 16–19, 2006. [33] L. Saunders, “Is ‘friending’ in your fu-ture? Better pay your taxes first,” Wall Street J., Aug. 27, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/ar-ticle/SB125132627009861985.html, accessed Jan. 5, 2012.[34] J.B. Schafer, J.A. Konstan, and J. riedl, “E-commerce recommendation applications,” Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 5, pp. 115–153, 2001.

[35] S.K. Sharma, N. wickramansinghe, and J.N.D. Gupta, “what should SMEs do to suc-ceed in today’s knowledge-based economy?” in Electronic Commerce in Small to Medium-Sized Enterprises: Frameworks, Issues and Implications, N. Al-Qirim, Ed. London, U.K.: Idea Group Publishing, 2004.[36] J. Srivastava et al., “web usage mining: Discovery and applications of usage patterns from web data,” ACM SIGKDD Explorations, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 12–23, 2000.[37] w. Strauss and N. Howe, Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069. william Morrow, 1991.[38] L. Sweeney, “Uniqueness of simple de-mographics in the US population,” LIDAP-wP4. Carnegie Mellon University, Laboratory for International Data Privacy, 2000. [39] H.T. Tavani, “KDD, data mining, and the challenge for normative privacy,” Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 265–273, 1999.[40] T. Thompson, “The armchair investiga-tor: Social media and teens,” The Pew Internet & American Life Project report, 2007; http://pibuzz.com/2007/12/24/the-armchair-investi-gator-social-media-and-teens/, accessed Jan. 5, 2012.[41] S. warren and L. Brandeis, “The right to privacy,” Harvard Law Rev., vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 193–220, 1890. [42] P. woodall, “Survey: The new economy: Knowledge is power,” The Economist, vol. 356, no. 8189, pp. 27–32, 2000.

[11] J. Pitt and A. Bhusate, “Privacy in perva-sive and affective computing environments,” in Information Communication Technology Law, Protection and Access Rights: Global Approaches and Issues, M. Portela and M. Cruz-Cunha, Eds. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 168–187, 2010.[12] V. Mayer-Schönberger, Delete: The Vir-tue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 2009.[13] J. Pitt, Ed, This Pervasive Day. London, U.K.: IC Press, 2012.[14] I. Levin, This Perfect Day. New York, NY: random House, 1970.[15] D. Solove, “‘I’ve got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy,” San Diego Law Rev., vol. 44, pp. 745–772, 2007.[16] A. Ferscha, “Implicit interaction,” in This Pervasive Day, J. Pitt, Ed. London, U.K.: IC Press, 2012, pp. 17–36.[17] M. witkowski, J. Pitt, P. Fehin, and Y. Arafa, “Indicators to the effects of agent technology on consumer loyalty,” in E-Work and E-Commerce: Novel Solutions and Practices for a Global Networked Economy, B. Stanford-Smith and E. Chiozza, Eds. Am-sterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press, 2001, pp. 1165–1171.[18] E. weitzman, B. Adida, S. Kelemen and K. Mandl. “Sharing data for public health re-search by members of an international online diabetes social network,” PLoS ONE, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. e19256, 2011.

[19] A. Adams and A. Sasse, “Privacy in mul-timedia communications: Protecting users, not just data,” in People & Computers XV – Inter-action Without Frontiers, Joint Proceedings of HCI 2001 and ICM 2001, 2001, pp. 49–64.[20] C. Dwyer, “Privacy in the age of Google and Facebook,” IEEE Technology and Society Mag., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 58–63, 2011.[21] B. Storm, The benefit of forgetting in thinking and remembering. Current Direc-tions in Psychological Science, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 291–295, 2011.[22] S. Buckingham Shum, K. Aberer, A. Schmidt, S. Bishop et al., “Democratising big data, complexity modelling and collective in-telligence,” 2012, to be published.[23] A. Jones, “On the concept of trust,” Decision Support Systems, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 225–232, 2002.[24] A. Vasalou, A. Hopfensitz, and J. Pitt, “In praise of forgiveness: ways to repair trust breakdowns in one-off interactions,” Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 466–480, 2008.[25] K. Michael and M. G. Michael, “Implementing ‘namebers’ using microchip implants: The black box beneath the skin,” in This Pervasive Day, J. Pitt, Ed. London, U.K.: IC Press, 2012, pp. 163–206.[26] K. Michael and M. G. Michael, “The fall-out from emerging technologies: Surveillance, social networks and suicide,” IEEE Technology and Society Mag., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 13–17, 2011.

[27] N. Serbedzija, “reflective computing – naturally artificial,” in This Pervasive Day, J. Pitt, Ed. London, U.K.: IC Press, 2012, pp. 69–98.[28] C. reynolds and r. Picard, “Affective sen-sors, privacy, and ethical contracts,” in Proc. CHI 2004 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2004, pp. 1103–1106.[29] L. Lessig, Code: And Other Laws of Cyber-space, Version 2.0. New York, NY: Basic, 2006.[30] C. Hess and E. Ostrom, Eds., Understand-ing Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 2006.[31] E. Ostrom, Governing the Commons. Cambridge. U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990.[32] M. Cox, G. Arnold, and S. Villamayor-Tomas, “A review of design principles for community-based natural resource manage-ment,” Ecology and Society, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 38 [online], 2010.[33] N. Oreskes and E. Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. London, U.K.: Bloomsbury, 2010.[34] d. Boyd and E. Hargittai, “Facebook privacy settings: who cares?” First Monday, vol. 15, no. 8, [online], 2010.[35] E. Morozov, The Net Delusion. New York, NY: Perseus, 2011.[36] A. rawls, A Theory of Justice, rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1999.

design ContrACtuAlism for PervAsive/AffeCtive ComPuting

(Continued from page 28)