Privacy, Trust and Social Network Sites of University Students in Malaysia

Latisha Asmaak Shafie Corresponding Author, Academy of Language Studies Universiti Teknologi MARA (Perlis), Malaysia E-mail: ciklatisha@perlis.uitm.edu.my Mahani Mansor Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA (Perlis), Malaysia E-mail: mahanimansor@perlis.uitm.edu.my Nazira Osman Academy of Language Studies Universiti Teknologi MARA (Perlis), Malaysia E-mail: naziraosman@perlis.uitm.edu.my Surina Nayan Academy of Language Studies Universiti Teknologi MARA (Perlis), Malaysia E-mail: surinana@perlis.uitm.edu.my Anis Maesin Academy of Language Studies Universiti Teknologi MARA (Perlis), Malaysia E-mail: anismaesin@perlis.uitm.edu.my Abstract Popular social network sites in Malaysia are Facebook, YouTube, Friendster and MySpace meanwhile Twitter was the 8th most popular social network in Malaysia (Greyreview, 2009). The popularity of 3G phones contributes to easy access of social network sites to social networkers. The popularity of social media networks is due to their conversational tone as knowledge is effectively shared through a process of discussing, storytelling and collaborative editing. University students consider social network sites to support their existing relationships. This study investigated university students participation in social networking sites and their perception of privacy in online social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Friendster etc. Data was collected through survey. A survey was conducted on 164 students to identify social network demographics, privacy concerns of the users and perceptions of trust towards the social network sites providers The study reveals that Facebook and MySpace are two most popular social network sites and the respondents believe that their chosen networking sites provide adequate protection regarding their personal relationships, financial information and religious or political beliefs.

Research Journal of Internatonal Studes - Issue 20 (September, 2011)

154

1. Introduction
Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs, podcasts, multi-media sharing sites, wikis and social network sites involve collaboration, interactivity and involvement of online communities. Web 2.0 technologies affect the knowledge construction environment of university students. In addition, Web 2.0 technologies require university students to handle cognitive and social processes such as identity formation, critical literacy and information overload. Web 2.0 technologies have revolutionized university students communications as students hold brainstorming sessions, manage projects, share best practices and disseminate information without face to face encounters. The popularity of social media networks is due to their conversational tone as knowledge is effectively shared through a process of discussing, storytelling and collaborative editing. University students employ social network sites to support their existing relationships. Boyd & Ellison (2007) define social network sites as web-based services that allow users to construct a public or private profile within a system, a list of users friends and a view of their list of connections and those made by others within that system. These university students negotiate their different roles in social network sites to overcome the cultural barriers to communicate with different personalities. Taken together, the evidence suggests that wired residents have become glocalized, involved in both local and long-distance []. They connect both with neighbors and far-flung friends and relatives. Moreover, the wired nature of the contemporary Internet means that the more people are online, the more they must stay physically rooted to fixed personal computers and Internet connections at home, work, school, or public places. The paradox is that even as they are connecting globally, they are well placed to be aware of what is happening in their immediate surroundings (Wellman et al. 2003). Privacy is the rights of individuals, groups or institutions to disclose in any manners their personal information to others (Westin, 1967). University students privacy is at risk as they put their profiles in various social network sites. Privacy violations are committed by institutions and individuals as they access profiles of university for admission, rejection or investigation. Potential employers screen their potential employees using social network sites in order to evaluate whether the applicants are suitable for their companies based on applicants present lifestyles. Even the universities scrutinize students social network sites profiles in order to assert authority, security, punishment and admission.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Social Network Sites SixDegrees.com was the first social network site to be founded in 1997 and was closed in 2000 due to decreased popularity though the site had features of profiles, friends and messaging. In 1999, LiveJournal incorporated additional features such as guest books and diary pages. In 2001, Linkedln was established. However, social network sites began to be popular with Friendster, MySpace and Facebook. The loss of privacy and trust influence the demise of Friendster. In 2004, Facebook attracted a lot of teenagers as it is able to protect the privacy of its users profiles from uninvited guests. Facebook will reach its 55 million citizens in near future according to Times. Social network users create their profiles by including their pictures, information regarding their locations, genders and other significant details. Users create a list of friends by sending, accepting and rejecting requests to befriend other members. Another way to make friends is to join communities or create groups in the particular network sites. These social network sites provide offer different levels of privacy protections to users. Social network theory studies individual users and the relationship between these users. Nodes are the individual users within the networks, and ties are the relationships between the users. Weak ties refer to casual relationships whereas strong ties refer to close relationships. The relationships between the nodes in social network sites enable us to understand
Research Journal of Internatonal Studes - Issue 20 (September, 2011) 155

