wisdom of the crowd - understanding online personal privacy in vietnam

The Wisdom of the Crowd: Understanding Online Personal Privacy

in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

Patrick E. Sharbaugh

Abstract

With more than 30 percent of the world’s population now connected to the Internet, online

personal privacy has become a top concern among citizens of many nations and regions, and it

has become clear that attitudes about and conceptions of online privacy represent a nexus of

significant change in the construction of culture, society, and citizenship. These attitudes and

conceptions may differ significantly across national borders, therefore examining different

notions of privacy may better enable us to understand the changes underway.

Using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, this researcher undertook an

exploratory study into two research questions: 1) How do Internet users in the Socialist Republic

of Vietnam understand and conceive of online personal privacy?, and 2) How concerned are

they about personal privacy on the Internet? Rather than imposing Western definitions of

privacy on local respondents, this study attempted to infer a conception of Vietnamese privacy

values and parameters from responses using methods designed to avoid priming respondents

with non-local perceptions of the research topic.

The results reveal a more complex conception of personal privacy than those predicted for

Vietnam by Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture, and one that differs significantly from

traditional Western conceptions. In Vietnam, privacy appears to be chiefly understood as a

means of safeguarding valuable personal data on the Internet from dangerous individuals who

seek to obtain it for malign purposes, rather than a fundamental right, an inviolable aspect of

self, or a claim by individuals to be left alone and free from surveillance. Vietnamese appear

unconcerned about governmental or organizational scrutiny, and seem to have little regard for

privacy policies or regulations. In this, the Vietnamese conception of online privacy appears to

depart significantly from longstanding notions of privacy that have informed discourse, social

practice, regulatory efforts and citizenship in the Western hemisphere for more than a century

and which continue to influence current debates and policy decisions.

Key Words: Internet, Privacy, Vietnam, Hofstede, collectivism, online, Asia, identity, autonomy,

SNS, citizenship.

*****

1. Introduction

Privacy-related news, surveys, and policy debates seems to make headlines on a daily basis in

the developed nations of the Western hemisphere. Yet in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,

where more than 30% of this developing nation’s 90 million residents are online, many of them

using Web-connected smartphones and social network platforms such as Facebook, Twitter,

LinkedIn, and Google+, the topic of personal privacy has been entirely absent from the national

conversation. Why?

A slew of digital and Internet-based recent technological developments are making the

intimate details of our personal lives vastly more transparent to the online world, both with our

knowledge and consent and, often, without either. Online personal privacy has therefore

become a top concern, not just among American consumers,1 2 but among all manner of

Internet users of many nations and regions. Yet at the same time, more people continue to

share more information about themselves than ever before.3 This paradox suggests that our

feelings about privacy – what it is and how important it is to us – are rather more complicated

than they would appear. It’s become plain that online privacy represents a nexus of profound

change in the construction of culture and society, yet exactly what is changing is not yet clear.

Online privacy has been studied extensively in the U.S., Europe, Australia, and Canada, yet far

fewer studies have been conducted in Asia, where traditional Confucian and collectivist cultures

tend to place a lower premium on Western-based normative values relating to individual rights

and concerns. To this researcher’s knowledge, the privacy attitudes of Vietnamese Internet

users have not been examined in any close capacity. Vietnam presents a unique lens through

which to view these issues and questions, and may shed some light on the changing nature of

privacy and associated attitudes about citizenship, participation, and consumerism in the

modern era.

This paper therefore undertakes a benchmark exploratory study of online personal privacy

attitudes and conceptions in Vietnam, a culture quite distinct from modern Western traditions

as well as from other more developed Asian societies, yet also representative in many ways of

traditional Confucian-oriented Asian cultures. Its purpose is to better understand culturally-

specific conceptions of privacy in Vietnam and assess attitudes regarding it among the

Vietnamese population as it relates to the nature of citizenship and society.

3. Privacy Theorized

Many current privacy polls and surveys take as their chief object attitudes about the

collection of personal data by third parties online. Indeed, access to, and concerns over abuse

of, personally identifying information on the Internet are at the forefront of many online privacy

debates, given the increased ability for computer networks to collect, analyze, and distribute

such information.

Yet the confidentiality of personal data (also known as information or data security) is,

historically, only one aspect of mainstream Western conceptions of privacy, and not necessarily

the most important.

