User:Dcha94exi2/sandbox

Article Evaluation of Information Privacy (Week 3)
'1. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'

Yes, everything is relevant. No, nothing significantly distracted me.

'2. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?'

Data protection measures should be expanded on. The ' Protecting privacy in information systems ' section seems to be generally lacking as well. An example of what could be improved here is expanding on the actions that make one susceptible to breaches of information privacy, such as those addressed in the sub-header 'Protecting privacy on the internet'.

3. What else could be improved?

The Safe Harbor program and passenger name record issues section seemed to have been sporadically thrown in without thought to the article's overall structure.

'4. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'

The sentence, "On the internet many users give away a lot of information about themselves" could be improved. For purposes of granting the reader a more comprehensive understanding of the scope breaches of privacy on the internet, the following list "... including web browsing, instant messaging, and others." could be easily added to, given only two examples of such systems were referenced.

5. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Again, the Safe Harbor program and passenger name record issues section seems out of place, particularly given it's length relative to other sections, or viewpoints elsewhere.

'6. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'

All of the links in the citation section seem to function properly and support claims made within.

'7. Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'

Many facts are referenced, and those are done so through appropriate and reliable sources. However not all facts are referenced with citations. As an example, the sub-header ' Financial ' within the header 'Information Types ' contains several sentences that could use citations, such as "If criminals gain access to information such as a person's accounts or credit card numbers, that person could become the victim of fraud or identity theft."

8. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Several topics are brought up, including digital privacy, the view that information should be free (which was included in some earlier version of the article and was recommended by an editor to be omitted, which it was), the concept of 'sacredness', and specific privacy laws within India and China.

'9. How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?'

The article has no grade listed at the top. Yes, the article is a part of three WikiProjects; WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Internet, and WikiProject Mass surveillance.

10. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Information privacy itself hasn't been extensively discussed, although I see it to have standing within our class focus and objective as we have talked about topics like data protection, and its role in fields such as copyright law. Wikipedia, or this article rather, discusses these topics from nearly an entirely unbiased view throughout. This is in juxtaposition to teaching from a source of direct personal experience and objective fact, of which Wikipedia of course attempts to restrain itself only to the latter.

Article Selection Exercise (Week 4)
Prospective Article #1 - Website Visitor Tracking (WikiProject Mass Surveillance, this article is categorized as 'Stub' and of 'High' importance within the specified project)

A) Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Somewhat. The article is lacking an extreme amount of depth. The subject's outlined are Methods, Tools & Companies, Controversies (and sub-header, Justification), and Prevention. While this could be the start to a well thought out and comprehensive article, it's missing several categories/subjects I would include.

B) Is it written neutrally?

What very little is there is in fact written neutrally.

C) Does each claim have a citation?

No.

D) Are the citations reliable?

Yes, the four provided seem to work fine. Prospective Article #2 - Digital Privacy (WikiProject Internet, this article is categorized as 'Stub' and of 'High' importance within the specified project)

A) Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes, the content included is highly relevant to the topic, but it is lacking depth, and there are more subject matters that need to be addressed. I am highly interested in choosing this article as my project as it's highly relevant to our course and is really lacking as of right now. There are no topics outlined to be addressed.

B) Is it written neutrally?

What very little is there is in fact written neutrally.

C) Does each claim have a citation?

No.

D) Are the citations reliable?

Yes, the three provided seem to work fine. Prospective Article #3 - Freedom of Information in the United Kingdom (WikiProject Freedom of Speech, and WikiProject Journalism, this article is categorized as 'Stub' and of 'High' importance within the Freedom of Speech project)

A) Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes, for what little is there. But it does seem redundant. The first portion of the article provides links to previous legislative acts in the UK relating to Freedom of Information, which is then followed by the topic 'History'...

B) Is it written neutrally?

What very little is there is in fact written neutrally.

C) Does each claim have a citation?

No.

D) Are the citations reliable?

 

Yes, the three provided seem to work fine.

 

Original Article (For reference to note progression of article)
Digital privacy is a trending social concern. For example, the TED talk by Eric Berlow and Sean Gourley subsequent to the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures cast a shadow over the privacy of cloud storage and social media. While digital privacy is concerned with the privacy of digital information in general, in many contexts it specifically refers to information concerning personal identity shared over public networks.

Before the Edward Snowden disclosures concerning the extent of the NSA PRISM program were revealed in 2013, the public debate on digital privacy mainly centered on privacy concerns with social networking services, as viewed from within these services.

