Literature Review
ABSTRACT
Communication privacy management model compacts with the degree of exposure of people's personal information and their confidentiality during communications. It concentrates on people relationship management which separates the public information from confidential information about themselves.
Communication Privacy Management is a practical model that suggests an appreciation of the way people reach judgments and how often to disclose and when to mask confidential data. The argument assumes that privacy together with the disclosure are entangled in a dialectical pull, and therefore, decisions individuals make are on the complementary level of every individual. Through the use of a metaphorical margin, CPM finds both an individual border shielding individual data and a shared borderline round personal information that is public with others. The boundary assists to underline the theory that individual information is precise as something an individual possesses and is hopeful to control.
Difficulties come up when the desired level of management is missing. Because many circumstances demonstrate the problem each one has with the management of confidentiality information; this study expounds the manner that individuals control this data on a daily basis through the means of Communication Privacy Management Theory. As the aforementioned argument proposed, from time to time individuals have numerous selections about enlightening and covering primarily on their confidential information. This model of Communication Privacy Management assists people to understand how persons make choices to the private revelation of information and the roles that different individuals play in the exposure and hiding of that information.
INTRODUCTION
Communication privacy management (CPM)) is a concept which expounds how individuals reach certain decisions daily about whether to disclose or conceal info about themselves. The theory provides information on how people uphold and organize privacy of their restrictions of what they are enthusiastic to reveal. Information on numerous communication associated subjects affects the welfare and charges of data disclosures, this was first brought into being in 1991 by Sandra as indicated by Petronio (2007).
Privacy boundaries have strained separations between public information and personal information about individuals. Communication privacy theory suggests that once individuals reveal personal information, they are contingent on a system of management to regulate the degree of approachability. A person's privacy border rules their own disclosure. As a soon as a revelation is done the concession of privacy practices between the existing parties is obligatory. A disturbing sense of “boundary turbulence” may come up when conflicting prospects for confidentiality management are recognized.
The psychological thought of protecting the limits is essential to understand the five central philosophies of Petronio’s Communication privacy management as indicated by Petronio (2010).These basic ideas are:
Individuals regulate their private data by use of individual privacy rules.
When a person's information is revealed, he or she becomes a co-owner of that info.
Co-owners of personal info need to discuss conjointly friendly privacy rules about disclosing that information to others.
When co-owners of personal info don’t efficiently address and trail jointly held privacy practices, the occurrence of boundary turbulence is likely.
This research scrutinizes the means in which privacy regulations are established, and borders are organized using Communication Privacy Management Theory as an agenda.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Communication privacy management concept deals with how individuals discuss their confidentiality in interest to converted info. This method concentrates on the way individuals in relations cope with boundaries which are distinct from public and private information as stated by Ajzen &Fisbein (1980).
Petronio came up with the following information:
The decision to disclose and maintain one's privacy is not a frank choice but somewhat a repeated complementary act.
Privacy and disclosure of personal information have possible dangers and benefits; the performance of disclosing and keeping individual information has effects on the relations coupled with personalities.
The stability of privacy and disclosure has to be maintained as it is necessary that we control our relations with one another.
Conventions of Communication Privacy Management Theory is based on the assumptions on how people reason and converse personal info as well as expectations about the nature of human beings.
The theory of Communication Privacy Management (CPM) is established to comprehend the process of both secret and private disclosure information. Communication Privacy Management submits that both personal and collective boundaries are built upon data considered as individual info as stated by Hosek and Thompson (2009). Boundaries are known to control and regulate those who are professed to possess the ability over the personal data, those can have admission to that information, and the means through which to guard that data against those that are not privy to that information. Communication Privacy Management has six underlying principles of the theory which are employed during privacy management ad they include personal-public dialectical pressure, idealization of personal data, confidentiality guidelines, the borders between individuals, border harmonization and the turmoil between boundaries.
Personal-Public dialectical pressure, conceptualization of personal information and privacy guidelines ideologies are considered as “supposition maxims,” connected to managing individual information. The three other basics are described as “communication adages,” connects how communication relations are to be regulated and controlled as one decides when and why to conceal or not hide his or personal information.
Understanding of Communication privacy management theory obliges knowledge that information of people is either possessed or owned. The individual and collective borders are made from the data as stated by Acquist & Gross (2006). Acknowledgment of these values is important when cooperating with various “owners” of information. Communication privacy management contends that fruitful communication is more predominant when those included openly recognize the presence of private information and are involved in the determination of instructions and limitations e.g. if family members should be allowed the access to such information.
Communication Privacy Management tries to clarify the procedure that persons use to accomplish the association between hiding and revealing personal information. It is a practical theory considered to explain the very “everyday” problems in mediation between privacy and disclosure. This argument is based on the research of Sandra Petronio.
The argument makes three norms about human characters:
People are decision makers.
Humans are lawmakers and law followers
Humans’ decisions and models are founded on a contemplation of others. Communication privacy management is an interaction theory.
Boundaries
The individual's boundaries protect an individual's private information. The porousness of such limits will be varying, permits sharing of communication in a community and admission to assured types of personal data that is unique to an individual. This distribution happens when the person has put into consideration the viability of the allocation of the info in contradiction of their necessity to defend their interests. This threat evaluation is employed by partners when assessing their connection confines. Private disclosure of data to a spouse may lead to the individual becoming more vulnerable as indicated by Boyd (2007).
