Individual’s privacy, especially with regard to their personal data, is increasingly an area of concern as people interact with a wider and more pervasive set of digital services. Unfortunately, the terminology around personal data is used inconsistently, the concepts are unclear and there is a poor understanding of their relationships. This is a challenge to those who need to discuss personal data in precise terms, for example, legislators, academics and service providers who seek informed consent from their users. In this article, we present a lexicological analysis of the terms used to describe personal data, use this analysis to identify common concepts and propose a model of the digitally extended self that shows how these concepts of personal data fit together. We then validate the model against key publications and show in practice how it can be used to describe personal data in three scenarios. Our work shows that there is no clearly delineated kernel of personal data, but rather that there are layers of personal data, with different qualities, sources and claims of ownership, which extend out from the individual and form the digitally extended self.
SpiekermannSAcquistiABöhmeR. The challenges of personal data markets and privacy. Electron Markets2015; 25: 161–167.
2.
AcquistiABrandimarteLLoewensteinG.Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science2015; 347: 509–514.
3.
KehrFKowatschTWentzelD. Blissfully ignorant: the effects of general privacy concerns, general institutional trust, and affect in the privacy calculus. Inform Syst J2015; 25: 607–635.
4.
HeeneyC.Breaching the contract? Privacy and the UK census. Inform Soc2012; 28: 316–328.
5.
L’HoiryXDNorrisC.The honest data protection officer’s guide to enable citizens to exercise their subject access rights: lessons from a ten-country European study. Int Data Priv Law2015; 5: 190–204.
6.
BakshiH.How can we measure the modern digital economy?Significance. Epub ahead of print 6June2016. DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2016.00909.x.
7.
HeinderyckxF.Reclaiming the high ground in the age of onlinement: ICA presidential address. J Commun2014; 2014(64): 999–1014.
8.
SafranCBloomrosenMHammondWE. Toward a national framework for the secondary use of health data: an American medical informatics association white paper. J Am Med Inform Assoc2007; 14: 1–9.
9.
SoloveDJ.Introduction: privacy self-management and the consent dilemma. Harvard Law Rev2013; 126: 1880–1903.
10.
NissenbaumHF.Privacy in context: technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books, 2010.
11.
PollachI.What’s wrong with online privacy policies. Commun ACM2007; 50: 103–108.
RowleyJ.The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy. J Inform Sci2007; 33: 163–180.
15.
BatraS.Big data analytics and its reflections on DIKW hierarchy. Rev Manage2014; 4: 5.
16.
PalfreyJGasserU.Born digital: understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books, 2008.
17.
CraswellGPooreM.Writing for academic success. London: SAGE, 2012.
18.
BrymanA.Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
19.
HaddawayNRCollinsAMCoughlinD. The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS ONE2015; 10: e0138237.
20.
ArmstrongDGoslingAWeinmanJ. The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: an empirical study. Sociology1997; 31: 597–606.
21.
GlushkoRJAnnechinoRHemerlyJ. Categorization: describing resource classes and type. In: GlushkoRJ (ed.) The discipline of organizing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013, pp. 235–272.
22.
JonesM. Super conducting super collider: evolution of facility layout requirement and CAD system development. In: Proceedings of the unique underground structures symposium, 1990, http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/6148417-PFSjrN/ (accessed 3 December 2014).
23.
ChangAYCParralesMEPJimenezJ. Combining Google earth and GIS mapping technologies in a dengue surveillance system for developing countries. Int J Health Geograph2009; 8: 49–59.
24.
LudwigLFLauwersJCLantzKA. Multimedia collaboration system with separate data network and a/v network controlled by information transmitting on the data network. Patent US5617539 A, 1997.
25.
GoffmanE.Role distance. In: BrissettDEdgleyC (eds) Life as theater: a dramaturgical sourcebook. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990, pp. 101–111.
26.
MetzingerT.The ego tunnel: the science of the mind and the myth of the self. New York: Basic Books, 2010.
27.
ValkFV.Identity, power, and representation in virtual environments. Merlot J Online Learn Teach2008; 4: 205–211.
28.
ByronT.Safer children in a digital world: the report of the Byron review: be safe, be aware, have fun. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2008.
29.
GreysenSRKindTChretienKC.Online professionalism and the mirror of social media. J Gen Int Med2010; 25: 1227–1229.
30.
SellenARogersYHarperR. Reflecting human values in the digital age. Commun ACM2009; 52: 58–66.
31.
LyonD.Jesus in Disneyland: religion in postmodern times. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000.
32.
TurkleS.Constructions and reconstructions of self in virtual reality: playing in the MUDs. Mind Culture Activity1994; 1: 158–167.
33.