Privacy has long been understood to be a multidimensional notion, a right that encompasses

personal autonomy, democratic participation, social coordination, and identity and reputation

management.4 The most widely influential conceptions of online privacy derive from those

established in regards to traditional media.5 One of the first and best known attempts to

address this issue was Warren and Brandeis’ 1890 essay “The Right to Privacy” in Harvard Law

Review, in which the authors noted the need to “protect the privacy of private life”6 in response

to the proliferation at that time of newspapers and portable cameras in the United States.

Brandeis later stated that the U.S. Constitution and the Fourth Amendment are intended

specifically to protect:

“...the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most

valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the

government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be

deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.”7

Rachaels likewise claims that a right to privacy asserts a unique interest: that of being able to

limit other people’s observation of us or access to information about us – even if we have

certain knowledge that the observation or information would not be used to our detriment or

used at all.8

Schoeman proposes privacy as a state or condition of limited access to other parties.

Individuals have privacy to the extent that others have restricted access to information about

them, to the intimacies of their lives, to their thoughts or their bodies.9 In other words, as

Sheehan writes, “privacy is protecting individuals from any overreaching control of others.”10

Many have suggested that privacy is an essential aspect of autonomy. Johnson, for example,

asserts that “Autonomy is inconceivable without privacy.”11

Reiman claims privacy is

foundational to the creation of individual identity. He understands privacy as “the complex

social ritual by which we recognize our selves as our own.”12

Privacy is widely accepted as a basic human right arising from the nature of the relationship

between the individual and society.13

14

15

16

17

Online security expert Bruce Schneier has written

that, “Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human

condition with dignity and respect,” characterizing the current debate as one of individual

liberty versus control by the state.18

Thompson claims that privacy is an extension of the

fundamental right to person and property acknowledged in legal codes the world over – that

the right to privacy simply protects something that is presupposed by both personal and

property rights.19 Indeed, in the U.S. it is this very argument that underlies some of the most

significant judicial decisions on privacy of the 20th century, including Roe vs. Wade.

Lee theorizes privacy in the context of Internet communications as inextricable from the

notion of intrusion – that is, the interest and ability to control online access to one’s self in order

to maintain solitude.20 In this conception, privacy concerns not just what information others

take but what others can see. Here, any form of unauthorized online surveillance, for example,

is as much a violation of personal privacy as intercepting and capturing personal emails or credit

card information.

In recent years European nations have begun openly wrestling with theoretical notions

regarding privacy, a direct response to developments on the Internet. Privacy advocates in

Europe have begun to argue for a right to control and possibly erase the information that

attaches to personal identities on the Internet, making the case for a “right to be forgotten” on

the Internet. Werro observes that Swiss law, being representative of many European laws,

recognizes what it calls the “rights of the personality,” which may very soon confer the right of

Internet users to fully control any and all information about themselves online:

“Dignity, honor, and the right to respect one’s private life and to keep certain things

secret, as well as the right to the respect of one’s private life and other aspects of

privacy, are all part of these fundamental rights of the person, which are protected both

in the civil code, against private persons, and in the Swiss Federal Constitution as well as

in the European Convention on Human Rights against the State.”21

Crucially, these theoretical conceptions, which variously articulate root ideas that most

societies in the Western hemisphere take as fundamental and which underpin much of the

current legal and political debate over online privacy, are not predicated primarily upon the

possibility of misuse of personal information but simply on the possibility of unauthorized

access to something that belongs to and is inherent to our personal identities as individual,

autonomous human beings. It is not what Westerners worry people will do with what they hold

as personal and private that has traditionally concerned them; rather, it is the principle of

inviolability of self, and all the information that attends it, from any entity, person, or group that

provides the bedrock of Western conceptions of privacy.

Online information systems scholar Kenneth Laudon has proposed a definition of privacy that

strikes this researcher as satisfactorily encompassing the multiple dimensions that inform

traditional Western conceptions. Online privacy, states Laudon, is “the claim of individuals to be

left alone, free from surveillance, or interference from other individuals or organizations

including the state.”22

2. Rationale and Background

Research has shown that individual experiences, values and perceptions shape online privacy

attitudes,23

though not always according to clear patterns. Many studies have revealed that

concerns about privacy are culturally informed.24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

The extant literature (which is

limited in its examination of privacy in Asia) suggests that people in a higher collectivist culture

(e.g. India, Singapore or Vietnam) may have a higher tolerance for sharing personal information,

online and otherwise.32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

For the collective good of an institution or a society, people from a collectivist culture are

aware of – and often even endorse – institutional scrutiny in their society.45

Therefore, online

users may not feel the same urgency to protect their personal information as those in highly

individualistic cultures such as the United States and Europe, where people have low tolerance

for institutional scrutiny.

