CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 122Freedom of Expression and DefamationLaw, Rights, and FreedomsDigitalization, Law, and Regulation

Internet surveillance, regulation, and chilling effects online: a comparative case study

Open access
Penney, Jonathon W.·2017·Internet Policy Review
DOI 10.14763/2017.2.692
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

With internet regulation and censorship on the rise, states increasingly engaging in online surveillance, and state cyber-policing capabilities rapidly evolving globally, concerns about regulatory "chilling effects" online-the idea that laws, regulations, or state surveillance can deter people from exercising their freedoms or engaging in legal activities on the internet have taken on greater urgency and public importance.But just as notions of "chilling effects" are not new, neither is skepticism about their legal, theoretical, and empirical basis; in fact, the concept remains largely un-interrogated with significant gaps in understanding, particularly with respect to chilling effects online.This work helps fill this void with a first-of-its-kind online survey that examines multiple dimensions of chilling effects online by comparing and analyzing responses to hypothetical scenarios involving different kinds of regulatory actions-including an anti-cyberbullying law, public/private sector surveillance, and an online regulatory scheme, based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), enforced through personally received legal threats/notices.The results suggest not only the existence and significance of regulatory chilling effects online across these different scenarios but also evidence a differential impact-with personally received legal notices and government surveillance online consistently having the greatest chilling effect on people's activities online-and certain online activities like speech, search, and personal sharing also impacted differently.The results also offer, for the first time, insights based on demographics and other similar factors about how certain people and groups may be more affected than others, including findings that younger people and women are more likely to be chilled; younger people and women are less likely to take steps to resist regulatory actions and defend themselves; and anti-cyberbullying laws may have a salutary impact on women's willingness to share content online suggesting, contrary to critics, that such laws may lead to more speech and sharing, than less.The findings also offer evidence of secondary chilling effects-where users' online activities are chilled even when not they, but others in their social networks receive legal processes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14763/2017.2.692

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • When virtually every action and decision is subject to external observation, personal autonomy is constrained.

    “When virtually every action and decision is subject to external observation, personal autonomy is constrained (Penney, 2017).”

    From Toward a humanized technology: a reinterpretation of Erich Fromm’ s humanistic peace psychology (2026) · cites this paper as Penney, 2017

