GESIS - DBK - ZA6296
 

ZA6296: The Privacy and Security Mirrors (PRISMS) - Towards a European Framework For Integrated Decision Making

Downloads and Data Access


On this page you find the complete metadata and an overview of all available data sets and documents for the requested study. The download of all files is possible from our central search page under the following link:
ZA6296 Downloads and Data Access

List of Files

List of Files
 

Datasets

  • ZA6296_v1-0-0.dta (Dataset Stata) 8 MBytes
  • ZA6296_v1-0-0.sav (Dataset SPSS) 9 MBytes

Questionnaires

  • ZA6296_q.pdf (Questionnaire) 231 KBytes

Other Documents

  • ZA6296_r.pdf (Report) 6 MBytes
Availability Availability A - Data and documents are released for academic research and teaching.
Download of Data and Documents Download of Data and Documents All downloads from this catalogue are free of charge. Data-sets available under access categories B and C must be ordered via the shopping cart with a few exceptions. Charges apply! Please respect our Terms of use.


Bibliographic Citation

Citation Citation Friedewald, Michael; Skinner, Gideon; Lieshout, Marc van; Wright, David; Gutwirth, Serge; Ploeg, Irma van der; Raab, Charles; Szekely, Iván (2016): The Privacy and Security Mirrors (PRISMS) - Towards a European Framework For Integrated Decision Making. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA6296 Data file Version 1.0.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12559
Study No.ZA6296
TitleThe Privacy and Security Mirrors (PRISMS) - Towards a European Framework For Integrated Decision Making
Current Version1.0.0, 2016-7-1, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12559
Date of Collection02.2014 - 06.2014
Principal Investigator/ Authoring Entity, Institution
  • Friedewald, Michael - Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung (ISI), Karlsruhe
  • Skinner, Gideon - Ipsos MORI, London, United Kingdom
  • Lieshout, Marc van - Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), The Hague, The Netherlands
  • Wright, David - Trilateral Research, London, United Kingdom
  • Gutwirth, Serge - Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Belgium
  • Ploeg, Irma van der - Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  • Raab, Charles - University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  • Szekely, Iván - Eötvös Károly Policy Institute, Budapest, Hungary

