Usage Patterns of Privacy-Enhancing Technologies

TL;DR

This study investigates how users in the US, UK, and Germany employ various privacy methods and PETs, revealing preferences for simple, integrated tools over advanced PETs, and analyzing perceptions and reasons behind their choices.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive map of PETs usage and perceptions across three countries, including 43 methods and 26 PETs, offering a systematic reference for future user-centric privacy research.

Findings

Non-technology privacy methods are among the most used.

Simple PETs integrated in services are more popular than advanced PETs.

No difference in perceived competency between users of advanced and simple PETs.

Abstract

The steady reports of privacy invasions online paints a picture of the Internet growing into a more dangerous place. This is supported by reports of the potential scale for online harms facilitated by the mass deployment of online technology and the data-intensive web. While Internet users often express concern about privacy, some report taking actions to protect their privacy online. We investigate the methods and technologies that individuals employ to protect their privacy online. We conduct two studies, of N=180 and N=907, to elicit individuals' use of privacy methods online, within the US, the UK and Germany. We find that non-technology methods are among the most used methods in the three countries. We identify distinct groupings of privacy methods usage in a cluster map. The map shows that together with non-technology methods of privacy protection, simple PETs that are integrated in services, form the most used cluster, whereas more advanced PETs form a different, least used cluster. We further investigate user perception and reasoning for mostly using one set of PETs in a third study with N=183 participants. We do not find a difference in perceived competency in protecting privacy online between advanced and simpler PETs users. We compare use perceptions between advanced and simpler PETs and report on user reasoning for not using advanced PETs, as well as support needed for potential use. This paper contributes to privacy research by eliciting use and perception of use across $43$ privacy methods, including $26$ PETs across three countries and provides a map of PETs usage. The cluster map provides a systematic and reliable point of reference for future user-centric investigations across PETs. Overall, this research provides a broad understanding of use and perceptions across a collection of PETs, and can lead to future research for scaling use of PETs.