sou · H4B341 · 2016-06-07 00:00:00 — COMPARATIVE POLITICS, 37(4), 479+. O’, W. (2014). ’s Digital Policy Agenda. ’s Rights, 22(4), 748–775. Hiranandani, V. (2011). Privacy and security in the digital age: contemporary challenges and future directions. , 15(7), 1091–1106. Ett intressant begrepp i sammanhanget är ”Sousveillance” vilket kan beskrivas som en reaktion på den ökade övervakningen av individer från stater och företag. Begreppet kan knytas till begreppet Ego‐Panopticism som diskuterades i avsnittet om generella teoretiska resonemang ovan. Grundtanken med Sousveillance är att vända på kikaren så att övervakaren blir den övervakade. Här skapar övervakning och intrång i den personliga integriteten en reaktion och nya beteenden vilka tar sig yttryck i att medborgare med hjälp av digitalteknik utsätter makthavare för övervakning. Fernback (2013, s. 11) beskriver det som ”Sousveillance is "watching from below," a form of inverse surveillance in which people monitorthe surveillors. Examples include citizen video, watchdog web sites, or the monitoring of authorities (corporations, military, government). Sousveillance embraces the idea of transparency as an antidote to concentrated power in the hands of surveillors.” Exempel på medel och forum som kan användas i detta syfte är diskussionsgrupper på Facebook (intressant nog mest riktade mot forumet som används. T ex gruppen ) (Fernback 2013), digitalt samordnadPetition: Facebook,produktionStopochInvadingspridningMyavPrivacyvideofilmer av polisövervåld (Bradshaw (2013) och spridning av, för polisen kompromenterande, övervakningsfilmer som ljudfiler (Ganascia 2010). Förhoppningar och utmaningar : ”While the potential remains for sousveillance to assist global activists in challenging authority and seeking alternative solutions to neoliberal globalization, an emancipatory relationship to social media and digital communication technologies is something that is not given, but must be critically and continuously forged. (Braadshaw 2013, s. 410) Bradshaw, E. (2013). This is What a State Looks Like: Sousveillance, Direct Action and the Anti-corporate Globalization Movement. CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGY, 21(4), 447–461. (2013). Sousveillance: Communities of resistance to the surveillance environment. Telematics and Informatics, 30(1), 11–21. Ganascia, J.-G. (2010). The generalized sousveillance society. Social Science Information, 49(3), 489–507. Här rymms artiklar som inte riktigt passade in under någon annan kategori. Bland annat en artikel som introducerar begreppet ”Cyber‐Paranoia” vilket beskriver ett tillstånd av obefogad skräck för hot på Internethos individer (et al. Garnar (2012) behandlar frågan med missbruk av offentliga datorer och därmed behovet av att begränsa och övervaka användningen. Park et al. (2015) beskriver ettantal personlighetstyper relaterat till konsumentbeteende på Internet. och Lo (20105) beskriver ett nytt sätt för datainsamling av trafikdata på motorvägar och potentiella integritetsfrågor i relation till detta. (2007). Ubiquitous computing and the digital enclosure movement. MEDIA INTERNATIONAL , (125), 106–117. Garnar, M. (2012). For the Sake of One Child. , 21(1), 12– 20. , W.-H., & Lo, H. (2015). Highway voting system: Embracing a possible paradigm shift in traffic data acquisition. Part C: , 56, 149–160. , O. J., , C., & , F. (2014). Ever-present threats from information technology: the Cyber-Paranoia and Fear Scale. FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 5. Park, M.-S., , J.