Article Preview
TopPrivacy is a complex construct and one that remains beset by conceptual and operational confusion. It is an ambiguous concept in the sense that it is difficult to either define or understand. For example, for every definition of privacy sourced from the literature, a counter example can be easily produced (Introna, 1996). Thus, Solove (2006, p. 477) asserts that privacy as a concept is in disarray and nobody can articulate what it means. This conceptual confusion has been exacerbated by the multiplicity of perspectives that have been applied to examinations of the construct, resulting in a highly fragmented set of concepts, definitions and relationships. For example, privacy is often examined as a psychological state, a form of power, an inherent right or an aspect of freedom (Parker, 1974; Acquisti, 2002; Rust, Kannan, & Peng, 2002). Many overlapping concepts such as confidentiality, anonymity, secrecy and ethics have added to the confusion that surrounds the construct (Margulis, 2003). In an attempt to reduce this confusion, Clarke (1999) identifies four dimensions of privacy: privacy of a person, personal behaviour privacy, personal communication privacy, and personal data privacy. However, as the majority of communications today are digitised and stored, Bélanger and Crossler (2011) contend that personal communication privacy and data privacy can be merged into the construct of information privacy.