<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Self-disclosure in Social Media: An opportunity for Self-Adaptive Systems</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>University of Duisburg Essen</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Germany https://</addr-line>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>Users of Social Network Sites (SNSs) spend considerable amounts of hours per day exchanging (consuming or sharing) information and using services provided by such platforms. However, nothing comes for free. SNSs survive at the expense of the information that users' upload to their pro les, and the knowledge derived from their on-line behavior. Discovering hidden knowledge in social networks is a centerpiece in many personalized on-line services and ad-targeting techniques, and helps to make a SNS pro table. However, users seem not to be aware of this common practice and keep sharing content compulsively. Nevertheless, self-disclosure and over-exposition can have severe consequences and can put users' integrity into risk. In order to develop better information control and awareness systems, we believe that it is important to take into account the users' on-line habits and behavior. In this work we introduce an initial assessment of the di erent factors that contribute to self-disclosure in Social Media, and discuss the elements that a selfadaptive solution should consider to address this issue.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>social-media</kwd>
        <kwd>self-disclosure</kwd>
        <kwd>awareness</kwd>
        <kwd>self-adaptive systems</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>Social Media has set new standards for our interpersonal relations, and has
accelerated the dynamics of our lives. Many users are bridged through SNSs, and
new sub-communities are built everyday based on common interests, likes or
even mottos. The inhabitants of these virtual communities are spending
considerable amounts of time exchanging (consuming or sharing) information, and
using services provided by the SNSs. However, none of this is for free. SNSs
survive at the expense of the information that users' place in their pro les, and
the behavior they exhibit while using the di erent services provided by these
platforms.</p>
      <p>
        Discovering hidden knowledge in social networks is a centerpiece in many
personalized on-line services and ad-targeting techniques, and is basically what
makes a SNS pro table [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">18</xref>
        ]. However, many of the content that is uploaded to
social platforms (text, image, video, location) contain a high level of private and
Copyright © 2016 for this paper by its authors. Copying permitted for private
and academic purposes.
sensitive information. The reality is that Social Media users compulsively share
content without caring about the consequences. Moreover, their behavior o
line (in the real world) di ers highly from their on-line behavior (inside a SNS)
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ][
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ]. If we add to this that users are careless when adding new contacts to
their network, there is a high chance of having potentially dangerous individuals
accessing this information.
      </p>
      <p>Although existing privacy-preserving mechanisms have been developed and
improved over the years, they are still not helping users in distinguishing a
selfexposition behavior that might put them into risk. It is very hard for a regular
user to keep track of everything that he or she has shared through its
\online life". Moreover, once the content has been shifted to the Internet, the user
has no control over it anymore. This situation demands new mechanisms for
tracking the sensitive information that a user has already shared, and the degree
of sensitiveness that new information might have. Thus, users of SNSs can make
a wiser decision before sharing content, and have a better vision of what they
have shared (and would like to un-share) in the past.</p>
      <p>
        In this work we present an analysis of the \self-disclosure" problem in Social
Media and provide insights towards a self-adaptive solution. Di erent dimensions
of the problem like the users' behavior and information sensitiveness are studied
from an inter-disciplinary perspective. Furthermore, initial guidelines for a
selfadaptive approach based on the MAPE-K model by IBM [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ] are here introduced.
      </p>
      <p>In the following section the fundamental bases and concepts involved in our
proposal are initially introduced (Section 2). Section 3 covers the di erent aspects
of the self-disclosure issue including: the diversity of information in SNSs, the
so-called \privacy paradox", information sensitiveness, and an adapted version
of the MAPE-K model. Next, Section 4 discusses alternative existing solutions,
and nally Section 5 presents our conclusions and related future work.