As the secrecy of the American Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act becomes widely disclosed, digital privacy is increasingly recognized as an issue in the context of mass surveillance.

The use of cryptographic software to evade prosecution and harassment while sending and receiving information over computer networks is associated with crypto-anarchism, a movement intending to protect individuals from mass surveillance by the government.

Draft (Due 11/09)
* NOTE - My draft has not been published to the actual article yet.

Digital Privacy is an encompassing definition of three privacy related categories (as they pertain to digital life); information privacy, communication privacy, and individual privacy. The term is often used in contexts that promote advocacy on behalf of individual and consumer privacy rights in digital spheres, and is typically used in opposition to the business practices of many e-marketers/businesses/companies to collect and use such information/data.

Information privacy, in the context of digital privacy, is the notion that individuals have the freedom, or right, to determine how their digital information, mainly that pertaining to personally identifiable information, is collected and used. In the EU there are various laws that dictate how information may be used, and many of those laws are written to give agency to the preferences of individuals in how their data is used. In other places, like in the United States, privacy law is less developed in this regard, and much of current legislation, or there lack of, allows companies to self-regulate or to construct their own rules in how data is collected and used.

Communication privacy, in the context of digital privacy, is the notion that individuals have the freedom, or right, to communicate information digitally with the expectation that their communication is secure, meaning that the message being communicated will only be accessible to the sender's original intended recipient. However, communications can be intercepted, or delivered to other recipients without the sender's knowledge, in a multitude of ways. Communications can be intercepted directly through various hacking methods. Communications can also be delivered to recipients unbeknownst to the sender because of false assumptions made regarding the platform or medium which was used to send information. An example of this is failure to read a company's privacy policy regarding communications on their platform could lead one to assume their communication is protected when it is in fact not. Additionally, companies frequently have been known to lack transparency in how they use information, this can be both intentional and unintentional. Discussion of communication privacy necessarily requires consideration of technological methods of protecting information/communication in digital mediums, the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of such methods/systems, and the development/advancement of new and current technologies.

Individual privacy, in the context of digital privacy, is the notion that individuals have a right to exist freely on the internet, in that they can choose what types of information they are exposed to, and more importantly that unwanted information should not interrupt them. An example of a digital breach of individual privacy would be an internet user receiving unwanted ads and emails/spam, or a computer virus that forces the user to take actions they otherwise wouldn't. In such cases the individual is not able to exist digitally without interruption.

Information Anonymity -
Onion Routing was originally developed by the U.S. Naval Research Lab and was intended to anonymize web traffic. The system created a path to any       TCP/IP server by creating a pathway of onion routers. Once a pathway has been established, all information that is sent through it is anonymously delivered. When the user has finished utilizing the pathway it was essentially deleted which freed the resources to be used for a new pathway within Onion Routing.

The Onion Routing project developed into what is today known as TOR, a completely open-sourced and free software. Unlike its predecessor, Onion Routing, Tor is able to protect both the anonymity of individuals as well as web providers. This allows people to set up anonymous web servers which in effect provides a censorship-resistant publishing service.

Communication Anonymity -

The previous examples are systems that can allow a user to remain anonymous when accessing the web, and by extension ensure the protection of a large variety of personally identifiable information on the internet. These systems can also potentially protect the contents of communications between two people, but there are other systems that directly function to guarantee a communication remains between only two people, or rather function to guarantee that only the intended recipient can receive the communication.

PGP, which stands for Pretty Good Privacy, has existed in various forms for many years. It functions to protect email messages by encrypting and decrypting them. It originally existed as a command-line-only program, but in recent years it has evolved to have its own full interface and a multitude of email providers offer built-in PGP support. Users can also install PGP-compatible software and manually configure it to encrypt emails on nearly any platform.

SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) and TLS (Transport Layer Security) are measures to secure payments online. While these systems are not immune from breaches or failure, many users benefit greatly from their use as every major browser program has support for it built in.

Hacking -
Phishing is a common method of obtaining someone's private information. This generally consists of an individual, or rather hacker, developing a website that looks similar to other major websites that a target person commonly uses. The target person can be directed to the site through a link in a 'fake' email that is designed to look like it came from the website he/she commonly uses. The user then clicks on the URL, proceeds to sign in, or provide other personal information, and as opposed to the information being submitted to the website that the user thought they were on, it is actually sent directly to the hacker.

