An Exploration of Privacy Experts' and Non-experts' Privacy Conceptualizations and Practices using the Concept of Habitus
Authors:   , El Mimouni Houda , Forte Andrea 
Published: October 2021

This dissertation examines the differences between the privacy practices of experts and non-experts via two studies. The first is a survey study that aims to construct an inventory of privacy-enhancing technologies used by privacy experts and non-experts and to collect short explanations of their use. The second is a follow-up interview study that investigates expert and non-expert practices more in depth to understand their motivations and perceptions of risk. A total of 123 participants (46 expert and 77 non-experts) participated, of which 17 (nine experts and eight non-experts) were re-engaged in an interview study. The expert and non-expert data were analyzed separately in the same manner. Data from close-ended questions in the survey were analyzed quantitatively to obtain counts of occurrences, whereas answers to open-ended questions from the survey and interview were analyzed qualitatively using thematic analysis. The findings reveal that both experts and non-experts share some technical approaches (technology use) and operational approaches (privacy behaviors) to protect their privacy. However, the way each group conceives of privacy-enhancing technologies and strategies differs according to those they report and their motivations. This dissertation study reveals that privacy experts leverage their technical understanding to inform their use of technologies and strategies that are complex, open-source, and efficient. Additionally, they suffer a difficult user experience (UX) and maintain a primary function of privacy protection. For non-experts, privacy is sought through technologies that leverage privacy as secondary or tertiary functions and are UX friendly. Finally, experts report technologies they avoid, which are owned by corporations, and they link these to abstract categories that suggest they understand the threats underlying their avoidance of specific technologies. Non-experts, on the other hand, seek technologies owned by big and reputable companies and avoid suspicious links and websites. My analysis characterizes shared features of expert privacy as a sociological habitus, where experts and non-experts possess different privacy conceptualizations and practice styles that are particular to each group. Such conceptualizations and practice styles are unconscious predispositions. They are internalized and reinforced as members of the privacy expert group interact with each other. By comparing and contrasting the habitus of the experts and that of the non-experts, I detail findings of the survey, which suggest that experts conceive of privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) whose primary (or advertised) function is to protect or enhance privacy. Non-experts, in contrast, think of privacy enhancement as an add-on function to other tools, such as browsers, chat applications, and websites (Chapter 2). Second, I present the discrepancies between the practices of privacy experts and non-experts. The experts reported using more open-source technologies, and they practice continuous and heavyweight behaviors while avoiding corporate-owned technologies. The strategies of the non-experts, however, are episodic and lightweight, and none of the open-source technologies were sought (Chapter 4). Third, I examined the motivations of both sides. Experts weighed PET options differently, seeking open-source technologies and considering performance. They also focus on their privacy needs. Usability/UX issues are not barriers to privacy technology adoption for the experts, but the non-experts reported those issues were reasons they did not use certain PETs (Chapter 5). Fourth, I compared experts' explanations of how PETs are used, their efficiency, and the non-experts' explanations. Although the non-experts seemed to be uncertain, and their explanations were non-technical, experts' explanations were firmer, more detailed, and technical (Chapter 6). Herein, I discuss my findings in light of the pre-existing literature and interpret them within the habitus theory. I then suggest design, legal, and pedagogical implications.