-K., & Ju, Y. (2015). A Taxonomy of Site Users: Social Surveillance and Self-surveillance Perspective. PSYCHOLOGY & MARKETING, 32(6), 601–610. Det finns frågor som griper in i flera områden och som inte har någon direkt koppling till ett specifikt fält. En sådan generell fråga rör kopplingen mellan hur den digitala tekniken och möjligheten/hotet att övervaka/övervakas påverkar beteende. (2014) hävdar i artikeln att frågan är dåligt beforskad och skriver Spaceatt ”theandsocialChangesconsequencesin User Behaviourof a comprehensive surveillance like the individual behavior in the digital space have been studied.” I studien som är berördes under rubriken ”Kunskap och beteende bland unga” studeras beteende i termer av nätanvändande och det konkluderas att risken för övervakning medför ett minskat internetanvändande. En annan artikel (2010) som rör samma område argumenterar för att ökad information och kunskapsbildning för unga angående integritetsfrågor på Internet bidrar till vad som benämns som ”critical information behaviour”. Ett begrepp som definieras som: ”Critical information behaviourinvolves actions that question the status quo of information systems, itasks if the users really benefit from the standard settings of these systems, andwhich changes need to be undertaken in order to overcome or lessen power differentials.” (2010, s. 180). Artikeln (Preibusch 2015) visar att ”privacy beahaviours”Privacyvisserligenb haviorsökadeefterafter SnowdenEdward Snowdens avslöjande om den långtgående statliga övervakningen som skedde inom ramen för programmet PRISM, men att ökningen var tämligen marginell och inte varade särskilt länge: ”I combined high‐resolution data from primary sources that indicate the new public information on PRISM led to momentarily increased interest in privacy and protection. However, the spike was much less than for other news events (such as the royal baby and the U.S. Open golf tournament). It was also less than the increased interest following the removal of privacyenhancing functions in Facebook, Android, and Gmail. While media coverage of PRISM and surveillance was elevated for the 30 weeks following PRISMday, many privacy behaviors faded quickly. Visits to Microsoft’s corporate privacy policy page stayed high, but only certain privacy‐related webpages kept larger audiences—those on Snowden and surveillance—while articles about PRISM topics lost their increased readership. Snowden’s revelations brought few new users to privacy‐enhancing technologies” (Preibusch 2015, s. 55). A., Brumme, R., Cap, C. H., & , D. (2014). Surveillance in Digital Space and Changes in User Behaviour. SOZIALE WELT-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SOZIALWISSENSCHAFTLICHE FORSCHUNG UND PRAXIS, 65(2), 221+. (2010). studiVZ: social networking in the surveillance society. Ethics and , 12(2), 171–185. Preibusch, S. (2015). Privacy behaviors after Snowden. Communications of the ACM, 58(5), 48–55. Artiklar vilka byger på empiriska studier indelade utifrån metod Vilar mot empiriska studier Av de sammanlagt 172 artiklarna som ingår i den systematiska litteraturöversikten vilar 56 stycken på empirisk grund, i meningen att det dras slutsatser i artikeln på basis av en systematisk insamling och analys av data. Det ska dock nämnas att det inte varit helt enkelt att göra denna distinktion. Många av artiklarna som inte bedömts ”vila på empirisk grund” redovisar t ex en specifik teknik tämligen ingående (se t ex Lupton 2015) alt. konsekvenser av en specifik lagstiftning för integritet (se t ex Konstadinides 2011) men har inte bedömts presentera ett resultat som bygger på slutsatser av en analys som genomförts av empirin. Vidare bygger många av de artiklar vilka inte har skrivits utifrån egen empiri på tidigare forskning vilken är empirisk. Av de artiklar som vilar på egen empirisk grund har de lite olika angreppssätt för insamling av data. Följande angreppssätt har urskilts och används för att dela upp artiklarna: survey, intervjuer, case studies, mixed methods, dokumentanalys, Internetloggar, experimentella metoder samt övrigt. , C., , L., & , I. (2014). Investigating Privacy Perception and Behavior on Weibo. JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND END USER COMPUTING, 26(4), 43–56. Best, S. J., & Krueger, B. (2008). Political Conflict and Public Perceptions of Government Surveillance on the Internet: An Experiment of Online Search Terms. , 5(2), 191–212. Budak, J., Anic, I.-D., & , E. (2013). Public attitudes towards privacy and surveillance in . INNOVATION-THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH, 26(1-2, SI), 100–118. Budak, J., , E., & Anic, I.