# Influence of Privacy Knowledge on Privacy Attitudes in the Domain of Location-Based Services

Vera Schmitt

► To cite this version:

Vera Schmitt. Influence of Privacy Knowledge on Privacy Attitudes in the Domain of Location-Based Services. 17th IFIP International Summer School on Privacy and Identity Management (Privacy and Identity), Aug 2022, Virtual, Germany. pp.118-132, 10.1007/978-3-031-31971-6_10. hal-05315957

HAL Id: hal-05315957

https://inria.hal.science/hal-05315957v1

Submitted on 15 Oct 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

ifip

International Federation for Information Processing

This document is the original author manuscript of a paper submitted to an IFIP
conference proceedings or other IFIP publication by Springer Nature. As such, there
may be some differences in the official published version of the paper. Such
differences, if any, are usually due to reformatting during preparation for publication or
minor corrections made by the author(s) during final proofreading of the publication
manuscript.
# Influence of Privacy Knowledge on Privacy Attitudes in the Domain of Location-Based Services

Vera Schmitt(✉) ID

Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

vera.schmitt@tu-berlin.de

**Abstract.** In our daily life, we make extensive use of location-based services when searching for a restaurant nearby, searching for an address we want to visit, or searching for the best route to drive. Location information is highly sensitive personal information that users share without the awareness of being continuously tracked by various apps on their smartphones or smart devices. Privacy knowledge and overall privacy literacy facilitate gaining control over sharing personal information and adjusting privacy settings online. This research examines the influence of privacy literacy on privacy attitudes in the domain of location-based services. Hereby, privacy literacy is measured through four dimensions by asking the participants about various aspects of knowledge about institutional practices, technical aspects of data protection, data protection law, privacy policies, and also about possible data protection strategies. The overall privacy literacy score is examined in relation to various privacy attitudes such as tolerance of sharing personal information, perceived intrusion when using location-based services, and their perceived benefits. Overall, 155 participants took part in the questionnaire. A significant difference can be found between the overall privacy literacy score between German participants and those from other countries with German participants having a higher privacy literacy score. Furthermore, privacy literacy positively correlates with trust in the GDPR, and also with privacy concern about the secondary use of location information. Indicating, that the higher the privacy literacy level is, the more concerned participants seem to be.

**Keywords:** Privacy Literacy · Privacy Concern · Location-Based Services · Privacy Attitudes · GDPR

## 1 Introduction

The omnipresence of smartphones and wearables has increased the collection of personal data significantly. Most users carry their smartphones or smartwatches around constantly with location-based services (LBS) activated [7]. Often, users

<footnote>The study has been conducted with the support of the DFG in the scope of the project MO 1038/28-1.</footnote>
struggle to gain control over the sharing and collection of their personal data as privacy settings do not disclose which permissions for applications on smartphones run in the background and access sensitive information such as camera, audio, and location information [15]. To gain control over privacy settings and understand permission requests during the installation process of apps, users need to be knowledgeable about their device settings, and the potential consequences of continuous data sharing and motivated to protect their personal data [7]. Especially in the context of location information, highly sensitive location traces can reveal information e.g. about the work or home location, movement patterns, health condition, and social status, which can be used to create a very precise profile of an individual [5, 24, 25].

Previous findings show that users with higher privacy literacy tend to be more aware of privacy risks but it does not result in improved data protection behaviour [3, 7]. Previous research has shown contradicting findings on the influence of privacy knowledge. It has been empirically shown that mobile protection behaviour is significantly influenced by security and privacy knowledge levels [17], but [8] examined that privacy knowledge is not the main driver of privacy behaviour but rather peer influence. To further shed light on these contradicting findings, this research focuses on a specific data-sharing scenario in the LBS context, to provide further empirical evidence for the examination of the influence of privacy knowledge. Not much research has been done to examine the relation between LBS usage, privacy literacy and privacy attitudes [7, 25] for German participants. Hereby, this research examines the relationship between usage patterns of LBS on privacy literacy, privacy attitudes towards LBS, and trust in the General Data Protection Directive (GDPR) from 155 smartphone users.