individuals choices in their relationships with others. In online social network, there are vaster weaker ties among the nodes. 2.2. Privacy on Social Networking Sites Social network sites connect people with one another and provide personal information which benefit advertisers, potential criminals and site providers. Sites providers such as Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and others are often blamed for their failure to protect users privacy. According to Grimmelmann(2009), a fully-filled out information in Facebook contains 40 pieces of personal information. In November 2007; Facebook launched Facebook Beacon which initially automatically signed users. Facebook Beacon informed users friends on Facebook of their purchase in third party sites. When users complained about their purchases made public; Facebook changed Beacon to be an opt-in system. Later on Facebook launched Instant personalization and Open Graph. In December 2007, Google released Twitteresque Buzz application which revealed the persons its users e-mailed and chatted with most. Due to numerous complaints lodged by its users, Google changed its privacy controls yet made profile details public like a user's name, profile photo, status updates and college or professional networks. Boyd (2010) explains the culture of social network sites has changed from private by default, public through effort to public by default, private through effort. Dwyer et al (2007) note, most offline social transactions leave behind no trace. This lack of a record is a passive enabler of social privacy. Therefore social network providers need to employ explicit policies and data protection mechanisms in order to deliver the same level of social privacy found offline. The Rome Memorandum in 2008 recommends that social network sites to be transparent on information required for basic service. Facebook is readjusting its privacy policy while considering its stake in data mining its users personal preferences and making openness more transparency. In his keynote announcing Open Graph in 2010 Zuckerberg said, "We're building a Web where the default is social." Zuckerburg believes the age of privacy is over. Whenever Facebook changes its privacy controls, automatically users personal information such details as status updates, lists of friends and interests listed on users profile pages are available to maximum exposure to public scrutiny. Zuckerburg believes that people want to control what they want to share. The sentiment is echoed by the LinkedIns founder, when Hoffman (2010) insists that privacy is an issue for older people as younger people value the value of connection and transparency. This suggests that social network sites operators are in the need of keeping business profitable by forcing users to become more public. Gross & Acquisti (2005) in their research of 4000 CMU users of Facebook reveal users apparent openness to provide a lot of personal information in social network sites .The finding indicates users are unconcerned about privacy risks. Personal data is generously provided as privacy preferences are used by a small number of users. Thus, users expose themselves to various physical and cyber risks. Many users either dont care about or dont understand how Facebooks softwarebased privacy settings work. One study by the U.K. Office of Communications found that almost half of social-network-site users left their privacy settings on the default. A study of college students found that between 20 and 30 percent of college students didnt know how Facebooks privacy controls worked, how to change them, or even whether they themselves ever had. Users tend not to change default settings. Gross & Acquisti (2005) attribute that signaling hypothesis which contribute that users perceive that the benefits they receive from disclosing personal information surpass the risks and interface design which encourages acceptance of default and permeable settings. Peer pressure, herding behavior, myopic privacy attributes, perceived sense of protection, trust in the sites operators and other users of the sites are influencing factors of apparent openness in online social network. The Office of Privacy Commissioner of Canada(2009) compare privacy analysis of six popular social network privacy in Canada such as Facebook, Hi5,LinkedIn,LiveJournal,MySpace and Skyrock.
Research Journal of Internatonal Studes - Issue 20 (September, 2011) 156

These sites were examined on ten categories of privacy-specific characteristics on the stated mandate, the financial underpinnings, history and the user demographics. The study indicates in order to improve privacy protection on online social network sites it is necessary to provide necessary tools. Furthermore, it is imperative for users to understand the context of the existence of the information, to choose levels of information sharing and to protect their personal information. Grimmelmann (2009) advises that it is imperative to understand the social dynamic of technology use in order to understand the privacy issues on social network sites. Online privacy policies should be tailored according to online social network sites socially and psychologically. Grimmelmann suggests that users need to understand the existence of online privacy gap between the privacy they expect and the privacy they get so users make lesser mistakes. People participate on social network sites to be connected. This motivates them to ignore privacy risks of social network sites and underestimate these privacy risks. Through social network sites they are able to forge identity, form relationships and participate in the community. Grimmelmann (2009) explains that connectedness is a social currency in online and offline social interactions. Identity is constructed through profiles and the company users keep. Mass adoption is adopted in risk evaluation of privacy risks. It is important to understand social and architecture heuristics .There are six common patterns of privacy violations on social network sites: disclosure, surveillance, instability, disagreement, spillovers, and denigration. People want to use socially compelling technologies, so theyll look for ways to circumvent any obstacles thrown up to stop them. Publicness of online social network sites lead to imagined audience and peer standard create illusion privacy. Youth practices and norms provide a framework for understanding how privacy and publicity are changing between publicity and privacy. Benkler (2006) describes peer production as a mode of information production that is not based on exclusive proprietary claims, not aimed toward sales in a market for either motivation or information, and not organized around property and contract claims to form firms or market exchanges. The description of Facebook culture: users voluntarily sharing information with each other for diverse reasons, both personal and social (Grimmelmann, 2009). This leads to peer-produced privacy violations. The concept of privacy differs from one person to another. Ryanes-Goldie (2010) explains that users are more concerned about social privacy than institutional privacy. This finding is supported by the concern of American teenagers of having their privacy being invaded by those who have power over them such as teachers and parents (boyd, 2008).