    The Introduction describes surveillance as potentially deterring people from exercising freedoms online, and section 4.1 reports that respondents said government surveillance would make them more careful about online speech. Those passages support a constraint on some choices, but the paper does not establish that observation of virtually every action and decision constrains personal autonomy generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. Acquisti, A. (2004). Privacy in electronic commerce and the economics of immediate gratification. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on Electronic commerce.
  2. Acquisti, A., John, L. K., & Loewenstein, G. (2012). The Impact of Relative Standards on the Propensity to Disclose. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 160-174.
  3. Agir, B., Calbimonte, J.-P., & Aberer, K. (2014). Semantic and Sensitivity Aware Location Privacy Protection for the Internet of Things. Paper presented at the Privacy Online: Workshop on Society, Privacy and the Semantic Web Privon 2014.
  4. Allam, A., Schulz, P.J., & Nakatmoto, K. (2014). The Impact of Search Selection and Sorting Criteria on Vaccination Beliefs and Attitudes: Two Experiments Manipulating Google Outputs. Journal of Medical Internet Search, 16(4): e100. http://www.jmir.org/article/viewFile/jmir_v16i4e100/2
  5. Barendt, E., Lustgarten, L., Norrie, K., & Stephenson, H. (1997). Libel and the Media: The Chilling Effect. New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  6. Berendt, B., Günther, O., & Spiekermann, S. (2005). Privacy in e-commerce: stated preferences vs. actual behavior. Communications of the ACM, 48(4), 101-106.
  7. Berg, B. L. (2009). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (7th ed.). Boston; Montreal: Allyn & Bacon.
  8. Bonetto, M., Korshunov, P., Ramponi, G., & Ebrahimi, T. (2015). Privacy in Mini-drone Based Video Surveillance. Paper presented at the Workshop on De-identification for privacy protection in multimedia.
  9. Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
  10. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-quality, Data? Perspectives on psychological science, 6(1), 3-5.
  11. Carter, R. R., DiFeo, A., Bogie, K., Zhang, G.-Q., & Sun, J. (2014). Crowdsourcing Awareness: Exploration of the Ovarian Cancer Knowledge Gap through Amazon Mechanical Turk. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e85508. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085508 · DOI
  12. Cederborg, A., Swlwander, K.R., & Blom, K.A. (2015). Research Expanding Current Understandings of Bullying in Sweden. Pensamiento Psicológico, Vol 14, No 1, 2016, pp. 131- 146.
  13. Chen, D. L., & Yeh, S. (2013). The Construction of Morals. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization.
  14. Citron, D. (2014). Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  15. Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics, 2(4). doi: 10.1177/2053168015622072 · DOI
  16. Consolvo, S., Smith, I. E., Matthews, T., LaMarca, A., Tabert, J., & Powledge, P. (2005). Location Disclosure to Social Relations: why, when, & what people want to share. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems.
  17. Coolican, H. (2014). Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology: Psychology Press.
  18. Coviello, L., Sohn, Y., Kramer, A. D., Marlow, C., Franceschetti, M., Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2014). Detecting emotional contagion in massive social networks. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e90315.
  19. Das, S., & Kramer, A. (2013). Self-censorship on Facebook. Proc. of ICWSM 2013, 120-127.
  20. Deibert, R., Palfrey, J., Rohozinski, R., & Zittrain, J. (2012). Access contested: security, identity, and resistance in Asian cyberspace: MIT Press.
  21. Diaz, F.L. (2016). Trolling & the First Amendment: Protecting Internet Speech in the Era of Cyberbullies and Internet Defamation. Journal of Law, Technology, and Policy.
  22. Dittrich, D., & Kenneally, E. (2012). The Menlo Report: Ethical Principles Guiding Information and Communication Technology Research. In M. Madden & L. Rainie (Eds.), Tech. rep., U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
  23. El Asam, A. & Samara, M. (2016). Cyberbullying and the law: A review of psychological and legal challenges. Computers in Human Behavior. Vol 65, pp. 127-141, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563216305775
  24. Göktas, A. & Isçi, O. (2008). A comparison of the most commonly used measures of association for doubly ordered square contingency tables via simulation. Metodološki zvezki 8(1), 17-37.
  25. Graham, S. & D. Wood. (2003). "Digitising Surveillance: Categorisation, Space, Inequality", Critical Social Policy, 23(2): 227-248
  26. Hamby, T., & Taylor, W. (2016). Survey Satisficing Inflates Reliability and Validity Measures: An Experimental Comparison of College and Amazon Mechanical Turk Samples. Educational and Psychological Measurement. doi: 10.1177/0013164415627349 · DOI
  27. Hazelwood, S.D. & Koon-Magnin, S. (2013). Cyber Stalking and Cyber Harassment Legislation in the United States: A Qualitative Analysis. International Journal of Cyber Criminology. Vol 7, No. 2, http://www.cybercrimejournal.com/hazelwoodkoonmagninijcc2013vol7issue2.pdf
  28. Henry, N. & Powell, A. (2016). Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence: A Literature Review of Empirical Research. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse. Vol 14, No 1., http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1524838016650189 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J.W. (2016). State Cyberbullying Laws A Brief Review of State Cyberbullying Laws and Policies. Cyberbullying Research Center Report, http://cyberbullying.org/Bullying-and-Cyberbullying-Laws.pdf
  30. Horwitz, M. J. (1997). In Memoriam: William J. Brennan, Jr. Harvard Law Review, 111(1), 1- 50. doi:10.2307/1342130 · DOI
  31. Kaminski, M. E., & Witnov, S. (2015). The Conforming Effect: First Amendment Implications of Surveillance, Beyond Chilling Speech. University of Richmond Law Review, 49.
  32. Kenyon, A. T. (2010). Investigating Chilling Effects: News Media and Public Speech in Malaysia, Singapore, and Australia. International Journal of Communication, 4, 440-467.
  33. Levay, K. E., Freese, J., & Druckman, J. N. (2016). The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples. SAGE Open, 6(1). doi: 10.1177/2158244016636433 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Liljas, B., & Blumenschein, K. (2000). On Hypothetical Bias and Calibration in Cost-benefit Studies. Health Policy, 52(1), 53-70.
  35. Lin, J., Amini, S., Hong, J. I., Sadeh, N., Lindqvist, J., & Zhang, J. (2012). Expectation and Purpose: Understanding Users' Mental Models of Mobile App Privacy Through Crowdsourcing. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing.
  36. Lyon, D. (2015). Surveillance After Snowden. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