McinnerneyJMRobertsTS.Online learning: social interaction and the creation of a sense of community. Educ Techn Soc2004; 7: 73–81.
34.
TurkleS.Cyberspace and identity. Contemp Sociol1999; 28: 643–648.
35.
PearsonE.All the World Wide Web’s a stage: the performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday2009; 14: 1–6.
36.
BessièreKSeayAFKieslerS.The ideal elf: identity exploration in World of Warcraft. Cyberpsychol Behav2007; 10: 530–535.
BatchelorRBobrowiczAMackenzieR. Challenges of ethical and legal responsibilities when technologies’ uses and users change: social networking sites, decision-making capacity and dementia. Ethics Inform Tech2012; 14: 99–108.
ClarkJE.The digital imperative: making the case for 21st century pedagogy. Comput Compos2010; 27: 27–35.
42.
SiemensGLongP.Penetrating the fog: analytics in learning and education. Educ Rev2011; 46: 31–40.
43.
ChretienKCGreysenSRChretienJP. Online posting of unprofessional content by medical students. JAMA2009; 302: 1309–1315.
44.
HankinC.Foresight future identities 2013: final project report. London: The Government Office for Science, 2013.
45.
HengstlerJ. Managing your digital footprint: ostriches v. eagles. Educ Digit World2011; 1: 89–139.
46.
MaddenMFoxSSmithA. Digital footprints: online identity management and search in the age of transparency. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2007.
47.
O’KeeffeGSClarke-PearsonK.The impact of social media on children, adolescents, and families. Pediatrics2011; 127: 800–804.
48.
KapadiaAHendersonTFieldingJ. Virtual walls: protecting digital privacy in pervasive environments. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on pervasive computing, 2007, http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~dfk/papers/kapadia-walls.pdf
49.
MooreKMcElroyJC.The influence of personality on Facebook usage, wall postings, and regret. Comput Human Behav2012; 26: 267–274.
50.
BriggsP.Future identities: changing identities in the UK – the next 10 years. DR 4: will an increasing element of our identity be ‘devolved’ to machines?London: The Government Office for Science, 2013.
51.
GelmanL.Privacy, free speech, and blurry-edged social networks. Boston Coll Law Rev2009; 50: 1315–1344.
52.
EssC.Digital media ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009.
53.
DeLilloD.Mao II. New York: Viking, 1991.
54.
FloridiL.Word of mouse. Philos Mag2006; 33: 17.
55.
WestinAFRuebhausenOM.Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum, 1967.
56.
GarfinkelS.Database nation: the death of privacy in the 21st century. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2000.
SmithsonM.Toward a social theory of ignorance. J Theory Social Behav1985; 15: 151–172.
59.
SoloveDJ.Privacy and power: computer databases and metaphors for information privacy. Stanford Law Rev2001; 53: 1393–1462.
60.
PloegIVD. Biometrics and the body as information. In: LyonD (ed.) Surveillance as social sorting: privacy, risk, and digital discrimination. London: Routledge, 2003, pp. 57–73.
SoloveDJ.The digital person: technology and privacy in the information age. New York: New York University Press, 2004.
64.
DennisES.Mosaic shield: Maynard, the fourth amendment, and privacy rights in the digital age. Cardozo Law Rev2011; 33: 738–771.
65.
HannaRRohmACrittendenVL.We’re all connected: the power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizon2011; 54: 265–273.
66.
SchwartauW.Information warfare: chaos on the electronic superhighway. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1994.
67.
ClarkeR.Web 2.0 as syndication. J Theor Appl Electron Commerce Res2008; 3: 30–43.
68.
SoloveDJ.A taxonomy of privacy. Univ Pennsylvania Law Rev2006; 154: 477–564.
69.
AndrewsL.I know who you are and I saw what you did: social networks and the death of privacy. New York: Free Press, 2013.
70.
ArdagnaCACamenischJKohlweissM. Exploiting cryptography for privacy-enhanced access control: a result of the prime project. J Comput Security2010; 18: 123–160.
71.
BlanchetteJFJohnsonDG.Data retention and the panoptic society: the social benefits of forgetfulness. Inform Soc2002; 18: 33–45.
72.
HildebrandtMGutwirthS.Profiling the European citizen: cross-disciplinary perspectives. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, 2008.
73.
ClarkeR. Computer matching and digital identity. In: Proceedings of the ACM computers, freedom & privacy conference, Burlingame, CA, 9–12 March 1993. New York: ACM.
74.
LudingtonS.Reining in the data traders: a tort for the misuse of personal information. Maryland Law Rev2006; 66: 140–193.
75.
SanchezA.Facebook feeding frenzy: resistance-through-distance and resistance-through-persistence in the societied network. Surveill Soc2009; 6: 275–293.