When persons decide to disclose personal information to several parties, this results in the co-ownership of such information with the individual. Co-ownership has regulations rights and responsibilities where the source of data and recipients discuss. Such regulations include questions on the data revealable, Time at which info may be unveiled, To what parties is, the info divulged, and what quantity of such information can be released The compromise of such regulations may be complicated, rubrics may be concealed, and have the possibility of a violation.
Boundary turmoil happens when co-owners of personal information do not mutually understand rules, and when a co-owner of data intentionally breaks the rules as indicated by Durham (2008). The results of such situations lead to one party feeling aggrieved on the revelation of such relevant information. This leads to mistrust between individuals.
Flaws and gaps in Communication privacy management previous research
There are some questions whether Communication privacy management philosophy truly is dialectical in nature. Communication privacy management has been argued to take a dualistic method, handling disclosure and confidentiality as self-principled of each other have the ability to exist in togetherness but not in a forceful relationship typical of dialectics. This allegation of thoughtful results from the model's practice of the expressions equilibrium and balance as the Communication privacy management theory. It is said that Communication Privacy Management is not fixated on equilibrium in the psychological sense. "However, Communication privacy management claims for an organization with different individuals that don’t indicate support an optimal balance between confidentiality and disclosure. Alternatively, the philosophy clarifies that there are fluctuating powers within a privacy range and revelation that individuals grip by coming up with rulings about the level of confidentiality and openness of personal information they would like to experience as they are involved in interactions" according to Acquist & Gross (2006). Thus, it is argued from the context that it is sincere to call Communication privacy management theory as being naturally dialectically.
Research method
The method used in this study falls under generic steps recommended by researchers that facilitate Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) techniques as a method of analysis. First, using a qualitative approach, there is the creation of a conceptual model. In the background section, model development is explicated regarding theories and models, whereas it is recapitulated about modeling components of SEM in this section. Measurement of matters for study constructs and variables are created as indicated by De Moor et al. (2003). These constructs and variables should be adopted and adapted contingent on obtainability. When using the identified model on measurement factors, implementation of a client research is designed to collect the responses of the user. The theoretical model is analyzed using a software joined to the received replies of users based on the suitability of information obtained from the model.
The contribution of this research.
This study adds knowledge about communication and privacy management to the society. This study will show that influence to privacy is multi-dimensional and thus, patterns of people in respects to safety management vary during disclosure of their information. Thus, established patterns are significant in that they can be used in various ways. These models provide users with a basis for the educational material of privacy management during interaction and communications. They help designers of user experience to make reference to the standards while designing privacy management for their services. They provide researchers with preliminary findings for further research in management of personal information during communication and information sharing according to Child & Petronio (2011).
This project contributes to the establishment of quantitative models management of personal information systems based on well-recognized theory and identification of research constructs relevant to user’s privacy management as indicated by Durham (2008).
This study develops quantitative models of the causal relationship between criteria of privacy rule development and boundary management operation. Also, the design adapts the theory of planned behavior and Communication privacy management theory in a global setting for meaningful use for the client’s to reduce cases of privacy loss and reduced privacy.
CONCLUSION
Communication privacy management is used to model people on safety management which leak personal and confidential information. This research investigates three research questions that include: identification of quantitative models of users’ personal confidentiality, identification of research constructs and relationships among them. It identifies models based on communication, privacy management theory which is mixed with the theory of Deliberate Performance to compose prediction models hence improving internet security.
Further studies should investigate the precise definition of each criterion of privacy rule development, explore and test a variety of quantitative measures, and combine substantial research constructs in the model and test them simultaneously. Communication Privacy Management is critical to ensuring that information is not traded off to the wrong individuals and privacy practices have to be maintained for the safety and security of data that should be preserved. More accurate prediction models of personal information security during sharing of personal information can be achieved through intensive tests and modifications.
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Petronio, S. (2007). Translational research endeavors and the practices of communication privacy management. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(3), 218-222
Petronio, S. (2010). Communication privacy management theory: What do we know about family privacy regulation? Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(3), 175-196
Durham, W. T. (2008). The rules-based process of revealing/concealing the family planning decisions of voluntarily child-free couples: A communication privacy management perspective. Communication Studies, 59(2), 132-147.
Hosek, A. M., & Thompson, J. (2009). Communication privacy management and college instruction: Exploring the rules and boundaries that frame instructor private disclosures. Communication Education, 58(3), 327-349
De Moor, G. J. E., Claerhout, B., & De Meyer, F. I. L. I. P. (2003). Privacy Enhancing Techniques the Key to Secure Communication and Management of Clinical and Genomic Data. Methods Archive, 42(2), 148-153.
Child, J. T., & Petronio, S. (2011). Unpacking the paradoxes of privacy in CMC relationships: The challenges of blogging and relational communication on the internet. Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships, 21-40.
Gandy Jr, O. H. (1993). The Panoptic Sort: A PoLiteratureical Economy of Personal Information. Critical Studies in Communication and in the Cultural Industries. Westview Press, Inc., 5500 Central Avenue, Boulder, CO 80301-2877 (paperback: ISBN-0-8133-1657-X, $18.95; hardcover: ISBN-0-8133-1656-1, $61.50).
Acquisti, A. and Gross, R. Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. Proc. PET 2006, Springer (2006), 36-56.
boyd, d. Why Youth (heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. In Buckingham, D. (Ed.), The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007, 119-142.