This research answers the following research questions:

RQ1: What is the influence of privacy literacy on privacy attitudes?

RQ2: What is the influence of privacy attitudes on LBS usage frequency?

RQ3: Does privacy literacy significantly differ between Germany and other countries?

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Sect. 2 discusses related work while Sect. 3 describes the design of the experiments. In Sect. 4, the results are presented and discussed. Finally, in Sect. 5 a conclusion is drawn from the analysis.

## 2 Related Work

Previous research has explored users' privacy literacy of data collection and their perception of security and privacy threats in various domains and contexts. Most previous research has focused either on online contexts [3,13], mobile technologies [28], digital apps, and social media [9]. Fewer studies have been done in the domain of LBS [7, 12]. LBS provide enhanced functionalities and are convenient to use e.g. for navigating to various locations and tracking relatives and objects. They are also of great importance in the domain of fitness trackers [11].
The control over location sharing in the domain of LBS is difficult to monitor for users, as applications often request location information without the users being aware of it. Often the risks and consequences of location sharing and information which can be abstracted from location traces remain mostly hidden from the user [7].

Users' location can be disclosed through various LBS-based applications such as Facebook Places and Foursquare or it can be tracked by inbuilt smartphone features such as GPS, IP address, or RFID. Irrespective of the means by which the information is generated, when the user shares his or her content, the generated content normally contains information about the geographical location and other information such as device type, date, time, operating system, and related key details which enable precise user profiling [10]. Thus, LBS open up new vulnerabilities and the leakage of location information of users has drawn significant attention from academia and industry, recently [15]. Hereby, users find themselves often in an information-demanding environment and the complexities in technologies can hinder their abilities to make privacy decisions that reflect their privacy concerns [11]. Moreover, different devices have various privacy settings which make the matter of controlling information access and release even more complex [2].

In this context, privacy literacy plays an important role in preventing the leakage of private location data within LBS and in turn enhances the adoption of LBS applications by users [6,7]. A general lack of privacy literacy may result in users keeping the LBS function turned on while performing tasks that may not even require location data [2]. Empirical research has shown disparities between users' online privacy behaviour and privacy attitudes, even though they express concern about sharing personal data online [29]. These discrepancies gave rise to the *knowledge-gap hypothesis* which describes the phenomenon that users are concerned about their privacy and would like to behave in accordance but lack adequate knowledge of how they can protect their personal information [14,18].

However, there are also contradicting findings. According to [17], mobile protection behaviour varies significantly based on different privacy and security knowledge levels. Moreover, [8] examined that privacy knowledge is not the main driver of privacy behaviour but rather peer influence. Furthermore, [14], [16], and [19] found that participants with higher privacy knowledge and literacy can perceive potential threats much better than lay participants. However, it did not affect privacy concern or privacy behaviour significantly. Further distinctions are made by [30] who divide participants into *privacy vulnerable* and *privacy resilient* categories based on the notion that privacy decisions are based on individual perceptions, experiences, and the knowledge about protection strategies. Nonetheless, most previous approaches did not examine privacy literacy, privacy knowledge, and general privacy perception in a specific domain where participants can relate to the personal information to be shared [1], [26].

To further explore the relationship between privacy literacy and attitudes with respect to a specific domain, the following section examines the
methodological framework to study the relationship between privacy knowledge and privacy attitudes toward LBS.

## 3 Methodology

Various approaches have been proposed in previous literature to measure pri- vacy knowledge. Hereby, privacy knowledge has been mainly measured by asking about data collection strategies and the duration of data storage [4]. More recent approaches rely on the concept of privacy literacy which is described as the “prin- ciple to support, encourage, and empower users to undertake informed control of their digital identities” [22]. Deliberate and informed decision-making about online privacy needs to be based on online privacy literacy and, therefore, can be understood as an important basis of privacy-aware decision-making [23].