Content

AbstractLife satisfaction and trust. Opinion towards different privacy and security scenarios. Perceptions of privacy and security issues. Privacy and data protection specifies. Values questions. Topics: A: life satisfaction; trust in people; trust in institutions (country´s parliament and government, the legal system, the police, the press and broadcasting media, politicians, businesses); frequency of media use (television, radio, printed newspaper, internet, social networks). B: Opinion towards different privacy and security scenarios (each respondent to be asked a random selection of four of these scenarios) 1. NSA surveillance: governments should vs. should not monitor the communications of people living in other countries; impact of the foreign government´s practices on people´s rights and freedoms (helps to protect people´s rights and freedoms, threatens people´s rights and freedoms, or has no impact); attitude towards this scenario practices of monitoring the communications of people (these practices make me feel vulnerable, make the world a better place, trust in governments that monitor internet and digital communications, even if they are from another country, charity´s officials have no need to worry about their members´ personal information). 2. Biometric logical access control systems: the school should vs. should not be asking people who enter or leave the school to use their fingerprints to identify themselves; impact of the school´s practices on people´s rights and freedoms (helps to protect, threatens, or has no impact); attitude towards this scenario (it would be better to control access to the school by having staff members who know children and parents at the school gate, parents should be consulted about decisions like this, trust the school to store children´s fingerprints safely); reasons for the opinion that it would be better to control access to school by using staff members (it would be more likely to stop wrong people getting into the school, cheaper, doesn´t collect as much information about people, more respectful of people´s rights, don´t like the idea of giving fingerprints generally and of children giving their fingerprints, the technology would not work, another reason). 3. Smart grids / meters: energy companies should vs. should not use data from smart meters to get a more detailed picture of how their customers use energy; impact of the electricity companies´ practices on people´s rights and freedoms (helps to protect, threatens, or has no impact); attitude towards this scenario (the power company should only use the information they collect to bill households and not for any other purpose, the power company should be able to use data collected to market new products to consumers based on the energy they use, energy companies should give information to public authorities to detect fraud or criminal behavior, would support any device that helps ensure the own country does not run out of energy, a smart meter would help to reduce how much energy is used, no trust in the power company to keep this data secure). 4. Internet monitoring: security agencies should vs. should not be watching special kinds of internet use concerning terrorist propaganda; impact of the security agencies´ practices on people´s rights and freedoms (helps to protect, threatens, or has no impact); view about how the parents should react if they find out that their son visits websites that contain terrorist propaganda (the parents should worry, the parents might be right to worry depending on their family background, parents should not worry, because security agencies can tell the difference between innocent users and those they need to watch). 5. ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) cameras: local authorities should be able to use ANPR systems which identify and track all vehicles and calculate their average speed in suburban streets; impact of the local authorities´ practices on people´s rights and freedoms (helps to protect, threatens, or has no impact); better or worse alternatives to ANPR cameras (designing the streets in a way that makes it difficult to drive too fast (e.g. by installing speed bumps), increasing police presence, installing speed control cameras, which identify speeding vehicles but do not track them, making it easier for commuters to use alternatives, for example by improving public transport or introducing incentives for cyclists); reason for this better alternative (more effective at reducing speeding, cheaper, it collects less information about people, more respectful of people´s rights and freedoms, it only affects people who are speeding, another reason). 6. ISP data (only respondents who use the internet ever): companies offering services on the internet should vs. should not be able to sell information about the respondent and about people; impact of selling ISP data by companies offering services on the internet on people´s rights and freedoms (helps to protect, threatens, or has no impact); attitude towards this scenario (like receiving tailored adverts and offers based on the previous online behavior, consent should be required before information about the personal online behavior is disclosed to other companies, should be able to do what I want on the internet without companies monitoring the online behavior, worried that companies are regularly watching what I do). 7. DNA databases: the police should vs. should not be able to access people´s DNA samples generally for use in criminal investigations; impact of this police access to people´s DNA samples on people´s rights and freedoms (helps to protect, threatens, or has no impact); view about when police should have access to people’s DNA samples (police should never have access to this data, should only have access to this data if they have permission from a judge, should only have access to this data about people suspected of a very serious crime or about people suspected of any crime, but not about anyone else, should be able to access this data about everyone). 8. Crowd surveillance: the police should vs. should not monitor demonstrations and football matches through uniformed police and plain-clothes police, CCTV, by using helicopters and drones, tapping phones, and by trying to find people on social media; impact of these practices on people´s rights and freedoms (helps to protect, threatens, or has no impact); attitude towards this scenario (the police should only rely on uniformed policemen on the sot to control the situation, people participating in demonstrations / football matches should expect to be monitored by the police in a number of different ways, people should not be monitored at all before any trouble has happened, it is unnecessary to monitor everyone just because there are a few trouble makers); reason for the agreement, that the police should only rely on uniformed policemen (it would be more effective at controlling the crowd or stopping troublemakers, cheaper, collects less information about people, more respectful of people´s rights and freedoms, another reason). C: Security Split A: frequency of worries in the last year about different problems in the country (poor people not being able to access healthcare services, youth unemployment, corporate tax evasion, women not being treated equally to men, terrorist attacks everywhere in the country, young people using alcohol and drugs excessively, extreme weather conditions, viruses damaging the national internet infrastructure); split B: frequency of worries in the last year about each of the following (getting a serious sickness, losing own job, being a victim of a theft in the neighborhood, being discriminated against, being a victim of a bomb attack in the own country / own city, immigrant families moving to the neighborhood, being a victim of a natural disaster, someone hacking into the computer). D: Privacy Importance of being able: to know who has information about the respondent, to control who has access to own medical files, to use the Internet anonymously, to make telephone calls without being monitored, to keep who the respondent vote for in elections private, to keep own religious beliefs private, to attend a demonstration and meet with people without being monitored. E: Privacy and data protection specifies Extent of having a say in what happens to own personal information; knowledge about the legal right to know who is holding data about oneself, to know exactly which data they hold about oneself, to correct any inaccurate data they might have, to seek help from authorities to exercise these rights; individual activities to protect own personal information (e.g. refused to give information because it was not needed, asked a company to remove own name from any lists they use for marketing purposes, etc.); individual privacy experience: ever felt uncomfortable in different situations because of the feeling that own privacy was invaded (online, a picture was posted online without own knowledge, stopped for a security check at an airport, stopped by the police (e.g. for speeding or drinking), visited a bank for personal business, shopping at a supermarket, visited a public place (e.g. a square, a governmental building, a football stadium); government and industry privacy practices: positive or negative impact of specific uses of technologies on people´s privacy (split 1) / security (split 2) (use of camera surveillance (for example road safety of street crime), use of biometric technologies such as fingerprint scanning (for example for proving identity), use of devices that collect information about people´s behavior (for example, smart meters, CCTV cameras in public transport), use of techniques to monitor Internet traffic (for example, monitoring visits to different websites), use of body scanners (for example, at airports). F: Values Left-right-self placement; religiousness; importance of protecting personal privacy, of taking action against important security risks (e.g. international terrorism, organized crime), of defending civil liberties and human rights; the benefits of science and technology are greater than any harmful effects; not clever enough to understand science and technology, can decide what will happen in my life; people like me don´t have much of a chance in life; generally comfortable with taking risks. Demography: gender; age (categories); employment status or main activity; type of area where the respondent lives; highest level of education; being part of different minorities (an ethnic, an immigrant, a religious, a sexual minority a minority in terms of disability, none, any other minority group; frequency of meetings with friends, relatives or work colleagues. Additionally coded was: respondent-ID; weighting factors.
Categories Categories
  • Political Issues
  • Legal system, Legislation, Law
  • Society, Culture
Topics Topics
  • 5.5 Religion and values
  • 6 Law, crime and legal systems
  • 11.1 Domestic political issues