Societal Implications -
Digital privacy is a trending social concern. For example, the TED talk by Eric Berlow and Sean Gourley subsequent to the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures cast a shadow over the privacy of cloud storage and social media. While digital privacy is concerned with the privacy of digital information in general, in many contexts it specifically refers to information concerning personal identity shared over public networks.

Before the Edward Snowden disclosures concerning the extent of the NSA PRISM program were revealed in 2013, the public debate on digital privacy mainly centered on privacy concerns with social networking services, as viewed from within these services.

As the secrecy of the American Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act becomes widely disclosed, digital privacy is increasingly recognized as an issue in the context of mass surveillance.

The use of cryptographic software to evade prosecution and harassment while sending and receiving information over computer networks is associated with crypto-anarchism, a movement intending to protect individuals from mass surveillance by the government.

Changes after receiving peer review feedback
Digital Privacy is a collective definition that encompasses three sub-related categories; information privacy, communication privacy, and individual privacy.[1] The term is often used in contexts that promote advocacy on behalf of individual and consumer privacy rights in digital spheres, and is typically used in opposition to the business practices of many e-marketers/businesses/companies to collect and use such information and data.[2]

Contents


 * 1 Privacy Types
 * 1.1 Information Privacy
 * 1.2 Communication Privacy
 * 1.3 Individual Privacy
 * 2 Anonymity
 * 2.1 Information Anonymity
 * 2.2 Communication Anonymity
 * 3 Hacking
 * 3.1 Phishing
 * 4 Societal Implications
 * 5 See also
 * 6 References

Privacy Types
Information Privacy

Main article: Information Privacy

In the context of digital privacy, information privacy is the notion that individuals should have the freedom, or right, to determine how their digital information, mainly that pertaining to personally identifiable information, is collected and used. The EU has various laws that dictate how information may be collected and used by companies. Some of those laws are written to give agency to the preferences of individuals/consumers in how their data is used. In other places, like in the United States, privacy law is argued by some to be less developed in this regard.[3] By example, some legislation, or lack of, allows companies to self-regulate their collection and dissemination practices of consumer information.

Communication Privacy

In the context of digital privacy, communication privacy is the notion that individuals should have the freedom, or right, to communicate information digitally with the expectation that their communications are secure; meaning that messages and communications will only be accessible to the sender's original intended recipient.[4] However, communications can be intercepted, or delivered to other recipients without the sender's knowledge, in a multitude of ways. Communications can be intercepted directly through various hacking methods.[5] Communications can also be delivered to recipients unbeknownst to the sender because of false assumptions made regarding the platform or medium which was used to send information. An example of this is failure to read a company's privacy policy regarding communications on their platform could lead one to assume their communication is protected when it is in fact not.[6] Additionally, companies frequently have been known to lack transparency in how they use information, this can be both intentional and unintentional.[7] Discussion of communication privacy necessarily requires consideration of technological methods of protecting information/communication in digital mediums, the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of such methods/systems, and the development/advancement of new and current technologies.

Individual Privacy

In the context of digital privacy, individual privacy is the notion that individuals have a right to exist freely on the internet, in that they can choose what types of information they are exposed to, and more importantly that unwanted information should not interrupt them.[8] An example of a digital breach of individual privacy would be an internet user receiving unwanted ads and emails/spam, or a computer virus that forces the user to take actions they otherwise wouldn't. In such cases the individual, during that moment, doesn't exist digitally without interruption from unwanted information; thus their individual privacy has been infringed upon.

Anonymity
Information Anonymity

The following examples are systems that allow a user to remain anonymous when accessing the web, and by extension the use of which better ensures the protection of their personally identifiable information.

Onion Routing was originally developed by the U.S. Naval Research Lab and was intended to anonymize web traffic. The system created a path to any TCP/IP server by creating a pathway of onion routers. Once a pathway has been established, all information that is sent through it is anonymously delivered. When the user has finished utilizing the pathway it was essentially deleted which freed the resources to be used for a new pathway within Onion Routing. The Onion Routing project developed into what is today known as TOR, a completely open-sourced and free software. Unlike its predecessor, Onion Routing, Tor is able to protect both the anonymity of individuals as well as web providers.This allows people to set up anonymous web servers which in effect provides a censorship-resistant publishing service.[9]

Communication Anonymity

The previously mentioned information anonymity systems can also potentially protect the contents of communications between two people, but there are other systems that directly function to guarantee a communication remains between only two people; they function to accomplish that only the intended recipient of a communication will receive it.[10]