Based on the concept of privacy literacy [29] have developed a validated Online Privacy Literacy Scale (OPLIS), which is based on an exhaustive analysis of prior literature and profound content analysis. The scale is composed of four dimensions (the full questionnaire can be found in Appendix B):

1. Knowledge about institutional practices; internet users visit multiple web- sites and use different online services in their daily lives. Thus internet users need to know about data-sharing practices and how their personal informa- tion is handled by the different service providers. This dimension focuses on knowledge about common practices of data collection from different service providers.

2. Knowledge about technical aspects of data protection; in the online world, users are often confronted with technical aspects of their privacy, thus, the dimension of technical data protection is an important requirement for effec- tive online data protection and control.

3. Knowledge about data protection law; knowledge about privacy policies is a crucial component of privacy literacy, as the understanding of legal reg- ulation enables users to make informed decisions and control over personal information sharing.

4. Knowledge about data protection strategies: this dimension addresses *active* and *passive* actions of data protection. Whereas the *passive* actions incorpo- rate strategies such as nondisclosure of personal information, *active* actions include knowledge about how to use encryption, anti-spyware and privacy enhancing technologies [29].

The questions concerning the four dimensions can be either answered as right or wrong and the correct answers can be summed up to a privacy literacy score. These five dimensions are used in our survey to measure online privacy literacy and examine the effects on privacy attitudes and LBS usage.

Various privacy attitudes in the domain of LBS have been examined by [4,21, 27] in a previous experiment assessing privacy attitudes towards fitness trackers in the domain of LBS. Hereby, [27] assessed privacy attitudes such as tolerance of location information sharing and appreciation or benefits gained through LBS.
The questionnaire developed by [27] is used for this study as a basis to measure
the following seven privacy attitudes:

1. Tolerance of sharing personal information

2. Appreciation and benefits of LBS

3. Secondary use of personal information

4. Perceived intrusion of LBS

5. Perceived surveillance through LBS

6. Perceived ease of use of LBS

7. Perceived usefulness

Additionally, further questions about trust in the GDPR are asked in order
to assess if higher privacy literacy is associated with higher trust in the GDPR.
Further questions have been asked about the general usage of LBS in various
contexts. Questions about demographic properties finalize the survey.

The survey was conducted via Survey Sparrow<fnref n="1" />. Overall, 155 responses have been received with most of the participants being between 25-44 years old with a bias towards female participants (64%). The majority of participants were German (79%) while the other 21% participants mainly came from the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, India, and Pakistan. The study was conducted on a voluntary basis and the participants did not receive a reimbursement for their participation, thus a balanced sample with an equal number of participants from each country could not be gathered<fnref n="2" />.

4 Results

The main focus of the analysis is examining the influence of privacy literacy on
privacy concern, privacy attitudes, and trust in governmental regulations such
as the GDPR. The comparison of Germany and other countries is carried out,
but with caution due to the biased sample sizes between participants from other
countries and Germany.

For the comparison of privacy literacy, the dimension addressing questions
regarding the GDPR is only taken into account by participants from European
countries. For each correct answer, the participants received a point. For wrong
answers, no points are withdrawn or given, points are only given for correct
answers. When comparing Germany and the other countries, the GDPR-related
questions have been excluded for both groups, such that only 15 questions
remained. A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted and shows significant dif-
ferences between privacy literacy in other countries and Germany (U=2783.5,
p= .0007). The median for privacy literacy in other countries is 12 out of 20
possible points and for Germany, the median is 14 (see Fig. 1). Furthermore,
significant differences can be found when comparing the perceived usefulness of

<footnote n="1">¹ https://surveysparrow.com/.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² The study has been conducted in accordance with the guidelines proposed by the ethics committee of Faculty IV of the Technische Universität Berlin.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Privacy literacy score Germany vs other countries.</figcaption></figure>

LBS between Germany and other countries (U=1561, *p* = 0.045): The perceived usefulness is higher in other countries (median 3.6) than in Germany (median 3.3). Further significant differences can be found for the perceived intrusion (U=2551.5, *p*= .017) where German participants have a significantly higher perception of intrusion (median 4.0) than in other countries (median 3.5).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Perceived surveillance and privacy literacy in Germany.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Perceived surveillance and privacy literacy in other countries.</figcaption></figure>