3. Research Objectives
The study was carried out to investigate several objectives: i. To identify social network demographics ii. To investigate privacy concerns of social network users

4. Methodology
A survey was conducted to 164 students from two universities age between 18-25 years old. The respondents were asked to answer close-ended questionnaires regarding the students social network experiences in order to identify social network demographics, privacy concerns of the users and perceptions of trust towards the social network sites providers. The survey was conducted in real life and face-to-face. Descriptive quantitative method; percentage, was used in this analysis to analyse the data.

Research Journal of Internatonal Studes - Issue 20 (September, 2011)

157

5. Results and Discussions

5.1. Social Network Demographics
Figure 1: Online social network experiences
Less than a month 1-6 Months 6 Months to a year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3 years + 4.9 14.0 14.6 21.3 11.6 33.5

Table 1 illustrates that all of the respondents are social network sites users. 66.4 percent of the subjects use social network sites for more than a year. The majority of the subjects were on social network sites for more than 3 years. This finding supports that social network sites are popular among university students. The popularity of social network sites among social network users encourages nonusers to become users. Despite the popularity of social network sites among university students, the majority of users which is about 57.3 percent spend no more than five hours per week as shown is Table 2. This is because the university students are expected to fulfill other obligations in their offline identities such as attending lecturers and doing their assignments.
Figure 2: Hours spent on social network sites per week
0-5 hours 6-10 hours 11-20 hours 21-30 hours 31-40 hours 41-50 hours 51 hours + 57.3 20.1 9.1 6.1 3.7 3.0 0.6

Figure 3: Popular Social Network Sites

Facebook Myspace Friendster Bebo LinkedIn HI5 Flixster Orkut 94% 2% 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Table 3 proves that Facebook is the most popular social network among the respondents as 94 percent of these university students use Facebook more than other social network sites. This is followed by Myspace at 1.9 percent and at Friendster is at 1.2 percent. This shows Facebook is popular among university students. Facebooks campus-oriented image helps it to penetrate into online and offline social network of university students.
Figure 4: Reasons of their online social network participation
Connect with people Money Sharing information/files Make new friends Maintain old friends 94% 5% 60% 74% 46%

Research Journal of Internatonal Studes - Issue 20 (September, 2011)

158

Table 4 explains that 94 percent of the respondents use social network sites to be connected with people. They want to be socially relevant. As they are university students, only 5 percent of them use social network sites to make money.60 percent of the students use social network sites to share information and files.74 percent of the respondents use social network sites to make new contact. Only 46 percent use social network sites to maintain old relationships. Thus, social network sites are primarily being used as for social purposes.
Figure 5: Rank of importance
Connect with people Money Sharing information/files Make new friends Maintain old friends 55% 1.6 15% 39 18%

Table 5 reveals that social network sites are used to connect people to maintain social contact as 55 percent of respondents rank being able to connect with people as the major reason they use social network sites. 39 percent of the respondents choose social network sites to make new friends and 18 percent of the respondents use social network sites to maintain old contact. Only 15 percent of the respondents choose social network sites for sharing information and files.2 percent of the respondents choose social network sites to generate money. This finding further supports social network sites are being used for social purposes among university students.
Figure 6: Types of information submitted to social network sites
Email Address Own photographs Other people photographs Political views Hand phone numbers Hometown Status IM Screen name Real name 82% 79% 81% 9% 5% 80% 63% 34% 46%