One of these systems, PGP (which is an acronym for Pretty Good Privacy), has existed in various forms for many years. It functions to protect email messages by encrypting and decrypting them. It originally existed as a command-line-only program, but in recent years it has evolved to have its own full interface and a multitude of email providers offer built-in PGP support. Users can also install PGP-compatible software and manually configure it to encrypt emails on nearly any platform.[11]

SSL (acronym for Secure Sockets Layer) and TLS (acronym for Transport Layer Security) are measures to secure payments online. While these systems are not immune from breaches or failure, many users benefit greatly from their use as every major browser program has support for it built in.[9]

Hacking
Phishing

Main article: Phishing

Phishing is a common method of obtaining someone's private information.[12] This generally consists of an individual (often referred in this context as a hacker), developing a website that looks similar to other major websites that a target person commonly uses. The target person can be directed to the site through a link in a 'fake' email that is designed to look like it came from the website he/she commonly uses. The user then clicks on the URL, proceeds to sign in, or provide other personal information, and as opposed to the information being submitted to the website that the user thought they were on, it is actually sent directly to the hacker.[13]

Societal Implications
Digital privacy is a trending social concern. For example, the TED talk by Eric Berlow and Sean Gourley subsequent to the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures cast a shadow over the privacy of cloud storage and social media.[14] While digital privacy is concerned with the privacy of digital information in general, in many contexts it specifically refers to information concerning personal identity shared over public networks.[15]

Before the Edward Snowden disclosures concerning the extent of the NSA PRISM program were revealed in 2013, the public debate on digital privacy mainly centered on privacy concerns with social networking services, as viewed from within these services.

As the secrecy of the American Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act becomes widely disclosed[16], digital privacy is increasingly recognized as an issue in the context of mass surveillance.

The use of cryptographic software to evade prosecution and harassment while sending and receiving information over computer networks is associated with crypto-anarchism, a movement intending to protect individuals from mass surveillance by the government.

See also


 * Internet privacy
 * Tor (network)

References

''Hung, Humphry; Wong, Y.H. (2009-05-22). "Information transparency and digital privacy protection: are they mutually exclusive in the provision of e‐services?". Journal of Services Marketing. 23 (3): 154–164. doi:10.1108/08876040910955161. ISSN 0887-6045.''

· · TEDx Talks (2016-01-21), Privacy in the Digital Age | Nicholas Martino | TEDxFSCJ, retrieved 2018-11-28

· · ''"Privacy Law in the United States, the EU and Canada: The Allure of the Middle Ground 2 University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal 2005". heinonline.org. Retrieved 2018-11-28.'' horizontal tab character in |title= at position 87 (help)

· · ''Hung, Humphry; Wong, Y.H. (2009-05-22). "Information transparency and digital privacy protection: are they mutually exclusive in the provision of e‐services?". Journal of Services Marketing. 23 (3): 154–164. doi:10.1108/08876040910955161. ISSN 0887-6045.''

· · ''Sushmitha, R. "HACKING METHODS, TECHNIQUES AND THEIR PREVENTION". International Journal of Computer SCience and INformation Technology Research. Vol. 2, Issue 2: 183–189.''

· · ''Kemp, Katharine. "94% of Australians do not read all privacy policies that apply to them – and that's rational behaviour". The Conversation. Retrieved 2018-11-28.''

· · ''Meijer, Ronald; Conradie, Peter; Choenni, Sunil (2014-9). "Reconciling Contradictions of Open Data Regarding Transparency, Privacy, Security and Trust". Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research. 9 (3): 32–44. doi:10.4067/S0718-18762014000300004. ISSN 0718-1876.'' Check date values in: |date= (help)

· · ''Hung, Humphry; Wong, Y.H. (2009-05-22). "Information transparency and digital privacy protection: are they mutually exclusive in the provision of e‐services?". Journal of Services Marketing. 23 (3): 154–164. doi:10.1108/08876040910955161. ISSN 0887-6045.''

· · ''Acquisti, Alessandro; Gritzalis, Stefanos; Lambrinoudakis, Costos; Vimercati, Sabrina di (2007-12-22). Digital Privacy: Theory, Technologies, and Practices. CRC Press. ISBN 9781420052183.''

· · Edman, M. and Yener, B. 2009. On anonymity in an electronic society: A survey of anonymous communication systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 42, 1, Article 5 (December 2009), 35 pages. DOI = 10.1145/1592451.1592456, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1592451.1592456

· · Zimmermann, Philip R. (1999). "Why I Wrote PGP". Essays on PGP. Philip Zimmermann.