Additionally, in Fig. 2 and in Fig. 3 it can be observed that privacy literacy is more positively correlated with perceived surveillance in other countries than Germany. This indicates that with higher privacy literacy perceived surveillance increases as well in other countries whereas in Germany, there seems to be no association between privacy literacy and perceived surveillance.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** Tolerance towards data sharing and privacy literacy in Germany.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.** Tolerance towards data sharing and privacy literacy in other countries.</figcaption></figure>

Similarly, this can be seen in Fig. 4 and in Fig. 5 where privacy literacy seems to have no association with the tolerance of data sharing compared to other countries. Further positive correlations can be observed between privacy literacy and trust in the GDPR and privacy concern (see Figs. 6 and 7).

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.** Correlation between privacy literacy and trust in the GDPR.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7.** Correlation between privacy literacy and concern about secondary use of information.</figcaption></figure>

Here, it is visible that higher privacy literacy influences trust in the GDPR but also results in higher privacy concern. In Fig. 8 the strength of the association between privacy literacy and privacy attitudes can be observed. Significant correlations between privacy literacy and privacy attitudes are also summarized in Table 1.
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 8. Correlation plot between privacy literacy and privacy attitudes.</figcaption></figure>

The analysis of the responses shows that there is a significant positive correlation between privacy literacy and trust in the GDPR (Spearman rank correlation: r(153) = .27, p = .0006), indicating if privacy literacy increases also trust in the GDPR increases (see Fig. 6). A further positive correlation can be observed between privacy literacy and concern about the secondary use of personal information (Spearman rank correlation: r(153) = .89, p = .018). Therefore, we can

<table><caption>Table 1. Correlation Analysis of Privacy Attitudes and Demographics (DF = 153)</caption><thead><tr><th>Variable 1</th><th>Variable 2</th><th>Corr.</th><th>Coef</th><th>P-value</th><th>Strength</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Appreciation</td><td>Age</td><td></td><td>-.30</td><td>.001</td><td>Small</td></tr><tr><td>Appreciation</td><td>LBS usage frequency</td><td></td><td>.37</td><td>.001</td><td>Medium</td></tr><tr><td>Concern over secondary use</td><td>Age</td><td></td><td>.23</td><td>.003</td><td>Small</td></tr><tr><td>Ease of use</td><td>Age</td><td></td><td>-.19</td><td>.013</td><td>Small</td></tr><tr><td>Ease of use</td><td>LBS usage frequency</td><td></td><td>.23</td><td>.003</td><td>Small</td></tr><tr><td>Intrusion</td><td>LBS usage frequency</td><td></td><td>-.25</td><td>.002</td><td>Small</td></tr><tr><td>Intrusion</td><td>Age</td><td></td><td>.26</td><td>.001</td><td>Small</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived usefulness of LBS</td><td>LBS usage frequency</td><td></td><td>.23</td><td>.003</td><td>Small</td></tr><tr><td>Surveillance</td><td>LBS usage frequency</td><td></td><td>-.19</td><td>.016</td><td>Small</td></tr><tr><td>Surveillance</td><td>Age</td><td></td><td>.23</td><td>.004</td><td>Small</td></tr><tr><td>Tolerance</td><td>Age</td><td></td><td>.26</td><td>.001</td><td>Small</td></tr></tbody></table>
assume that higher privacy literacy leads to more concern about the secondary use of personal information in the domain of LBS (see Fig. 7).

Furthermore, the Spearman rank correlation shows small and medium correlations with privacy attitudes, age, and LBS usage frequency (see Table 1). The results show that there is a negative correlation between age with three privacy attitudes. With increasing age, the appreciation of LBS decreases, also the ease of use decreases and the feeling of being observed. Positive correlations can be found with LBS usage frequency with an appreciation of the benefits of LBS, ease of use, perceived usefulness, and concern over the secondary use of personal data.