-D. (2015). Privacy Concern in Western Countries: Developing a Typology of Citizens. JOURNAL OF AND NEAR EASTERN STUDIES, 17(1), 29–48. Chaulk, K., & , T. (2011). Online Obsessive Relational Intrusion: Further Concerns About Facebook. , 26(4), 245–254. , J. V., , C. C., & , H.-H. (2008). An empirical evaluation of key factors contributing to internet abuse in the workplace. INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT & DATA SYSTEMS, 108(1-2), 87–106. Cohrs, J. C., Kielmann, S., Maes, J., & Moschner, B. (2005). Effects of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Threat from Terrorism on Restriction of Civil Liberties. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5(1), 263–276. Dinev, T., Bellotto, M., , P., , V., Serra, I., & Colautti, C. (2006). Internet users’ privacy concerns and beliefs about government surveillance: An exploratory study of differences between and the . JOURNAL OF GLOBAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, 14(4), 57–93. Dinev, T., , P., & Mullen, M. (2008). Internet privacy concerns and beliefs about government surveillance - An empirical investigation. INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 17(3), 214–233. Fox, J., & Warber, K. (2014). Sites in Romantic Relationships: Attachment, Uncertainty, and Partner Surveillance on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and , 17(1), 3–7. Helsper, E. J., & Whitty, M. (2010). Netiquette within married couples: Agreement about acceptable online behavior and surveillance between partners. COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 26(5), 916–926. , S., & Gearhart, S. (2010). E-Government and Civic Engagement: How is Citizens’ Use of City Web Sites Related with Civic Involvement and Political Behaviors? JOURNAL OF BROADCASTING & ELECTRONIC MEDIA, 54(3), 443–462. Katos, V. (2012). An integrated model for online transactions: illuminating the black box. , 20(3), 184–206. Krueger, B. (2005). Government surveillance and political participation on the Internet. SOCIAL SCIENCE COMPUTER REVIEW, 23(4), 439–452. (2012). Facebook surveillance of former romantic partners: associations with postbreakup recovery and personal growth. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and , 15(10), 521–6. , O. J., , C., & , F. (2014). Ever-present threats from information technology: the Cyber-Paranoia and Fear Scale. FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 5. Park, M.-S., , J.-K., & Ju, Y. (2015). A Taxonomy of Site Users: Social Surveillance and Self-surveillance Perspective. PSYCHOLOGY & MARKETING, 32(6), 601–610. Park, Y. (2013a). Digital Literacy and Privacy Behavior Online. COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, 40(2), 215–236. Park, Y. (2013b). Offline Status, Online Status: Reproduction of Social Categories in Personal Information Skill and Knowledge. SOCIAL SCIENCE COMPUTER REVIEW, 31(6), 680–702. Park, Y. J., , S. W., & Kwak, N. (2012). Affect, cognition and reward: Predictors of privacy protection online. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 1019–1027. Samaranayake, V., & Gamage, C. (2012). Employee perception towards electronic monitoring at work place and its impact on job satisfaction of software professionals in . TELEMATICS AND INFORMATICS, 29(2), 233–244. , E., & , D. (2013). Comparison of survey findings from and the on surveillance and privacy from 2006 and 2012. Surveillance and Society, 11(1-2), 190–203. , V., & Regan, P. (2014). people online and the social value of privacy. , Communication and Ethics in Society, 12(4), 298–313. (2013). Facebook use during relationship termination: uncertainty reduction and surveillance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and , 16(11), 788– 93. Xu, H., & Dinev, T. (2012). The security-liberty balance: individuals’ attitudes towards internet government surveillance. Electronic Government, an , 9(1), 46. Draper, N. (2012). Group power: Discourses of consumer power and surveillance in group buying websites. Surveillance and Society, 9(4), 394–407. Ebenger, T. (2008). The PATRIOT Act: Implications for Private E-Mail. , 4(4), 47–64. , H., Giacomin, J., & Macredie, R. (2014). A Qualitative Study of Stakeholders’ Perspectives on the Environment. , 30(12), 