2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Theoretical Background</title>
      <p>This section introduces the fundamental concepts that form the bases of our
proposal. Here, Autonomic Systems and run-time self-adaptation concepts are
presented and analyzed for further application in a Social Media scenario.</p>
      <p>
        In order to raise awareness of self-disclosure among the users of SNSs we
propose to develop an Autonomic Computing vision of this issue. The goal of
Autonomic Computing is to design and develop distributed and service-oriented
systems that can easily adapt to changes that a ect the system administration
and service delivery, while reducing some of the complexities associated with
the management of such systems [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]. Considering the user's content-sharing
behavior in SNSs as the managed element of our autonomic system, will
allow us to apply the concepts of Autonomic Computing into a Social Media
domain. MAPE-K (Monitor, Analyze, Plan, Execute, and Knowledge) is a
reference model for control loops used in Autonomic Computing with the objective
of supporting the concepts of self-management, speci cally: self-con guration,
self-optimization, self-healing, and self-protection [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ][
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]. Fig. 1 shows the
elements of an Autonomic System: the control loop activities, sensor and e ector
interfaces, and the managed system.
      </p>
      <p>
        The Monitor component provides the mechanisms to observe through
Sensors di erent events or changes that take place in the System (managed element).
It also lters and aggregates the data, and reports details or metrics [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ]. The
Analyze component provides the means to correlate and model the reported
attributes or measurements. It is able to interpret the environment, to handle
complex situations, and predict future scenarios. Plan provides the means to
construct the set of actions required to achieve a certain goal or objective in
response to certain events. On the other hand, Execute o ers the elements to
release the actions involved in a particular plan (e.g. to control the system by
means of E ectors that modify the managed element)[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]. Additionally, a
common Knowledge Base acts as the central part of the control loop, and is shared
by the activities to store and access collected and analyzed data.
      </p>
      <p>
        The MAPE-K model is used as an architectural reference in cases where
a feedback loop is a distinctive characteristic of the system being built. Such
is the case of [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ], where a MAPE-K loop is used for run-time monitoring of
trustworthiness properties in a socio-technical system in order to achieve trust
goals. In a Social Media context like ours, the users' accounts are the elements we
want to monitor since they contain the resources and services consumed by them.
In line with this, the actions executed over the accounts (managed elements) are
directed to aware the users about an over-exposition behavior.
3
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>A self-adaptive approach for addressing Self-disclosure</title>
      <p>It is necessary to conduct an analysis of several factors that contribute to the
problem and the solution of self-disclosure in SNSs. In this section we will go
through the di erent types of information that can be found in a SNS
(particularly on Facebook), and we will provide some insights for further sensitiveness
classi cation. We will also discuss the in uence of users' on-line behavior and
risk aversion. At the end of this section, an approach for addressing this issue
based on the MAPE-K model will be introduced.</p>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>Diversity of information in SNSs</title>
        <p>
          SNSs are a rich source of the most varied kinds of information. However, users
do not realize the importance that this information they \voluntarily" deposit in
these sites has. From a high level inspection, normally one can nd in a Facebook
pro le the following information: list of friends, personal information (e.g. rst
name, surname and profession), wall posts (public messages from other users),
messages, photos, and notes [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
          ].
        </p>
        <p>However, if one takes a closer look to the now improved \Facebook Security
Centre", it is now possible for users to download a copy of the information that
Facebook stores about them. Surprisingly, the list is way bigger than the one
mentioned before, and includes (among other information)1:
{ Ads Clicked: Dates, times and titles of ads clicked by the user.
{ Ad Topics: A list of topics that the user is targeted against based on its likes,
interests and other data included in its Timeline.
{ Check-ins: Places where the user has checked-in to.
{ Facial recognition data: A unique number based on a comparison of the
photos the user has been targeted in.
{ IP Address.
{ Log-ins and Log-outs.</p>
        <p>{ Deleted friends.</p>
        <p>
          Clearly, users do not submit many of this information voluntarily to Facebook.
For someone familiar within SNSs and their privacy practices, it is not surprising
that Facebook (like many other SNSs) keeps all these records in their servers.
However, for many users (newcomers or advanced) this situation remains unclear,
even when the privacy settings of their Facebook accounts are public by default
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
          ].
3.2
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-2">
        <title>Self-disclosure and the Privacy Paradox</title>
        <p>
          Exposing personal information to other persons is referred as individuals'
selfdisclosure. Self-disclosure in on-line contexts like Social Media is, at least to a
certain extent, the precondition for a functional social network [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ]. In other
words, users' contributions are necessary for the survival of SNSs. Without the
users' shared content (such as posted information and tagged photos), SNSs
would lack of diversity and fail on being interesting enough for the users to
engage with.