However, the findings of [17] regarding the influence of different knowledge levels on privacy attitudes cannot be confirmed. When dividing the participants into three privacy literacy groups - low, medium, and high - no significant differences can be found when running a Kruskal-Wallis-Test to examine potential differences between privacy literacy levels with the seven privacy attitude dimensions and trust in GDPR.

# 5 Conclusion

In this study, we conducted a survey with 155 participants to examine the influence of privacy literacy on privacy attitudes towards LBS and the usage frequency of LBS. Overall, the analysis showed that there are significant differences between Germany and other countries with respect to privacy literacy and privacy literacy has an effect on certain privacy attitudes. Moreover, we can observe that privacy literacy does not have a considerable influence on privacy attitudes, except trust in the GDPR, and privacy concern of secondary use of personal information. The privacy attitudes showed small and medium correlations, especially with age and LBS usage frequency. Thus the research question can be answered as follows:

RQ1: What is the influence of privacy literacy on privacy attitudes? Privacy literacy can be positively associated with higher trust in the GDPR and the privacy attitude concern over the secondary use of information. However, the influence on the other privacy attitudes is very low and does not show any significant results.

RQ2: What is the influence of privacy attitudes on LBS usage frequency? The perceived usefulness of LBS is positively correlated with the appreciation of LBS and perceived ease of use. Interestingly, the higher the LBS usage frequency the lower participants perceive intrusion and surveillance.

RQ3: Does privacy literacy significantly differ between Germany and other countries? There are significant differences in privacy literacy between Germany and other countries whereas Germany has a significantly higher privacy literacy score. Further significant differences can be found in the perceived usefulness of LBS and perceived intrusion when using LBS between Germany and other countries.
(b) I believe that as a result of my using location-based services, information about me that I consider private is now more readily available to others than I would want.

5. Perceived Surveillance

(a) I am concerned that location-based services allow for monitoring my mobility patterns via smartphones.

6. Perceived Ease of Use

(a) My interaction with the location-based services like finding directions or finding the nearest restaurant is clear and understandable.

(b) Interacting with location-based services does not require a lot of mental effort. location-based services like maps, and finding the nearest restaurant are easy to use.

7. Perceived Usefulness

(a) Using the location-based services, I find places of interest more quickly.

(b) Using the location-based services, I receive personalized offers.

(c) I like the apps that track my location to provide services like roadside assistance.

8. GDPR Perception

(a) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) protects our online privacy and enables us to have greater control over, and ownership of, our personal data.

(b) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires that organizations implement an appropriate level of security to prevent data loss, information leaks, and other unauthorized data processing operations.

(c) We should trust GDPR while doing shopping and conducting all manner of information-baring tasks online.

B: Privacy Literacy Questionnaire

The OPLIS Questionnaire was developed by [29] and contains four dimensions
(the correct answers are marked as bold):

1. Knowledge about institutional practices

(a) The National Security Agency (NSA) accesses only public user data, which are visible for anyone. (True/false/don't know)

(b) Social network site operators (e.g. Facebook) also collect and process information about non-users of the social network site. (True/false/don't know)

(c) User data that are collected by social network site operators (e.g. Facebook) are deleted after five years. (True/false/don't know)

(d) Companies combine users' data traces collected from different websites to create user profiles. (True/false/don't know)

(e) E-mails are commonly passed over several computers before they reach the actual receiver. (True/false/don't know)

2. Knowledge about technical aspects of data protection
(a) What does the term “browsing history” stand for? In the browsing history...

i. ...the URLs of visited websites are stored.

ii. ...cookies from visited websites are stored.

iii. ...potentially infected websites are stored separately.

iv. ...different information about the user are stored, depending on the browser type.

(b) What is a “cookie”?

i. A text file that enables websites to recognize a user when revisiting.

ii. A program to disable data collection from online operators.

iii. A computer virus that can be transferred after connecting to a website.

iv. A browser plugin that ensures safe online surfing.