Westin46

observes that every society values privacy in some form, but its expression and the

practices that attend it vary significantly across cultures and nations. Different nationalities can

therefore be expected to exhibit different cultural values which may in turn influence – along

with other factors – the levels of privacy concern among individuals in each country.

Regulations and laws regarding the collection and use of personal information also differ

from culture to culture. Many of the most powerful and influential commercial interests in the

world are increasingly based on new Internet technologies for which the sharing and mining of

personal information is widespread and commonplace – indeed, it is a foundational principle of

many of these companies’ business models. As with the Internet itself, these technologies, and

the commercial entities they have enabled, have emerged from board rooms, startup foundries,

tech labs and garages in North America and Europe, but they are quickly becoming global in

reach and membership. In a world that is becoming more reliant upon Internet-based platforms

and services every day, Web-based commercial operators can have enormous reach – across

national borders, irrespective of language, culture, local and regional laws, and other barriers.

Of the 850 million people using Facebook at the beginning of 2012, for example, a full 80

percent are outside of the United States, accessing the SNS’s many apps, games, messaging

services, commercial partners – and, critically, interacting with its privacy safeguards (or lack

thereof) – in more than 70 languages.47

Tens of thousands of much smaller entities are

scattered across the Web like so much confetti, equally available to netizens everywhere.

Yet many, perhaps most, of these services are cultural artifacts of developed nations in the

Western world, where conceptions of personal privacy are predicated upon Enlightenment-era

philosophies regarding individual rights, autonomy, identity, citizenship, and the role of the

State as regards the individual. The underlying assumptions embedded in those conceptions of

privacy do not necessarily fit cultural assumptions in other parts of the world.

It stands to reason that Vietnam, whose unique history and culture sets it apart from other

Southeast Asian nations and, indeed, from any nation, would also have conceptions of and

attitudes toward online personal privacy that are specific to its national culture. With a

population of 90 million, Vietnam is the world’s 13th most populous nation. Internet

penetration in the nation has grown over 12,000% in the past decade – among the fastest rates

of growth in the world – to a total current penetration of 31% (compared to a world average of

32.7%, Europe’s 61% average, and an overall penetration across Asia of 26.2%.48

That puts

Vietnam at a level equal to that of China, Philippines, and Thailand.

While Vietnam has many similarities to China, with which it shares a border, it is quite

distinct culturally. Like China, Vietnam is a single-party Communist state which underwent its

own transition to free-market reforms in the late 1980s, reforms which have fueled an

enormous lift in the standard of living, as well as a corresponding rise in wealth disparity. As in

China, corruption is endemic at every level of society. Vietnam also adheres to ancient

Confucian ideals of individual and social behavior, so-called “Asian values” such as collectivism,

a harmonious social dynamic, highly hierarchical state and social structures, deep respect for

authority and seniority, and a tightly-knit extended family. Yet compared to China, Vietnam puts

fewer resources into restricting online content for its citizens. (Although filtering remains

severe, the Party tends to favor surveillance. Even so, only China leads Vietnam in the number

of netizens imprisoned for expressing unacceptable political views.49

)

The collectivist impulse in Vietnam is further strengthened by the strong communist ideology

that has prevailed in the nation since 1945, when Ho Chi Minh declared the country’s sovereign

independence from French colonial rule. From that point, through the departure of the French

in 1954, steadfast throughout the decades-long military conflict with America that ended with

reunification of North and South Vietnam in 1975, unfazed by the free-market economic

reforms (doi moi) of the late 1980s, and even to today, the Communist Party in Vietnam has

retained an iron grip on virtually every aspect of society. Despite the turbocharged capitalism

presently gripping the country, Vietnam retains a highly collectivist social tradition that

permeates every aspect of the nation’s social fabric.

The concepts of personal information protection and data privacy are still new to Vietnam.

The current legal framework lacks many of the most fundamental regulations on the protection

of such information.50

To date, Vietnam has no comprehensive privacy legislation and the few

existing regulations are obscure and widely ignored.51

The foundation of what best represents the nation’s privacy law is Article 38 of the 2005 Civil

Code, which stipulates a right to confidentiality of personal life, stating that the collection or

disclosure of the private information of a person must be under his or her agreement and

consent.