        </p>
        <p>
          Self-disclosure is frequent among the users of SNSs. Furthermore, users seem
careless when providing sensitive information through SNSs. However, they
consider privacy protection an important issue that must be addressed. This
phenomenon of contradiction has been referred as the \privacy paradox" [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
          ][
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
          ].
Despite the studies that reveal evidence of this thesis [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
          ], complementary
research judges the non-holistic approach of the applied methods in these ndings
1 https://www.facebook.com/help/405183566203254/ (last access: 22/01/2016)
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
          ]. Nevertheless, we believe that, whether the privacy paradox exists or not,
users' on-line behavior has to be empowered with a recommendation system
that can assist them in the identi cation of potentially sensitive information in
real time.
3.3
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-3">
        <title>De ning sensitiveness in Social Media</title>
        <p>
          Several gaps and dilemmas have been identi ed when trying to de ne what
sensitive information is [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
          ]. Moreover, it is a matter of discussion in the legislation
of many countries and politico-economic unions [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
          ][
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
          ]. The European Parliament
for instance has de ned some \personal data" categories (e.g. racial or ethnic
origin) that are protected against public disclosure. It also makes use of the
term \sensitive information", however it does not de ne it [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
          ]. The Canadian
Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act 2000 state that:
\Although some information (e.g. medical records) is almost always considered
to be sensitive, any information can be sensitive depending on the context"
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
          ]. This last one is an interesting approach towards the de nition of \sensitive
information" since it highlights the in uence that the context has over it.
Nevertheless, this reveals the need for considering and understanding the context
where the information is placed.
        </p>
        <p>A SNS is a complex environment where multiple factors converge and (in
many cases) are the ones that de ne the rules of interaction and contributions
for the users. For instance, a post that can look trivial on Facebook can be totally
inappropriate in another SNS like LinkedIn (e.g. a photo of you in a party might
not look very professional). In other words, here the context a ects the degree
of sensitiveness of the content. In this case the targeted audience of the SNS is
a conditioning dimension of the context.
3.4</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-4">
        <title>Towards a MAPE-K-based approach</title>
        <p>An awareness system like the one proposed in this work has a self-adaptive
nature. Its purpose is to perform a constant monitoring over the user sharing
activities and notify when a self-disclosure behavior is detected. This noti cation
can be seen as an interaction with the user, where he or she will have the last
word and control over the sharing act. In other words, the user should have
the chance to accept or reject the recommendation of not to share potentially
sensitive information. This sequence of detection-noti cation-acceptance de nes
a feedback loop between the user and the awareness system.</p>
        <p>As we have discussed in the previous sections, classifying information into
categories of sensitiveness does not have a straightforward solution. However,
as several legislations agree, it is possible to build categories of \personal" or
\sensitive" data. Since the user's perception is also a determinant on the nal
classi cation, it seems logical to perform a classi cation of the users based on
their interpretation of particular pieces of information. Then, by combining these
two approaches together with attributes of the SNS (e.g. the targeted audience
and activity levels of the users), a better classi cation of the information can be
performed (Fig. 2).</p>
        <p>In Fig. 3 an adapted version of the MAPE-K loop is described. In this case,
the Managed element corresponds to the representation of the user in a SNS, this
is, the user's account. In this approach, the Monitor is sensing the activity of
the user and responses when an information-sharing event takes place. As was
previously mentioned, the goal of this system is to provide recommendations
to the user when it attempts to publish content of sensitive nature. Therefore,
what the Analysis unit should do is to analyze the information collected by
the Monitor's sensors and classify it into sensitive or not sensitive. Here, the
Knowledge base has a main role because it contains all what has been learned
about sensitiveness and its in uencing factors. After this is done, the Plan will
elaborate a recommendation for the user, and then the Execute module will
proceed to deliver it to the user.</p>
        <p>A privacy protection recommendation system must be able to adapt on users
individual self-disclosing behavior without destructing the interactive nature of
SNSs. Our approach takes this statement into account by asking the user \do
you really want to share this?" instead of forbidding it to continue. By this, the
autonomy of the user is ensured and its nal decision contributes to the feedback
loop of the system.</p>
        <p>
          Nevertheless, self-adaptation brings into account a fundamental reasoning
problem: decide which is the best course of action to follow based on the perceived
stimuli from the environment. In Arti cial Intelligence this type of reasoning is
usually called planning, where the condition to achieve is called goal and the
sequence of actions that will make the goal true is called a plan [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
          ]. Because
such Autonomic Element must exhibit an intelligent behavior, planning is a
central discipline in our study. According to [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
          ] Situation Calculus based on
First Order Logic (FOL) is an adequate candidate to support planning due to
its appropriateness for representing dynamically changing worlds. Furthermore,
it provides a framework for de ning a set of actions, states and changes in the
environment, and entails a reasoning mechanism to make inferences. Adapting
Situation Calculus to our problem domain is one of the major challenges of our
research.
