Outlook

Who is responsible for security and data protection on the Internet?

Depending on what an individual does online and how far the Internet is integrated into this person’s daily life, a number of different positions arise regarding the extent to which users themselves or other organizations (i.e., companies and government agencies) can, want to and should assume responsibility.

The graphic at the bottom of this page shows the intersection of self- and outside responsibility as well as the respective awareness levels of the seven Internet milieus. The level of self-responsibility among users tends to rise with the level of skills and confidence. Conversely, responsibility is increasingly delegated as the level of familiarity with the Internet falls. In a nutshell: People who are unfamiliar with the Internet want protection, and people who are familiar with it want freedom.

This results in a particularly complex challenge: Those people who intensively and extensively use the Internet – and would thus be affected to a greater degree by potential government measures
– are the individuals who tend to want less responsibility to be assumed by governments and companies or take a critical stance toward this and “digitally detach” themselves as a result of their own knowledge – also because they have no understanding of the digital barriers that exist among other societal groups. They view the Internet – in a positive-empathetic way – as an unregulated region of possibilities, the control of which can be done only to a limited extent or is not desired at all.

Allocation of individual and outside responsibility in the target groups

Allocation of individual and outside responsibility in the target groups

The array of views about the division of responsibility clearly shows that the challenges of future measure-planning activities and communications will not primarily involve overcoming the boundary that separates onliners from offliners. Rather, within the context and trust and security, a yawning gap in user’s confidence has developed in the digital society. The critical factor is not (only) who is online, but also how users are online, what they do and do not do when they are online and which conditions must be created to enable trust in Internet activities to arise and barriers to be overcome. In this regard, three fundamental segments can be formulated, and each of the seven attitude types can be assigned to one of them:

Responsibility and trust among Digital Outsiders

In cyberspace, digital outsiders feel as though they are visiting an alien planet. In terms of digital cultural technology, they are novices who possess no or very limited skills. As a result, they feel as though they are hardly in a position to take responsibility when they use the Internet on their own because they have very little ability to assess the consequences of their actions. For this reason, they turn to third parties for help with online security and data protection, preferably the government, which they think should take action and write the necessary regulations. But this segment only has a vague notion about the details regarding such steps because members of this group know too little about the Web’s principles and modes of operation. The level of awareness about online security (see the dotted line on the graphic on page 30) is very low in this group. Digital Outsiders learn about data misuse and Internet crime only by chance in the media and frequently cannot grasp the extent of the problem. Nonetheless, such headlines grab their attention and reinforce their feeling that they are living in an increasingly uncertain and threatening world. In response, Digital Outsiders frequently become even more cautious when they use the Internet (if they use it at all).

This also means that potential protective measures must be as clear and understandable as possible when they are implemented and communicated to ensure that they promote trust and, thus, facilitate access to the medium and do not create higher digital barriers. This can be achieved by providing specific contact persons or testimonials, among other steps. After all, personal feedback is extremely important to this segment.

Responsibility and trust among Digital Immigrants

Unlike Digital Outsiders, Digital Immigrants understand the significant role that the Internet plays in commerce, democracy and globalization. Both Responsibility-driven Individuals and the Post- material Skeptics are very interested in current developments and actively use the media to keep themselves informed. They also pay attention to the issue of online security and data protection. Some of them are even better informed about the topic than Digital Natives are. As a result, their level of awareness is particularly high (see the graphic on page 30). On the one hand, they welcome advances in communication technology and systematically use online products and services for their own purposes. On the other hand, they are quite aware of the negative consequences of the digitalization process. They vigilantly keep abreast of the growing criminal tendencies arising in the unregulated digital world. They are concerned about the trend in which people are increasingly opening up their private lives in social networks – an action that could have unforeseeable consequences for users.

For this reason, they think responsibility for increased online security is primarily a job for the entire society to perform. They also believe that this responsibility should not be delegated to higher-ranking institutions and that it is an issue that should be addressed by all citizens. To form a solid basis for such action, this segment thinks the great need for education and information must be addressed.

Responsibility and trust among Digital Natives

Compared with Digital Immigrants and Digital Outsiders, Digital Natives worry less about the possibility that the security of their data could be threatened as a result of their lack of knowledge. It is primarily their familiarity with the Internet that enables them to use the medium as their playground without constantly thinking about security. Their level of awareness for the topic of security and data protection is low as a result. As beneficiaries of digitalization, Digital Natives primarily see the positive side of the Internet, even though they are well aware of the criminal activities of hackers and loose data-protection regulations – from their point of view. Every other member of this group expressed doubts about the security of online banking and social networks. The willingness of so many to play this game of “data-protection roulette” is not least the result of the fact that they have had no negative experiences thus far. Their immense, if not boundless, trust in the Internet has yet to be shaken. For this reason, they focus in particular on self-responsibility as a last resort. Even though they (particularly the Efficiency-oriented Performers) support systematic measures to a certain degree, their main interest is primarily directed at their own personal security needs. They rarely become a strong voice in the debate about data security and do not consider the perspective of the entire society.

Conclusions

The broad array of attitudes, expectations and the related willingness to act in terms of trust and security on the Internet clearly demonstrates that the solution cannot be found in individual measures.

In a reflection of this, a low level of awareness for the issue of online security and data protection can mean very different things – one group has a low level because its members assume that they already know enough and are so well-versed in the Internet that they do not raise any questions at all. Another group has a low level of awareness because its members believe that they lack the knowledge they need to seriously explore the issue.

As a result, the major socio-political challenge is to develop programs and measures designed to create additional trust and security on the Internet that address the large number of motivations, skills and potential conflicts in the respective Internet milieus and, thus, in the digital environment – be it in terms of content, formats or means of communication.