## 5 Discussions
### Evaluation and Interpretation of Survey Results
#### 5.1.1 Implicit Incidental Data Awareness  
Upon taking a closer look, it becomes evident that in certain cases, a supermajority of people concerned about their privacy with regard to a specific data type are willing to share content that can be used to reveal those specific data types.  
For example, according to the definition, all 27 individuals in subgroup E1P would publish Example 1 as seen in Figure 2. This example includes, among others, extractable data types full name (Q3.2), full address (Q3.4), information on relatives (Q3.8), and absence of security measures (Q3.20). Although, more than two-thirds of subgroup E1P express concern about these same data types as follows: Q3.2 (77.78%), Q3.4 (81.48%), Q3.8 (77.78%), and Q3.20 (66.67%).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(N\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{**N\%**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Abbr. **\(\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}\) & & & & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Q3.n \(\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\) & ** & **2} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**15**} & **19** & **20**} \\ \cline{5-12}  & & & E.1 & X & X & O & X & O & X & O & X & X \\  & & & E.2 & X & X & O & X & X & X & O & X & X \\ \hline
192 & 100.00 & ALL & 74.48 & 87.5 & 80.73 & 77.08 & 83.33 & 67.71 & 76.04 & 71.88 & 73.96 \\
16 & 8.33 & ALP & **81.25** & **81.25** & **81.25** & **81.25** & **81.25** & **86.25** & 75.50 & 50.00 & 50.00 \\
27 & 14.06 & E1P & **77.28** & **81.48** & 77.78 & **77.28** & **77.78** & 62.96 & 77.78 & 59.26 & **66.67** \\
42 & 21.88 & E2P & **73.81** & **85.71** & **85.71** & **83.33** & **85.71** & 64.29 & 78.57 & **69.05** & 73.81 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Q3.2—Full name’; Q3.4—Full address’; Q3.7—Social security number“; Q3.8—Information on relatives”; Q3.9—Phone number”; Q3.12—Parexel number (property ID)”; Q3.15—Car license number”; Q3.19—Security measures”; Q3.20—Absence of security measures”. **ALL—ALL**—ALL survey participants, unfiltered”; ALP—All Likely to Publish example #1 and #2”; E1P—Example #1 likely to Publish”; E2P—Example #2 likely to Publish”.  
\end{table}
Table 9: Shows excerpt of data types from Question 3 (Q3.n) (Table 5). It displays the presence (X) or absence (O) of specific data types in ‘Example 1’ (E.1) and ‘Example 2’ (E.2). The ‘Abbr.’ column lists subgroups using filter identifiers (see Table 4). Cells indicate the percentage of subgroup participants agreeing or strongly agreeing to publish the posting. Cell highlighting denotes extractable data types with a simple majority in yellow and a supermajority in orange.  
Furthermore, more than two-thirds of subgroup E2P, who are likely to publish corresponding posting as shown in Figure 3, are concerned about the following data types Q3.2 (73.81%), Q3.4 (85.71%), Q3.8 (83.33%), Q3.9 (85.71%), Q3.19 (69.05%), and Q3.20 (73.81%).  
Data type parcel number (Q3.12) was included, but it did only reach a single majority of 62.96% (E1P) and 64.29% (E2P), respectively. The discussed details are visible in Table 9, which is an excerpt of Table 5.  
In summary, the participants of E1P and E2P are concerned about data types Q3.2, Q3.4, Q3.8, and Q3.20, but are also very likely to share a post containing those data types. This allows us to draw an implicit conclusion that these individuals are unaware of incidental data contained in certain postings. Together these results provide important insights into the awareness of sharing privacy concerning incidental data.