Addressing the collection of information confidentiality specifically in electronic transactions,

article 46 of the 2005 Law on E-Transactions states:

“Agencies, organizations and individuals must not use, provide or disclose information on

private and personal affairs or information of other agencies, organizations and/or

individuals which is accessible by them or under their control in e-transactions without

the latter’s consent, unless otherwise provided for by law.”52

Yet few Vietnamese citizens know these laws even exist, and they are rarely if ever called

upon in practice.53

The few privacy suits that have been brought in Vietnam have either been settled out of

court or have been dropped altogether. It’s difficult for the courts or private citizens to know

exactly how these laws are applied in practice or what specific aspects of “private life” or

“individual confidentiality” they cover, as they’ve so rarely been tested. Even when a suit is

brought, the results are unknown – court records are ostensibly part of the public record in

Vietnam, but in practice the proceedings and decisions of every case are kept secret, even to

licensed attorneys. Every citizen, attorney, government official, and potential litigant

understands that the outcome of any given case is as likely to be the result of bribery as it is

judicial consideration, therefore the law itself is disregarded by most as both an invalid and

ineffective arbiter of justice. Further, Vietnamese culture discourages private litigation as a

counterproductive and pointlessly expensive loss of face.54

Complicating all of this is the fact that Vietnam is not a common law system, so legal

precedent has no authority or standing. Where one judge may decide in favor of a plaintiff,

another the following year, in precisely the same kind of case, may find for the defendant.

Needless to say, this does not encourage the development of a common legal understanding of

privacy.55

Legal regulations can therefore shed little light on Vietnamese conceptions of privacy or

attitudes toward it, much less the rights or social practices that may attend it.

Awareness and understanding of the issue on the part of businesses and the general public is

similarly limited. Of 290 Vietnamese commercial websites surveyed by the Vietnam e-

Commerce and Information Technology Agency (VECITA) in 2007, only 75 of them (26%) had

privacy policies available for viewing.56

Examining Vietnam in the light of Geert

Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture reveals

a profile quite distinct from other East or

Southeast Asian nations.

Under Hofstede’s model, Vietnam has a high

Power Distance index of 70. Individuals in high PDI

countries may be expected to exhibit higher levels

of privacy concerns based on previous findings

that high PDI countries exhibit lower levels of

trust.57

With an Individualism score of just 20, Vietnam

is a deeply collectivistic society. People in such

societies have been shown to accept more easily

the intrusion by groups and organizations into

their personal life and to have more trust and

faith in other individuals than those in highly individualist societies.58

Highly Masculine cultures tend to place greater emphasis on material success, and perhaps

therefore upon the economic benefits of using private information over the wish for privacy

control.59

Vietnam scores 40 on the MAS dimension and as such should be expected to place

less emphasis on privacy controls and concerns.

Societies with a high UAI tend to reduce uncertainty through the use of clear written rules

and regulations, and may be more likely to have higher levels of government regulation of

privacy.60

Vietnam’s low score of 30 UAI suggests privacy concerns there should be as minimal

as its regulatory framework regarding privacy.

Vietnam scores 80 on the LTO dimension – a relatively high mark. The values of the Long-

Term Orientation dimension are rooted in the works and life of Confucius; the dimension’s

defining features all point to a culture of relative comfort with sharing personal information.

In summary, Vietnam’s IDV, UAI, and LTO scores all predict that Internet users there should

feel less concern about online personal privacy and should feel more comfortable with sharing

personal information with third-party groups and individuals. Its scores along the PDI and MAS

dimensions, however, suggest just the opposite: greater concern and less willingness to share

personal information. 1

4. Literature

A close examination of the literature shows that previous online privacy studies have mostly

been confined to a national scale and have only rarely addressed international or cross-cultural

issues. The relatively few studies of privacy attitudes outside of North America and Europe have

1Clearly, all five dimensions of Hofstede’s model for Vietnam cannot accurately predict privacy concerns there. This

result itself suggests that further research is needed to better understand the relevance of Hofstede’s dimensions

of national culture as they relate to cultural values such as privacy.

Figure 1

tended to limit their examinations to the attitudes of users in developed nations or more

developed regions of developing nations (namely Singapore, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, India,

Bangalore and Argentina), and often have often done so within the context of e-commerce or

direct marketing. To this researcher’s knowledge, none has examined Vietnamese Internet users

in any comprehensive capacity.