965–976. Vickery, J. (2015). `I don’t have anything to hide, but horizontal ellipsis `: the challenges and negotiations of social and mobile media privacy for non-dominant youth. INFORMATION COMMUNICATION & SOCIETY, 18(3, SI), 281–294. Case study 4 st E-safety education: people, surveillance and responsibilityBarnard-Wills, D. (2012). E-safety education: people, surveillance and responsibility. CRIMINOLOGY & CRIMINAL , 12(3), 239–255. (2010). studiVZ: social networking in the surveillance society. Ethics and , 12(2), 171–185. , M., & , . (2014). National Identity, Ideological Apparatus, or Panopticon? A Case Study of the Search Engine Jike. Policy & Internet, 6(1), 89–107. Nuti, S. V, Wayda, B., Ranasinghe, I., , , , R. P., , S. I., & Murugiah, K. (2014). The Use of Google Trends in : A . PLOS ONE, 9(10). Mixed method 3 st , V., & Quan-Haase, A. (2015). Romantic breakups on Facebook: new scales for studying post-breakup behaviors, digital distress, and surveillance. INFORMATION COMMUNICATION & SOCIETY, 18(5, SI), 492–508. Park, Y. J., Jang, S. M., & Mo Jang, S. (2014). Understanding privacy knowledge and skill in mobile communication. COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 38, 296–303. Reddick, C. G., Chatfield, A. T., & Jaramillo, P. a. (2015). Public opinion on surveillance programs: A multi-method approach. Government Information Quarterly, 32(2), 129–141. Farinosi, M. (2011). Deconstructing ’s panopticon: The new metaphors of surveillance in the web 2.0 environment. TripleC, 9(1), 62–76. Haikola, S., & , S. (2007). State surveillance on the internet - The Swedish debate and the future role of libraries and . LIBRI, 57(4), 209–218. Arlitt, M., , N., , P., Mahanti, A., & , C. (2011). Characterizing Intelligence Gathering and Control on an . ACM TRANSACTIONS ON INTERNET TECHNOLOGY, 11(1). A., Brumme, R., Cap, C. H., & , D. (2014). Surveillance in Digital Space and Changes in User Behaviour. SOZIALE WELT-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SOZIALWISSENSCHAFTLICHE FORSCHUNG UND PRAXIS, 65(2), 221+. Chatfield, A. T., Reddick, C. G., & Brajawidagda, U. (2015). Government surveillance disclosures, bilateral trust and cross-border security cooperation: Social network analysis of Twitter data. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY, 32(2), 118–128. P., , K. P., Leadbetter, S., , L. A., & Peipins, L. (2005). Cancer Internet search activity on a major search engine, 2001-2003. JOURNAL OF INTERNET RESEARCH, 7(3). D’, A., Agricola, E., , L., Gesualdo, F., Pandolfi, E., Bortolus, R., … Tozzi, A. (2015). Web-Based Surveillance of Public Information Needs for Informing Preconception Interventions. PLOS ONE, 10(4). Gittelman, S., , , , C. G., Okoro, C. A., , E., Dhingra, S. S., & Trimarchi, E. (2015). A New Source of Data for Public Health Surveillance: Facebook Likes. JOURNAL OF INTERNET RESEARCH, 17(4). Gu, H. y, , B., , H., , , , X., , L., … , J. (2014). Importance of Internet Surveillance in Public Health Emergency Control and Prevention: Evidence From a Digital Epidemiologic Study During H7N9 Outbreaks. JOURNAL OF INTERNET RESEARCH, 16(1). , J. F., & , . (2013). Using google searches on the internet to monitor suicidal behavior. , 148(2-3), 411–2. , M., Mitrou, L., Stavrou, V., & Gritzalis, D. (2014). E-Business and Telecommunications. S. Obaidat & J. , Eds. )Communications in Computer and Information Science (Vol. , : Springer . B., Baker, M., Ransford, B., Molina-Markham, A., , Q., Fu, K., & , M. (2012). Security and Privacy Qualities of Devices: An Analysis of FDA Postmarket Surveillance. PLOS ONE, 7(7). (2013). Sharing, caring, and surveilling: an actor-partner interdependence model examination of Facebook relational maintenance strategies. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and , 16(12), 863–9. Preibusch, S. (2015). Privacy behaviors after Snowden. Communications of the ACM, 58(5), 48–55. Velardi, P., Stilo, G., Tozzi, A. E., & Gesualdo, F. (2014). Twitter mining for fine-grained syndromic surveillance. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 61(3), 153–63. S., , T. W., & , M. (2006). Clarifying the effects of Internet monitoring on job attitudes: The mediating role of employee trust. INFORMATION & MANAGEMENT, 43(7), 894–903. S., Schminke, M., , T. W., & Kuenzi, M. (2008). Employee reactions to Internet monitoring: The moderating role of ethical orientation. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, 80(3), 481–498. Oulasvirta, A., , T., Hamari, J., , A., & Karvonen, K. (2014). Transparency of intentions decreases privacy concerns in ubiquitous surveillance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and , 17(10), 633–8. Paschal, J. L., , D. L., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (2009). Effects of electronic mail policies on invasiveness and fairness. JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 24(6), 502–525. Park, Y. (2014). Surveillance, Control, and Limits of User Features in U.S. Policy & Internet, 6(4), 360– 376. S., , T. W., & , M. (2006). Clarifying the effects of Internet monitoring on job attitudes: The mediating role of employee trust. INFORMATION & MANAGEMENT, 43(7), 894–903. S., Schminke, M., , T. W., & Kuenzi, M. (2008). Employee reactions to Internet monitoring: The moderating role of ethical orientation. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, 80(3), 481–498. , C., , L., & , I. (2014). Investigating Privacy Perception and Behavior on Weibo. JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND END USER COMPUTING, 26(4), 43–56. Arlitt, M., , N., , P., Mahanti, A., & , C. (2011). Characterizing Intelligence Gathering and Control on an . ACM TRANSACTIONS ON INTERNET TECHNOLOGY, 11(1). A., Brumme, R., Cap, C. H., & , D. (2014). Surveillance in Digital Space and Changes in User Behaviour. SOZIALE WELT-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SOZIALWISSENSCHAFTLICHE FORSCHUNG UND PRAXIS, 65(2), 221+. Best, S. J., & Krueger, B. (2008). Political Conflict and Public Perceptions of Government Surveillance on the Internet: An Experiment of Online Search Terms. , 5(2), 191–212. Budak, J., Anic, I.-D., & , E. (2013). Public attitudes towards privacy and surveillance in . INNOVATION-THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH, 26(1-2, SI), 100–118. Budak, J., , E., & Anic, I.-D. (2015). Privacy Concern in Western Countries: Developing a Typology of Citizens. JOURNAL OF AND NEAR EASTERN STUDIES, 17(1), 29–48. Chatfield, A. T., Reddick, C. G., & Brajawidagda, U. (2015). Government surveillance disclosures, bilateral trust and cross-border security cooperation: Social network analysis of Twitter data. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY, 32(2), 118–128. Chaulk, K., & , T. (2011). Online Obsessive Relational Intrusion: Further Concerns About Facebook. , 26(4), 245–254. , J. V., , C. C., & , H.-H. (2008). An empirical evaluation of key factors contributing to internet abuse in the workplace. INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT & DATA SYSTEMS, 108(1-2), 87–106. Cohrs, J. C., Kielmann, S., Maes, J., & Moschner, B. (2005). Effects of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Threat from Terrorism on Restriction of Civil Liberties. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5(1), 263–276. P., , K. P., Leadbetter, S., , L. A., & Peipins, L. (2005). Cancer Internet search activity on a major search engine, 2001-2003. JOURNAL OF INTERNET RESEARCH, 7(3). D’, A., Agricola, E., , L., Gesualdo, F., Pandolfi, E., Bortolus, R., … Tozzi, A. (2015). Web-Based Surveillance of Public Information Needs for Informing Preconception Interventions. PLOS ONE, 10(4). Dinev, T., Bellotto, M., , P., , V., Serra, I., & Colautti, C. (2006). Internet users’ privacy concerns and beliefs about government surveillance: An exploratory study of differences between and the . JOURNAL OF GLOBAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, 14(4), 57–93. Dinev, T., , P., & Mullen, M. (2008). Internet privacy concerns and beliefs about government surveillance - An empirical investigation. JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 17(3), 214–233. Draper, N. (2012). Group power: Discourses of consumer power and surveillance in group buying websites. Surveillance and Society, 9(4), 