· · ''"A survey of phishing attacks: Their types, vectors and technical approaches". Expert Systems with Applications. 106: 1–20. 2018-09-15. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2018.03.050. ISSN 0957-4174.''

· · ''"Taking the Bait: A Systems Analysis of Phishing Attacks". Procedia Manufacturing. 3: 1109–1116. 2015-01-01. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.185. ISSN 2351-9789.''

· · Gourley, Eric Berlow and Sean, Mapping ideas worth spreading, retrieved 2018-11-27

· · ''"Privacy". Electronic Frontier Foundation (in Spanish). Retrieved 2018-11-27.''

·  ''Roberts, Jeff (2013-08-22). "Google and Microsoft's plea on NSA requests moves slowly in secret court". gigaom.com. Retrieved 2018-11-27.''

Peer Review Assignment -
Just posting a copy of my comments for our peer review assignment, which can be found on the talk page of the 'article 1 sandbox' for student user: Dgoydan21 for their work on 'The WELL' article.

Hi, here are my recommended edits for the'Virtual community and social network difference' section of your article for our peer review assignment. Please let me know if you have any questions! By the way, the article seems to be coming along nicely. I'll add some other comments/thoughts on the article as a whole later, but just wanted to focus on this section primarily since it seems to be the portion you are most focused-on/only-editing for this article (since I know you are working on more than 1 article). (I will post the original paragraphs first with my recommended edits below).

Additionally, in general, I think the "Journalists" section and "Topics of discussion" section could be expanded on a bit and improved. For example, neither of those sections has any citations yet. In comparison, the intro "History" section does do a great job of citing/backing up all claims. Dcha94exi2 (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Original: There is often confusion between a virtual community and social network. They are similar in some aspects because they both can be used for personal and professional interests. Think of a social network as an opportunity to connect with people you already know or know of. These are sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc. For professional use, think of platforms like LinkedIn and Yammer. These are intended to give coworkers a chance to communicate in a more relaxed setting. Often times social media guidelines are in place for professional usage so that everyone is aligned on what is suitable online behavior [13]. Using a social network is an extension of your offline social community. It's helpful when these connections move to different parts of the world giving users a chance to still be apart of their friends lives. Each user has their own social network and can be thought of as a spider web structure[14].

Virtual communities are different because users aren't connected through a mutual friend or similar backgrounds. These groups are formed by people who have never met but are drawn to each other because of a common interest or ideology [14]. Virtual communities are known for connecting people who normally wouldn't consider themselves to be in the same group[15]. It's interesting to consider how these groups continue to stay relevant and maintained in the online world. They remain pertinent because users feel a need to contribute to the community and in return feel empowered when receiving new information from other members. Virtual communities have an elaborate nest structure because they overlap in many ways. Yelp, Youtube, Wikipedia, etc., are all considered virtual communities. Companies like Kaiser Permanente launched virtual communities for its members. The community gave members power to take control over their health care decisions and improve their overall experience [15]. Members of a virtual community are able to offer opinions and contribute where they feel needed. Remember the difference between virtual communities and social network is the emergence of the relationship.

My recommended changes/edit: Note - [C] = recommended citation for previous sentence. Virtual communities and social networks are two different categories of online platforms and are often mistaken to be one in the same. Social networks and virtual communities are similar in that both can be utilized for professional and personal interests. Thus the leading difference between virtual communities and social network lies within the emergence of connections/relationships made on the respective platforms. Social networks were originally intended to connect people online who were already connected in the real world. [C]. Social networks like Facebook and Twitter (among others) are primarily designed to allow users to share personal information with one another. Again, this exchange of information, through posting and direct communications, is generally between people or groups of people that are already connected in some way in the real world. For example, users on these sites typically only ‘add friends’ that they already know directly in real life, or have some other connection such as having a mutual connection/friend (for reference: ‘adding a friend’ effectively means to give someone access to your profile and information. When someone accepts a friend request, they too are granting access to their page in turn). [C]. Other social networks like Linkedin and Yammer are similar in the regard that they connect people that are already presumably connected in the real world, or are soon to be connected. However, rather than existing as a medium to share personal information between each other, such platforms are examples of social networks intended to allows users to exchange professional information. [C]. Examples of these professional exchanges of information include co-worker communications, employment recruiting, and other more general professional networking practices.[C] Often times social media guidelines are in place for professional usage so that everyone is aligned on what is suitable online behavior [1]. Using a social network is an extension of your offline social community. It's helpful when these connections move to different parts of the world giving users a chance to still be apart of their friends lives. One of the reasons behind their design and existence is to allow people who are connected to remain connected despite geographical restrictions or separation. Each user has their own social network and can be thought of as a spider web structure[2].