Cultural values are known to affect a population’s attitudes towards privacy.61

62

Yet national

culture remains a relatively little studied factor in the development and maintenance of online

privacy attitudes and behaviors. Scholars such as Westin63 and De Boni64 have suggested that

conceptions of personal privacy per se are at root dependent upon and influenced by culture,

and that individuals’ concern with privacy, and the behavior resulting from those concerns, can

be influenced by their cultural values.65

66

67

A number of authors and researchers have indeed suggested that the prevalent

approach to privacy by corporate and commercial entities on the Internet follows the neo-

liberal tradition prevalent in the U.S. and other Western nations, and hence is culturally biased. 68

69

70

Tarn and Hamamoto 71 studied current status and practices regarding online privacy in

Japan in the context of control systems and commercial privacy policies, using two high-profile

case studies to exemplify the problems and dilemmas encountered by two Japanese

enterprises. Although noting that the concept of privacy in Japan is different than in Western

countries, the researchers state that online privacy is nonetheless very important to Japanese

Internet users and that the Internet, in creating a new environment for privacy, may be

influencing Japanese perceptions of privacy in general.

Several authors have suggested that a country’s regulatory approach to privacy is closely

linked to the level of privacy concern in that country. 72 73 74 75 As privacy concerns among the

populations increase, more restrictive laws and regulations are put into place by legislators and

policymakers. Milberg et al. 76

found support for this positive relationship between the level of

privacy concern and the level of governmental involvement in corporate management of

information privacy. Bellman et al. 77 compared Internet users in 38 countries, again using legal

regulations as a means of revealing concern for information privacy. They hypothesized three

explanations for differences in privacy concerns: culture, Internet experience, and political

desires using the Hofstede dimensions to describe national culture. They found that only culture

and Internet experience were significant in this regard, and that regulatory actions by the State

seemed to play little or no role in determining citizens’ attitudes toward online privacy.

Fusilier and Durlabhji found that in a less individualistic culture such as India, social

factors such as collectivist values may be an important influence on online behavior. 78

Park and

Jun found significant differences in Internet usage and the perceived risks of Internet shopping

between Korean and American consumers. They also found that cultural differences have an

impact upon Internet usage and perceived risks associated with online purchases. 79

In comparing Japanese and American concerns on personal privacy in the context of

direct marketing campaigns, Maynard and Taylor 80

found that Japanese respondents were

much more concerned about privacy issues than U.S. respondents. Milne, et al. 81

compared

how consumers from Argentina and United States feel about consumer privacy issues and direct

marketing. The Argentine results suggested that concern for privacy was not high (11 percent),

compared to 46 percent of the U.S. respondents in similar earlier surveys. In comparing

American and Taiwan survey respondents, Lee 82

found that consumers from Taiwan are not as

concerned as U.S. consumers with privacy issues in direct marketing.

In an exploratory study of attitudes among high-tech industry workers in India,

Kumaraguru 83

found less concern and awareness about privacy among Indians when comparing

the results with those for Americans, with the Indian residents exhibiting much higher trust of

government and businesses with their personal information.

Several comparative studies to date have used the dimensions of national culture

developed by Hofstede 84

to examine multinational and cross-cultural differences in personal

information privacy. Cho for example, surveyed how Internet users from five multinational cities

– Bangalore, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney and New York – perceived and coped with online privacy.

They found that Internet users’ concerns varied significantly across nationalities, and that

Internet users from countries with a high IDV culture did in fact exhibit higher levels of concern

about online privacy than those from low IDV countries. 85

Chiou 86 examined cross-cultural perceptions of privacy among residents of the U.S.,

Vietnam, Indonesia, and Taiwan, finding that the more collectivistic Asian cultures tended to be

less sensitive to the sharing of personal information than Americans in the study. They also

found that American participants tended to lean towards a more legislative solution to

perceived problems of privacy, while Vietnamese and Indonesian participants did not express

any significant desire for personal privacy to be legislated.

This data suggests that people in a higher collectivist culture (e.g. Korea, Singapore or

Vietnam) may have a higher tolerance for sharing their personal information. For the collective

good of an institution or a society, people from a collectivist culture are aware of – and often

even endorse – institutional scrutiny in their society.87

Therefore, online users may not feel the

same urgency to protect their personal information as those in a highly individualistic culture

like the U.S., where people have low tolerance for institutional scrutiny. Due to the significant

influence of communist and collectivist traditions in Vietnam, for example, it’s reasonable to

expect Vietnamese Internet users to feel a lower threat to their privacy rights than people from

a highly individualist culture like America or Australia.