  37. Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance society: Monitoring everyday life. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  38. Lyon, D. (1994). The electronic eye: The rise of surveillance society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  39. Lyon, D. (1991). "Bentham's Panopticon: From moral architecture to electronic surveillance," Queen's Quarterly, volume 98, number 3, pp. 596-617.
  40. Malheiros, M., Preibusch, S., & Sasse, M. A. (2013). "Fairly truthful": The impact of perceived effort, fairness, relevance, and sensitivity on personal data disclosure. Trust and Trustworthy Computing (pp. 250-266): Springer.
  41. Mamonov, S., & Koufaris, M. (2014). The Impact of Perceived Privacy Breach on Smartphone User Attitudes and Intention to Terminate the Relationship with the Mobile Carrier. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34(1), 60. May 2017 | Volume 6 | Issue 2
  42. Marshall, C. C., & Shipman, F. M. (2013). Experiences Surveying the Crowd: Reflections on Methods, Participation, and Reliability. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference.
  43. Marx, G.T., (2002). "What's New About the 'New Surveillance'? Classifying for Change and Continuity". Surveillance & Society, 1(1), pp. 9-29.
  44. McDonald, A. M., & Cranor, L. F. (2010). Beliefs and Behaviors: Internet Users' Understanding of Behavioral Advertising. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2010 Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy.
  45. Morrison, M., & Brown, T. C. (2009). Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies. Environmental and Resource Economics, 44(3), 307-326.
  46. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running Experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411-419.
  47. Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a Participant Pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184-188. doi: 10.1177/0963721414531598 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Parsons, C. (2015). "Beyond Privacy: Articulating the Broader Harms of Pervasive Mass Surveillance". Media and Communication, 3(3), 1-11.
  49. Renas, S. M., Hartmann, C. J., & Walker, J. L. (1989). An Empirical Analysis of the Chilling Effect. In E. E. Dennis & E. M. Noam (Eds.), The Cost of Libel: Economic and Policy Implications (pp. 41-68 ). New York: Columbia University Press.
  50. Richards, N. M. (2013). The Dangers of Surveillance. Harvard Law Review, 126, 1934-1965.
  51. Ross, J., Irani, L., Silberman, M., Zaldivar, A., & Tomlinson, B. (2010). Who are the crowdworkers?: Shifting Demographics in Mechanical Turk. Paper presented at the CHI'10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
  52. Schauer, F. (1978). Fear, Risk, and the First Amendment: Unraveling the 'Chilling Effect'. Boston University Law Review, 58, 685-732.
  53. Seih, Y.-T., Buhrmester, M. D., Lin, Y.-C., Huang, C.-L., & Swann Jr, W. B. (2013). Do People Want to be Flattered or Understood? The Cross-cultural Universality of Self-Verification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(1), 169-172.
  54. Seltzer, W. (2010). Free Speech Unmoored in Copyright's Safe Harbor: Chilling Effects of the DMCA on the First Amendment. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 24, 171-232.
  55. Shapiro, D. N., Chandler, J., & Mueller, P. A. (2013). Using Mechanical Turk to Study Clinical Populations. Clinical Psychological Science. doi: 10.1177/2167702612469015 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Skinner, Q. (2002). 'A Third Concept of Liberty'. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the British Academy.
  57. Sklansky, D.A. (2014). Too Much Information: How Not to Think About Privacy and The Fourth Amendment. Stanford Law Review, 102(5), 1069-1121.
  58. Solove, D. J. (2007). The First Amendment as Criminal Procedure. New York University Law Review, 82, 112.
  59. Stamatis, D. H. (2003). Six Sigma and Beyond Statistics and Probability, Volume III: New York: St Lucie Press.
  60. Steinhauer, J., Delcambre, L. L., Lykke, M., & Ådland, M. (2013). Do User (Browse and Click) Sessions Relate to Their Questions in a Domain-Specific Collection? In T. Aalberg, C. Papatheodorou, M. Dobreva, G. Tsakonas & C. Farrugia (Eds.), Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries (Vol. 8092, pp. 96-107): Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  61. Stoycheff, E. (2016). Under Surveillance: Examining Facebook's Spiral of Silence Effects in the Wake of NSA Internet Monitoring. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. doi: 10.1177/1077699016630255 · DOI · Paper page
  62. Sung, W. (2016). A Study of Cyberbullying Policies in the Smart Age. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research. Vol. 11, No. 2, 1171-1176, http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer16/ijaerv11n2_73.pdf.
  63. Townend, J. (2014). Online chilling effects in England and Wales. Internet Policy Review, 3(2). DOI: 10.14763/2014.2.252 · DOI
  64. Waclawski, E. (2012). How I Use It: Survey Monkey. Occupational Medicine. Vol. 62, 477, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eugene_Waclawski2/publication/230723255_How_I_u se_it_Survey_Monkey/links/56c32bec08aeeaf199f8bfec.pdf
  65. Wolfson, S. N., & Bartkus, J. R. (2013). An Assessment of Experiments Run on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Mustang Journal of Business and Ethics, volume 5, 119.
  66. Zittrain, J. (2008). The future of the Internet and how to stop it. New Haven Conn.: Yale University Press.
  67. Zureik, E. (2010). (ed.) Surveillance, Privacy and the Globalization of Personal Information. Available at: http://www.mqup.ca/surveillance--privacy--and-the-globalization-of-personal-information-pro ducts-9780773537071.php

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Penney, J. W.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Penney, Jonathon W.
ORCID
Penney, Jonathon W.
Venue
Internet Policy Review
Publisher
Internet Policy Review, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society
Published
2017-05-26
Volume
6
Issue
2
ISSN
2197-6775 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.14763/2017.2.692
OpenAlex
W2744815813
Cited by
122
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1
FWCI
95.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Internet Policy Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion)
  • bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Government of Canada
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Freedom of Expression and Defamation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Law, Rights, and Freedoms
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
internet regulation, online surveillance, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, internet censorship, online speech, online sharing, gender differences, age differences, social networks, resistance to regulation

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