Table 6 explains the majority of the respondents share their e-mail addresses, own photographs, other people photographs, their hometowns and their relationship status openly. Only 46 percent of respondents use their real names and 34 percent of the respondents include their Instant Messenger Screen name in their online profiles. This is to ensure their privacy is protected. It is interesting to note that the respondents are reluctant in sharing their hand phone numbers and political views. This can be seen as only 5 percent of the respondents include their hand phone numbers and 9 percent of the respondents share their political views in their social network sites profiles. Perhaps they are protecting their offline identities from repercussions of stating certain political views publicly or being contacted by some of their online friends. 5.2. Privacy Concerns
Figure 7: Privacy concerns on information submitted on social network sites
Personal relationships Financial information Gossips among friends Lifestyle related Professional/work related information Religious/political beliefs 64% 47% 59% 71% 55% 47%

Research Journal of Internatonal Studes - Issue 20 (September, 2011)

159

Table 7 indicates that the respondents are concerned about the privacy regarding lifestyle related as 71 percent of the respondents are worried about the privacy about their blogs and photos. Only 64 percent of respondents are concerned about their privacy regarding their personal relationships.59 percent of the respondents are worried about their privacy being jeopardized regarding gossips among friends. It is interesting to note that the respondents are concerned about their privacy regarding their relationships is being compromised.
Figure 8: Safeguarding over information submitted on social network sites
Personal relationships Financial information Gossips among friends Lifestyle related Professional/work related information Religious/political beliefs 73% 65% 60% 69% 57% 54%

Table 8 reveals that 73 percent of respondents admit that they safeguard information regarding their personal relationships. 69 percent of respondents safeguard information regarding lifestyle related meanwhile 65 percent of them admit they take precaution in protecting their financial information as they are aware of internet scams. Meanwhile 60 percent of the respondents take necessary precautions to protect gossips among friends. The respondents also safeguard information regarding work-related and religious beliefs.
Figure 9: Privacy controls of chosen social networking site
Personal relationships Financial information Gossips among friends Lifestyle related Professional/work related information Religious/political beliefs 77% 61% 61% 68% 59% 53%

The university students put a lot of trust in their social network sites operators as many of them believe the providers will be able to protect their private information as illustrated in Table 9.The social network sites providers are believed to protect information regarding personal relationships, lifestyle related and intimate secrets. This might be due to the belief that the users believe that this kind of information is not useful for the providers. The youth are more concerned about their privacy being invaded by their friends than institutions or governments to the extent that they violate other people privacy in order to protect their social privacy (Raynes-Goldie, 2010).
Figure 10: Trust in social network sites providers
I trust it will not use my personal information for any other purpose I feel that the privacy of my personal information is protected 64% 74 %

Table 10 elaborates how the users believe that their chosen social network sites will be able to protect their personal information and will not betray their trust. 64 percent of the users trust the operators will not use their personal details for any purposes and 74 percent of them believe that their privacy is being respected. Thus the users place a lot of trust in social network sites. That is why they accept default settings without changing their privacy settings.
Figure 11: Individual privacy controls
Lock profile Provide some fake or inaccurate information Take no action/accept default privacy settings 45% 27% 28%

Research Journal of Internatonal Studes - Issue 20 (September, 2011)

160

Despite the claim that the youth are no longer concerned about their privacy, Table 11 shows the respondents show the concern for their privacy and the ability to protect their privacy as 45 percent of the respondents lock their profiles so only certain people who are given permission to access their profiles would be able to do so. 27 percent of the respondents resort to provide fake or inaccurate information for example using aliases etc in order to protect their privacy. However, 28 percent of these respondents accept default privacy settings. According to Madden & Smith (2010), 71 percent of respondents from the age of 18 to 29 years old actively change their privacy setting in order to protect their privacy from others. The study also reveals that the youth are more cautious in managing their online reputations and in protecting their online identities than older people.
Figure 12: Mass adoption among online social networkers
Continue using regardless of its privacy policy if it is popular Continue using regardless of its privacy policy if it helps me stay in touch with friends 81% 90%

Table 12 shows 81 percent of university students will remain to be using social network sites even at the stake of their privacy as long as the social network sites are popular among their peers. They want to be socially connected and be up-to-date with their friends.90 percent of these respondents would prefer to continue using the social network sites as it is able to keep in touch with their friends. The respondents value connectedness between online and offline social interactions. The respondents plan their offline social life online. According to Grimmelmann (2009), connectedness is a social currency in online and offline social interactions.