Based upon the existing literature, the theoretical background presented here, and the

paucity of research conducted on Internet privacy attitudes in Vietnam, the following

exploratory research questions were formulated:

RQ1: How do Vietnamese Internet users understand and conceive of online personal

privacy?

RQ2: How concerned are Vietnamese Internet users about Internet privacy?

5. Methods

This exploratory study took a methodological approach to the research subject that allowed

for the greatest amount of latitude and openness to identifying culturally specific conceptions

of online privacy and the kinds of online personal information that are considered private to

Vietnamese Internet users. Data collection took the form of three independent research

instruments: 1) structured focus group interviews of several homogeneous segments of the

local population of Internet users, conducted in Vietnamese language by a moderator of

Vietnamese nationality, 2) an interactive online qualitative research platform, utilizing 64 teen

and young-adult participants in Hanoi and Saigon, implemented under our supervision by U.K.-

based market research firm Cimigo in late 2011, also conducted in Vietnamese language, and 3)

a single metric on an annual random telephone survey (also with assistance from Cimigo) of

3,405 Vietnamese Internet users in 12 cities in late 2011.

The methodology of the focus groups was specifically designed to presume none of the

conceptions of privacy that have been popularized in the majority of the existing research,

nearly all of which are based in Western philosophical and cultural traditions that may have

little or no relevance to contemporary Vietnamese cultural values. Rather than imposing upon

the respondents any of the popular definitions of privacy that appear in the existing literature,

this study’s objective was to examine Vietnamese attitudes toward online personal information

in general and infer a local conceptual definition of privacy from those results.

Braunstein et al.88

have noted that any direct study of privacy, in which privacy and its

possible violations are the primary topic of discussion, is inherently problematic because of the

strong emotional reaction elicited by the subject among many individuals. This emotional

aspect makes it difficult to accurately evaluate privacy concern, as directly asking about a

privacy issue may result in an emotional reaction and, subsequently, a biased response due to a

priming effect upon the respondents. Braunstein therefore recommends utilizing indirect

techniques to measure privacy concerns wherever possible.

In this researcher’s opinion, it seems similarly likely that another priming effect might occur

in studying privacy in any non-Western context: one in which the usage of English words like

“privacy,” or even the use of English itself, might unconsciously or otherwise prime subjects to

provide answers that are in keeping with what they understand of Western ideas about privacy,

as they could be perceived as being loaded with Western values and semiotic connotations. This

is particularly true in a Vietnamese context, where traditional Confucian values and ideals

prevail.

Confucian ideals, often referred to as “Asian values,” encompass a range of social and

individual characteristics that can often be vexing for those from Western liberal democratic

traditions to grasp. For the purposes of this study, the most significant of them include a

preference for social harmony and consensus (as opposed to confrontation and dissent); a

consideration for the welfare and collective well-being of the community or group (rather than

the interests or well-being of the individual); and an abiding loyalty and respect for authority

figures, hierarchy, and seniority.

It is also important to take into account the powerful Asian concept of “face,” a complicated

concept without a perfect analogue in the West. Best understood as a combination of social

standing, reputation, influence, dignity, and honor, it plays an enormous role in social settings

and must taken into consideration during all daily interactions, as it can have a significant

impact on the outcome of any communications. In group settings particularly, Vietnamese

residents would be very aware of wishing to preserve face, not only for themselves but – out of

respect for authority figures – for an interlocutor, who would likely appear to be someone in a

position of authority or seniority (by dint of association with a university or business, age,

estimated salary, job title, etc.). In the setting of a focus group, this means that Vietnamese

group members may often be inclined to provide answers that will preserve face for a

moderator, i.e. replying in terms of what they believe the moderator wishes to hear or which

will support his or her line of questioning, rather than genuine responses that accurately reflect

the respondent’s beliefs and attitudes.

This study therefore made every effort to mitigate these cultural factors by utilizing a trained,

professional Vietnamese moderator who conducted the focus groups in Vietnamese language.

The Vietnamese language does not have a perfect analogue for the English word “privacy”

(which is interesting in itself). Therefore the moderator used the Vietnamese phrase “bảo mật

thông tin cá nhân trên mâng,” which loosely translates as “confidential online personal

information.”

