Leakiness and creepiness in app space: perceptions of privacy and mobile app use
Open accessAbstract
Mobile devices are playing an increasingly intimate role in everyday life. However, users can be surprised when informed of the data collection and distribution activities of apps they install. We report on two studies of smartphone users in western European countries, in which users were confronted with app behaviors and their reactions assessed. Users felt their personal space had been violated in "creepy" ways. Using Altman's notions of personal space and territoriality, and Nissenbaum's theory of contextual integrity, we account for these emotional reactions and suggest that they point to important underlying issues, even when users continue using apps they find creepy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Individuals tend to organize their use of mobile applications according to goal orientation, with users showing a higher susceptibility to accepting privacy and security intrusions when compared to less important applications.
“Furthermore, individuals tend to organize their use of mobile applications according to goal orientation, with users showing a higher susceptibility to accepting privacy and security intrusions (e.g. a banking app) when compared to less important applications (e.g. a gaming app) (Shklovski et al., 2014).”
From The privacy paradox – investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – a systematic literature review (2017) · cites this paper as Shklovski et al., 2014
Users express a desire for transparency and information control but are not able to act according to their needs for privacy.
“Users express a desire for transparency and information control but are not able to act according to their needs for privacy (Shklovski et al., 2014).”
From The privacy paradox – investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – a systematic literature review (2017) · cites this paper as Shklovski et al., 2014
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 45 · Cited by 284
- Authors
- Shklovski, I., Mainwaring, S. D., Skúladóttir, H. H., & Borgthorsson, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Copenhagen (DK)
- Unaffiliated, Portland, OR, USA
- IT University of Copenhagen (DK)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2014-04-26
- Pages
- 2347-2356
- OpenAlex
- W2098482696
- Cited by
- 284
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 59.07
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- pure.itu.dk
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- IT University Of Copenhagen (IT University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › COVID-19 Digital Contact Tracing
- Keywords
- mobile application, personal space, territoriality, creepiness, leakiness, contextual integrity, privacy, emotional responses, data collection, user trust
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