394–407. E-safety education: people, surveillance and responsibilityBarnard-Wills, D. (2012). E-safety education: people, surveillance and responsibility. CRIMINOLOGY & CRIMINAL , 12(3), 239–255. Ebenger, T. (2008). The PATRIOT Act: Implications for Private E-Mail. , 4(4), 47–64. Farinosi, M. (2011). Deconstructing ’s panopticon: The new metaphors of surveillance in the web 2.0 environment. TripleC, 9(1), 62–76. Fox, J., & Warber, K. (2014). Sites in Romantic Relationships: Attachment, Uncertainty, and Partner Surveillance on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and , 17(1), 3–7. (2010). studiVZ: social networking in the surveillance society. Ethics and , 12(2), 171–185. Gittelman, S., , , , C. G., Okoro, C. A., , E., Dhingra, S. S., & Trimarchi, E. (2015). A New Source of Data for Public Health Surveillance: Facebook Likes. JOURNAL OF INTERNET RESEARCH, 17(4). Gu, H. y, , B., , H., , , , X., , L., … , J. (2014). Importance of Internet Surveillance in Public Health Emergency Control and Prevention: Evidence From a Digital Epidemiologic Study During H7N9 Outbreaks. JOURNAL OF INTERNET RESEARCH, 16(1). , J. F., & , . (2013). Using google searches on the internet to monitor suicidal behavior. , 148(2-3), 411–2. Haikola, S., & , S. (2007). State surveillance on the internet - The Swedish debate and the future role of libraries and . LIBRI, 57(4), 209–218. Helsper, E. J., & Whitty, M. (2010). Netiquette within married couples: Agreement about acceptable online behavior and surveillance between partners. COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 26(5), 916–926. , M., & , . (2014). National Identity, Ideological Apparatus, or Panopticon? A Case Study of the Search Engine Jike. Policy & Internet, 6(1), 89–107. , M., Mitrou, L., Stavrou, V., & Gritzalis, D. (2014). E-Business and Telecommunications. S. Obaidat & J. , Eds. )Communications in Computer and Information Science (Vol. , : Springer . , S., & Gearhart, S. (2010). E-Government and Civic Engagement: How is Citizens’ Use of City Web Sites Related with Civic Involvement and Political Behaviors? JOURNAL OF BROADCASTING & ELECTRONIC MEDIA, 54(3), 443–462. Katos, V. (2012). An integrated model for online transactions: illuminating the black box. , 20(3), 184–206. , H., Giacomin, J., & Macredie, R. (2014). A Qualitative Study of Stakeholders’ Perspectives on the Environment. , 30(12), 965–976. B., Baker, M., Ransford, B., Molina-Markham, A., , Q., Fu, K., & , M. (2012). Security and Privacy Qualities of Devices: An Analysis of FDA Postmarket Surveillance. PLOS ONE, 7(7). Krueger, B. (2005). Government surveillance and political participation on the Internet. SOCIAL SCIENCE COMPUTER REVIEW, 23(4), 439–452. , V., & Quan-Haase, A. (2015). Romantic breakups on Facebook: new scales for studying post-breakup behaviors, digital distress, and surveillance. INFORMATION COMMUNICATION & SOCIETY, 18(5, SI), 492–508. (2012). Facebook surveillance of former romantic partners: associations with postbreakup recovery and personal growth. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and , 15(10), 521–6. , O. J., , C., & , F. (2014). Ever-present threats from information technology: the Cyber-Paranoia and Fear Scale. FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 5. (2013). Sharing, caring, and surveilling: an actor-partner interdependence model examination of Facebook relational maintenance strategies. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and , 16(12), 863–9. Nuti, S. V, Wayda, B., Ranasinghe, I., , , , R. P., , S. I., & Murugiah, K. (2014). The Use of Google Trends in : A . PLOS ONE, 9(10). Oulasvirta, A., , T., Hamari, J., , A., & Karvonen, K. (2014). Transparency of intentions decreases privacy concerns in ubiquitous surveillance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and , 17(10), 633–8. Park, M.-S., , J.-K., & Ju, Y. (2015). A Taxonomy of Site Users: Social Surveillance and Self-surveillance Perspective. PSYCHOLOGY & MARKETING, 32(6), 601–610. Park, Y. (2013a). Digital Literacy and Privacy Behavior Online. COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, 40(2), 215–236. Park, Y. (2013b).