4
        </p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Discussion</title>
      <p>
        Many privacy breaches in SNSs have been identi ed and addressed through
di erent types of privacy-preserving software architectures (e.g. P2P). Many
researchers advocate particularly for decentralized architecture schemas unlike
predominant centralized approaches[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ]. Some of the bene ts of this are
endto-end encryption, hidden activity from 3rd parties, and hidden social graph
among others. Although decentralized schemas improve privacy protection for
the users, they demand a major development e ort and cannot provide the same
functionality as centralized ones [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ]. This is one of the major reasons why users
are reluctant to migrate to privacy-preserving SNSs [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>While these approaches focus mainly on the architectural elements that a
privacy-preserving SNS must have, the solution presented in this work propose
to contribute to privacy on the application level. This is, even with a centralized
and non-privacy-preserving SNS architecture, it should be possible to arise user's
awareness and hence prevent extensive self-disclosure. In this way, empowered
users will take better control over their on-line acts and in consequence over
their private data. This can be achieved since SNSs like Facebook provide APIs
and extension points for including 3rd party applications, which would allow us
to integrate our solution without forcing users to change into another SNS.
5</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p>
        In o -line situations people's communication about sensitive topics take place
behind closed doors; whereas in SNSs users do not seem to lock their metaphorical
doors when they address sensitive topics [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]. Moreover, the range of the audience
that can access to personal information is perceived di erently in on-line and
o -line contexts. In an o -line context a person usually recognizes his or her
audience, whereas in on-line contexts people are not able to su ciently estimate
the size of such audiences [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>
        ]. Due to the di culty in estimating the number of
receivers of what in many cases can be sensitive information, it is important to
support the users in analyzing the sensitivities of their contributions.
      </p>
      <p>It is true that some users are not much concerned about the consequences that
self-disclosure in SNSs could bring to them, and are not willing to modify their
behavior. However, this does not neglect the fact that it is necessary to support
and empower them through better control and awareness systems. Instead, this
raises the necessity of developing instruments that take into consideration users'
distinctive characteristics that make them more or less adverse to the risks of
over-exposition.</p>
      <p>Self-disclosure and information sensitiveness analysis propose a number of
challenges and opportunities for self-adaptive systems. This work has analyzed
and summarized the requirements that a self-adaptive solution must cover for
addressing self-disclosure in SNSs. Now this vision has to be put into practice
and undoubtedly new challenges and research questions will arise. This is matter
of our future work, together with an analysis of acceptance of such awareness
system among the social network's community.</p>
      <p>Acknowledgments. This work was supported by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under grant No. GRK 2167, Research Training Group
"UserCentred Social Media".</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Australian</given-names>
            <surname>Law Reform Commission</surname>
          </string-name>
          , et al.:
          <article-title>For your information: Australian privacy law</article-title>
          and
          <source>practice (alrc report 108)</source>
          .
          <source>Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia</source>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Barnes</surname>
          </string-name>
          , S.B.:
          <article-title>A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States</article-title>
          .
          <source>First Monday</source>
          <volume>11</volume>
          (
          <issue>9</issue>
          ) (
          <year>2006</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bartsch</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dienlin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Control your facebook: An analysis of online privacy literacy</article-title>
          .