(c) What does the term “cache” mean?

i. A buffer memory that accelerates surfing on the Internet.

ii. A program that specifically collects information about an Internet user and passes them on to third parties.

iii. A program, that copies data on an external hard drive to protect against data theft.

iv. A browser plugin that encrypts data transfer when surfing online.

(d) What is a “trojan”? A trojan is a computer program, that...

i. ...is disguised as a useful application, but fulfills another function in the background.

ii. ... protects a computer from viruses and other malware.

iii. ... was developed for fun and has no specific function.

iv. ... caused damage as a computer virus in the 90ies but doesn't exist anymore.

(e) What is a “firewall”?

i. A fallback system that will protect the computer from unwanted web attacks.

ii. An outdated protection program against computer viruses.

iii. A browser plugin that ensures safe online surfing.

iv. A new technical development that prevents data loss in case of a short circuit.

3. Knowledge about data protection law

(a) Forwarding anonymous user data for the purpose of market research is legal in the European Union. (True/false/don't know)

(b) The EU-Directive on data protection...

i. ... has to be implemented into national data protection acts by every member state.

ii. ... does not exist yet.

iii. ... functions as a transnational EU-data protection act.

iv. ... solely serves as a non-committal guideline for the data protection acts of the member states.
(c) In Germany the same standard GTC applies to all SNS. Any deviations have to be indicated. (True/false/don't know)

(d) According to German law, users of online applications that collect and process personal data have the right to inspect which information about them is stored. (True/false/don't know)

(e) Informational self-determination is...

i ...a fundamental right of German citizens.

ii ... a philosophical term.

iii ... the central claim of data processors.

iv ...the central task of the German Federal Data Protection Commissioner...

4. Knowledge about data protection strategies

(a) Tracking of one's own internet is made more difficult if one deletes browser information (e.g. cookies, cache, browser history) regularly. (True/false/don't know)

(b) Surfing in the private browsing mode can prevent the reconstruction of your surfing behavior because no browser information is stored. (True/false/don't know)

(c) Using false names or pseudonyms can make it difficult to identify someone on the Internet. (True/false/don't know)

(d) Even though IT-experts can crack difficult passwords, it is more sensible to use a combination of letters, numbers and signs as passwords than words, names, or simple combinations of numbers. (True/false/don't know)

(e) In order to prevent access to personal data, one should use various passwords and user names for different online applications and change them frequently. (True/false/don't know)

References

1. Almuhimedи, H., et al.: Your location has been shared 5,398 times! a field study on mobile app privacy nudging. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 787–796 (2015)

2. Anderson, M.: More Americans using smartphones for getting directions, streaming tv (2016)

3. Barth, S., De Jong, M.D.: The privacy paradox-investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior-a systematic literature review. Telematics Inform. 34(7), 1038–1058 (2017)

4. Barth, S., de Jong, M.D., Junger, M., Hartel, P.H., Roppelt, J.C.: Putting the privacy paradox to the test: online privacy and security behaviors among users with technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources. Telematics Inform. 41, 55–69 (2019)

5. Chekol, A.G., Fufa, M.S.: A survey on next location prediction techniques, applications, and challenges. EURASIP J. Wirel. Commun. Netw. 2022(1), 1–24 (2022).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13638-022-02114-6

6. Crossler, R.E., Bélanger, F.: The mobile privacy-security knowledge gap model: Understanding behaviors. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2017)
7. Crossler, R.E., Bélanger, F.: Why would i use location-protective settings on my smartphone? motivating protective behaviors and the existence of the privacy knowledge-belief gap. Inf. Syst. Res. 30(3), 995-1006 (2019)

8. De Luca, A., Das, S., Ortlieb, M., Ion, I., Laurie, B.: Expert and {Non-Expert} attitudes towards (secure) instant messaging. In: Twelfth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2016), pp. 147-157 (2016)

9. Fiesler, C., et al.: What (or who) is public? privacy settings and social media content sharing. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, pp. 567-580 (2017)

10. Furini, M.: Users behavior in location-aware services: digital natives versus digital immigrants. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 2014 (2014)