Virtual communities are different from the various types of social networks because users on such platforms aren’t typically previously connected through a real life connection; such as having mutual friends, or arising from two people having similar geographical backgrounds. Virtual communities are formed by people who have never met but are drawn to each other because of a common interest or ideology [2]. Virtual communities are known for connecting people who normally wouldn't consider themselves to be in the same group[3]. They remain pertinent because users feel a need to contribute to the community and in return feel empowered when receiving new information from other members. Virtual communities have an elaborate nest structure because they overlap in many ways. Yelp, Youtube, Wikipedia, etc., are all considered virtual communities. Companies like Kaiser Permanente launched virtual communities for its members. The community gave members power to take control over their health care decisions and improve their overall experience [3]. Members of a virtual community are able to offer opinions and contribute where they feel needed.

 

Compiled Master Source List (Ongoing)
· ''Hung, Humphry; Wong, Y.H. (2009-05-22). "Information transparency and digital privacy protection: are they mutually exclusive in the provision of e‐services?". Journal of Services Marketing. 23 (3): 154–164. doi:10.1108/08876040910955161. ISSN 0887-6045.''

· · TEDx Talks (2016-01-21), Privacy in the Digital Age | Nicholas Martino | TEDxFSCJ, retrieved 2018-11-28

· · ''"Privacy Law in the United States, the EU and Canada: The Allure of the Middle Ground 2 University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal 2005". heinonline.org. Retrieved 2018-11-28.'' horizontal tab character in |title= at position 87 (help)

· · ''Hung, Humphry; Wong, Y.H. (2009-05-22). "Information transparency and digital privacy protection: are they mutually exclusive in the provision of e‐services?". Journal of Services Marketing. 23 (3): 154–164. doi:10.1108/08876040910955161. ISSN 0887-6045.''

· · ''Sushmitha, R. "HACKING METHODS, TECHNIQUES AND THEIR PREVENTION". International Journal of Computer SCience and INformation Technology Research. Vol. 2, Issue 2: 183–189.''

· · ''Kemp, Katharine. "94% of Australians do not read all privacy policies that apply to them – and that's rational behaviour". The Conversation. Retrieved 2018-11-28.''

· · ''Meijer, Ronald; Conradie, Peter; Choenni, Sunil (2014-9). "Reconciling Contradictions of Open Data Regarding Transparency, Privacy, Security and Trust". Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research. 9 (3): 32–44. doi:10.4067/S0718-18762014000300004. ISSN 0718-1876.'' Check date values in: |date= (help)

· · ''Hung, Humphry; Wong, Y.H. (2009-05-22). "Information transparency and digital privacy protection: are they mutually exclusive in the provision of e‐services?". Journal of Services Marketing. 23 (3): 154–164. doi:10.1108/08876040910955161. ISSN 0887-6045.''

· · ''Acquisti, Alessandro; Gritzalis, Stefanos; Lambrinoudakis, Costos; Vimercati, Sabrina di (2007-12-22). Digital Privacy: Theory, Technologies, and Practices. CRC Press. ISBN 9781420052183.''

· · Edman, M. and Yener, B. 2009. On anonymity in an electronic society: A survey of anonymous communication systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 42, 1, Article 5 (December 2009), 35 pages. DOI = 10.1145/1592451.1592456, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1592451.1592456

· · Zimmermann, Philip R. (1999). "Why I Wrote PGP". Essays on PGP. Philip Zimmermann.

· · ''"A survey of phishing attacks: Their types, vectors and technical approaches". Expert Systems with Applications. 106: 1–20. 2018-09-15. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2018.03.050. ISSN 0957-4174.''

· · ''"Taking the Bait: A Systems Analysis of Phishing Attacks". Procedia Manufacturing. 3: 1109–1116. 2015-01-01. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.185. ISSN 2351-9789.''

· · Gourley, Eric Berlow and Sean, Mapping ideas worth spreading, retrieved 2018-11-27

· · ''"Privacy". Electronic Frontier Foundation (in Spanish). Retrieved 2018-11-27.''

·  ''Roberts, Jeff (2013-08-22). "Google and Microsoft's plea on NSA requests moves slowly in secret court". gigaom.com. Retrieved 2018-11-27.''