Methodology

Geographic Coverage
  • Austria (AT)
  • Belgium (BE)
  • Bulgaria (BG)
  • Cyprus (CY)
  • Czech Republic (CZ)
  • Denmark (DK)
  • Estonia (EE)
  • Finland (FI)
  • France (FR)
  • Germany (DE)
  • Greece (GR)
  • Hungary (HU)
  • Ireland (IE)
  • Italy (IT)
  • Latvia (LV)
  • Lithuania (LT)
  • Luxembourg (LU)
  • Malta (MT)
  • Netherlands (NL)
  • Poland (PL)
  • Portugal (PT)
  • Romania (RO)
  • Slovakia (SK)
  • Slovenia (SI)
  • Spain (ES)
  • Sweden (SE)
  • United Kingdom (GB)
UniversePeople aged 16 years and above
Sampling Procedure Sampling Procedure
Mixed probability and non-probability Sample
Mode of Collection Mode of Collection
Telephone interview: CATI (Computer Assisted Telephon Interview)
Data CollectorIpsos
Date of Collection
  • 02.2014 - 06.2014

Errata & Versions

VersionDate, Name, DOI
1.0.0 (current version)2016-7-1 first archive edition https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12559
Errata in current version
none
Version changes

Further Remarks

Links
Number of Units: 27195
Number of Variables: 249
Analysis System(s): SPSS, Stata

Publications

Publications
  • van Lieshout, Marc; Friedewald, Michael; Wright, David; Gutwirth, Serge: Reconcilling privacy and security. In: Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 26 (2013), 1-2, p.
Relevant full texts
from SSOAR (automatically assigned)