6. Conclusion
The findings of the study suggest that university students are concerned about their privacy. This might be due to the publicity given on privacy concerns about online social network sites. This leads to many online and offline discussions on online privacy concerns regarding social network sites especially by older users. These discussions have raised awareness about privacy concerns among the youth. However the mass adoption of social network sites proves that social network sites are being ubiquitous. Social network sites no longer are a niche phenomenon but it is a mass adoption by teenagers. The mass adoption of social network sites explains different meanings of privacy for university students. The mass adoption among university students and their peers lead them to become privacy pragmatists. Privacy pragmatists are concerned about their privacy however they are willing to trade their privacy for something beneficial. In this case, the university students trade their privacy willingly for their social relevance as being connected in online social network is the ultimate aim for social network sites users (Grimmelmann, 2009). In order to protect their privacy, the university students circumvent social network sites by creating multiple fake accounts, use aliases and delete wall posts and photo tags. In order to protect their privacy, they in turn violate the privacy of others. In addition, they violate the objectives of their social network sites which are to promote transparency and improve communication. Privacy, privacy violations and privacy concerns should be investigated and defined as the definitions change and varies from the younger generation and older generation. Privacy intrusion is a reality as the social network sites are not as secure as university students prefer to believe. University students are encouraged to educate themselves about their online impression management which influences their present position and future employability.

References
[1] Boyd, danah. 2010. Privacy and Publicity in the Context of Big Data. Retrieved on 15 June 2010 from http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/WWW2010.html
161

Research Journal of Internatonal Studes - Issue 20 (September, 2011)

[2]

[3] [4] [5]

[6] [7] [8]

[9] [10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17] [18] [19]

Boyd, danah, and Hargittai, Eszter.2010 Facebook privacy settings: Who cares? First Monday [Online], Volume 15 Number 8 (27 July 2010) .Retrieved 30 Juy 2010 from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3086/2589 Boyd, danah.2008.Taken out of context:American teen sociality in networked publics.Ph.D dissertation, University of California at Barkeley. Benkler, Yochai.2006. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. p. 515. Dwyer C. Hiltz, S.R. & Passerini, K. 2007. Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites:A comparison of Facebook and MySpace, Proceedings of the Thirteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Keystone, Colorado August 09 - 12 2007 Fletcher, D.2010.How Facebook Is Redefining Privacy. Retrieved on 16 July 2010 from http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html GreyReview.2009.Snapshot of social networking in Malaysia.Retrieved on 15 May 2010 from http://www.greyreview.com/2009/07/28/snapshot-of-social-networking-in-malaysia/ Grimmelmann, J.2009.Saving Facebook. Iowa Law Review 94 (2009): 1137-1206.Retrieved 10 May 2010 from http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=james_grimmelmann Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. 2005. Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networks. Paper presented at the ACM Workshop on privacy in the Electronic Society, Alexandria, VA. Inside Facebook.2009. Facebook Crosses 2 Million Users in Belgium, Sweden, Denmark; 1 Million in Egypt, Malaysia. Retrieved on 20 April 2010 from http://www.insidefacebook.com/2009/03/02/facebook-crosses-2-million-users-in-belgiumsweden-denmark-1-million-in-egypt-malaysia/ International Working Group on Data Protection in Telecommunications.2008.Report and Guidance on Privacy in Social Network Services - Rome Memorandum. Retrieved on 7 July 2010 from www.datenschutz-berlin.de/.../461/WP_social_network_services.pdf Madden, M. & Smith, A. Reputation management and social media. Pew Internet & American Life Project, Retrieved on 17 August 2010 from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Reputation-Management.aspx Oblinger, D.G. & Oblinger, J.L (Eds.).2005.Educating the Net Generation .Roberts, R.G.2005.Technology and Learning Expectations of the Net Generation. Chapter 3.Educause.Retrieved 1 July 2010 from www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/ Raynes-Goldie, K. 2010.Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning: Understanding privacy in the age of Facebook. First Monday, volume 15, number 1.Retrieved on 28 July 2010 from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2775/2432 The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada .2009.Social Network Site Privacy: A Comparative Analysis of Six Sites. Retrieved 16 June 2010 from http://www.priv.gc.ca/information/pub/sub_comp_200901_e.pdf Wagner, G.G., Pischner, R., & Haisken-Denew, J. P. 2002. The changing digital divide in Germany. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life(pp.164185). Oxford: Blackwell. Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., & Chen, W. 2003. The social affordances of the internet for networked individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(3). Westin, A. 1967. Privacy and Freedom. Ateneum, New York. Zuckerberg, M.2010. Making controls simple. Retrieved on July 23 2010 at http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=190423927130

Research Journal of Internatonal Studes - Issue 20 (September, 2011)

162