11. Gabriele, S., Chiasson, S.: Understanding fitness tracker users' security and privacy knowledge, attitudes and behaviours. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1-12 (2020)

12. Gamarra Acosta, M., et al.: Privacy perception in location-based services for mobile devices in the university community of the north coast of Colombia (2019)

13. Harborth, D., Pape, S.: How privacy concerns, trust and risk beliefs, and privacy literacy influence users' intentions to use privacy-enhancing technologies: The case of tor. ACM SIGMIS Database: DATABASE Adv. Inf. Syst. 51(1), 51-69 (2020)

14. Hoofnagle, C.J., King, J., Li, S., Turow, J.: How different are young adults from older adults when it comes to information privacy attitudes and policies? Available at SSRN 1589864 (2010)

15. Jiang, H., Li, J., Zhao, P., Zeng, F., Xiao, Z., Iyengar, A.: Location privacy-preserving mechanisms in location-based services: a comprehensive survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54(1), 1-36 (2021)

16. Kang, R., Dabbish, L., Fruchter, N., Kiesler, S.: {"My} data just goes {Everywhere:"} user mental models of the internet and implications for privacy and security. In: Eleventh Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2015), pp. 39-52 (2015)

17. Kraus, L., Wechsung, I., Möller, S.: A comparison of privacy and security knowledge and privacy concern as influencing factors for mobile protection behavior. In: Workshop on Privacy Personas and Segmentation, p. 2014 (2014)

18. Lind, F., Boomgaarden, H.G.: What we do and don't know: a meta-analysis of the knowledge gap hypothesis. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 43(3), 210-224 (2019)

19. Mekovec, R., Vrček, N.: Factors that influence internet users' privacy perception. In: Proceedings of the ITI 2011, 33rd International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, pp. 227-232. IEEE (2011)

20. Nissenbaum, H.: Contextual integrity up and down the data food chain. Theoret. Inquir. Law 20(1), 221-256 (2019)

21. Palos-Sanchez, P.R., Hernandez-Mogollon, J.M., Campon-Cerro, A.M.: The behavioral response to location based services: an examination of the influence of social and environmental benefits, and privacy. Sustainability 9(11), 1988 (2017)

22. Park, Y.J.: Digital literacy and privacy behavior online. Commun. Res. 40(2), 215-236 (2013)

23. Park, Y.J., Campbell, S.W., Kwak, N.: Affect, cognition and reward: predictors of privacy protection online. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28(3), 1019-1027 (2012)

24. Pelet, J.É., Taieb, B.: Privacy protection on social networks: a scale for measuring users' attitudes in France and the USA. In: Rocha, Â., Correia, A.M., Adeli, H., Reis, L.P., Costanzo, S. (eds.) WorldCIST 2017. AISC, vol. 570, pp. 763-773. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56538-5_77
25. Poikela, M., Kaiser, F.: It is a topic that confuses me-privacy perceptions in usage of location-based applications. In: European Workshop on Usable Security (EuroUSEC) (2016)

26. Poikela, M.E.: Theoretical background to location privacy. In: Perceived Privacy in Location-Based Mobile System. TSTS, pp. 13–32. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34171-8_2

27. Sanchez, O.R., Torre, I., He, Y., Knijnenburg, B.P.: A recommendation approach for user privacy preferences in the fitness domain. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. 30(3), 513–565 (2020)

28. Skirpan, M.W., Yeh, T., Fiesler, C.: What’s at stake: characterizing risk perceptions of emerging technologies. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–12 (2018)

29. Trepte, S., et al.: Do people know about privacy and data protection strategies? towards the "online privacy literacy scale" (oplis). In: Gutwirth, S., Leenes, R., de Hert, P. (eds.) Reforming European Data Protection Law. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol. 20, pp. 333–365. Springer (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9385-8_14

30. Urban, J.M., Hoofnagle, C.J.: The privacy pragmatic as privacy vulnerable. In: Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2014) Workshop on Privacy Personas and Segmentation (PPS) (2014)