          <source>Computers in Human Behavior</source>
          <volume>56</volume>
          ,
          <issue>147</issue>
          {
          <fpage>154</fpage>
          (
          <year>2016</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Brachman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Levesque</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Knowledge representation and reasoning</article-title>
          , vol.
          <volume>9</volume>
          . Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Massachusetts, US (
          <year>2004</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dienlin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Trepte</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? an in-depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors</article-title>
          .
          <source>European Journal of Social Psychology</source>
          <volume>45</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ),
          <volume>285</volume>
          {
          <fpage>297</fpage>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Directive</surname>
          </string-name>
          , E.:
          <volume>95</volume>
          /46/
          <article-title>EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data</article-title>
          .
          <source>O cial Journal of the EC</source>
          <volume>23</volume>
          (
          <issue>6</issue>
          ) (
          <year>1995</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Gol</given-names>
            <surname>Mohammadi</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Bandyszak</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>T.</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Mo e,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Chen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>X.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Weyer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Kalogiros</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Nasser</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.I.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Surridge</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>M.</surname>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Maintaining trustworthiness of socio-technical systems at run-time</article-title>
          . In: Trust, Privacy, and Security in Digital Business - 11th International Conference, TrustBus
          <year>2014</year>
          , Munich, Germany, September 2-
          <issue>3</issue>
          ,
          <year>2014</year>
          . Proceedings. pp.
          <volume>1</volume>
          {
          <issue>12</issue>
          (
          <year>2014</year>
          ), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
          <fpage>319</fpage>
          -09770-
          <issue>1</issue>
          _
          <fpage>1</fpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hughes-Roberts</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Privacy and social networks: Is concern a valid indicator of intention and behaviour</article-title>
          ? In: SocialCom 2013: International Conference on Social Computing. pp.
          <volume>909</volume>
          {
          <fpage>912</fpage>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>IEEE</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kephart</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kephart</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chess</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Boutilier</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Das</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kephart</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.O.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Walsh</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>W.E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>An architectural blueprint for autonomic computing</article-title>
          .
          <source>IBM White paper</source>
          (
          <year>2003</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kephart</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.O.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chess</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.M.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>The vision of autonomic computing</article-title>
          .
          <source>Computer</source>
          <volume>36</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ),
          <volume>41</volume>
          {
          <fpage>50</fpage>
          (
          <year>2003</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <surname>McCown</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nelson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>What happens when Facebook is gone?</article-title>
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries</source>
          . pp.
          <volume>251</volume>
          {
          <fpage>254</fpage>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>ACM</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nguyen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Campbell</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Comparing online and o ine self-disclosure: A systematic review</article-title>
          .
          <source>Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking</source>
          <volume>15</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ),
          <volume>103</volume>
          {
          <fpage>111</fpage>
          (
          <year>2012</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Schwittmann</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wander</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Boelmann</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Weis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Privacy preservation in decentralized online social networks</article-title>
          .
          <source>IEEE Internet Computing (2)</source>
          ,
          <volume>16</volume>
          {
          <fpage>23</fpage>
          (
          <year>2014</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Taddicken</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>The `privacy paradox' in the social web: The impact of privacy concerns, individual characteristics, and the perceived social relevance on di erent forms of self-disclosure</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication</source>
          <volume>19</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ),
          <volume>248</volume>
          {
          <fpage>273</fpage>
          (
          <year>2014</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          15.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Thompson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kaarst-Brown</surname>
          </string-name>
          , M.L.:
          <article-title>Sensitive information: A review and research agenda</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology</source>
          <volume>56</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ),
          <volume>245</volume>
          {
          <fpage>257</fpage>
          (
          <year>2005</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          16.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vilic</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Radenkovic</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Privacy protection on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn</article-title>
          . Syntesis: International Scienti c Conference of IT and Business-Rlated
          <string-name>
            <surname>Research</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          17.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vitak</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>Balancing privacy concerns and impression management strategies on Facebook</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS)</source>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          18.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zheleva</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Terzi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Getoor</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Privacy in Social Networks</article-title>
          .
          <source>Synthesis Lectures on Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery</source>
          , Morgan &amp; Claypool Publishers (
          <year>2013</year>
          ), https://books.google.de/books?id=5YpiAQAAQBAJ
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>