Interview sessions were conducted at a reserved meeting room on at RMIT University on

three consecutive weekends in January 2012. Each group comprised 5-7 individuals, and focus

group interview sessions lasted approximately 1.5 hours each.

Individuals in each of the three groups2 were carefully selected to adhere to similar bands

regarding age and socioeconomic/career status. Participants were recruited using a purposive

sampling technique designed to assure homogeneous groups across four population segments:

Group 1: Teens (14-17), medium to heavy Internet users.

Group 2: Young adult ( 18-22) comprising high school and university students, heavy

Internet users.

Group 3: Young professionals and office workers, moderate Internet users.

Participants were recruited according to the following criteria:

1. Vietnamese nationals who have not lived outside of Vietnam.

2. No personal or professional affiliation with RMIT International University Vietnam, the

University of South Carolina, or the principal researcher.

3. To the greatest degree possible, participants were strangers to each other.

4. Amount of Internet use should meet the criteria for each sample group: i.e. light (1-2

hours per week); moderate (3-6 hours per week); or heavy (7 or more hours each week).

This researcher was present (but not in direct line of sight of respondents) for each focus

group session, accompanied by a translator who provided a running account of important

points and key discussions.

Data used in this research also includes data gathered specifically for this study via an

interactive online qualitative platform administrated under the researcher’s supervision by the

Saigon office of U.K.-based market research firm Cimigo. Called CimigoLive, the platform allows

researchers to introduce a topic into a closed, moderated online community for discussion via a

variety of interactive formats. These include a discussion forum in which community members

talk about and debate aspects of a topic; individual member blogs that act as personal diaries in

2 The researcher had hoped to be able to include additional focus groups comprising senior and/or infrequent

Internet users as well, but such did not prove possible within the limited time frame. This lack stands as a

significant limitation of the current study.

which participants may express more introspective thoughts and feelings on a topic; private

moderated chat sessions, which provide real-time dynamic online group interaction and

feedback on a topic; and a media gallery, allowing participants to post images and multimedia

expressing their thoughts and lifestyle-based behaviors that relate to the topic. For the

purposes of this study, the majority of data was gathered using the online moderated chat

platform.

Purposive sampling was used to recruit respondents to the CimigoLive online qualitative

research community for the purpose of investigating conceptions of and attitudes about online

personal privacy. Respondents were recruited offline by trained Cimigo interviewers who visited

schools, universities, coffee shops, cinemas, and similar locations. Interviewers also utilized a

snowball strategy by which they recruited individuals referred to them by former respondents.

The n=64 respondents participated in the community for a total of 16 weeks, of which three

weeks were dedicated to the discussion of online personal privacy by the community.

The sample of respondents discussing online privacy for this study consisted of male and

female n=32 teenagers (15-18 years) and n=32 young adults (20-24 years) from Hanoi and Ho

Chi Minh City. Respondents were recruited according to the following criteria:

1. Regular Internet users (online at least six times per week, bloggers and/or active

participants in social networks online)

2. Watch TV regularly (at least four times per week, for approximately two hours each

time)

3. Users of personal care products/cosmetics/male grooming products

All community members attended a warm-up meeting/briefing before the online discussion

began, during which respondents were walked through what was required of them in detail.

They participated in games and exercises designed to demonstrate what the community would

require of them. They asked questions and were told how the information gathered would be

used. Their consent to participate was gained at the end of this warm-up meeting. The parents

of respondents between 15 and 18 years were made aware of the activity and provided their

consent for their children to be involved.

In analysing the data gathered this particular topic, Cimigo researchers built a code frame

and tagged data that respondents contributed to all applications on the platform (forum, chat,

media galleries, blogs). The tagged data was then exported into a content analysis framework

that researchers then used to build findings, analyse and interpret the qualitative data.

5. Results

It was arranged that an annual nationwide telephone survey regarding Internet-related

opinions conducted by Cimigo would this year include a question regarding levels of concern

about online privacy. The question was just one of 28 total questions regarding a variety of

Internet-related attitudes and behaviors. Respondents were asked to reply to the question

“How concerned are you about your privacy when accessing the Internet?” on a Likert scale of

five escalating measures (Table 1).

More than half of the total respondents (n= 3405) expressed either little concern or no

concern at all. A mere nine percent suggested they were “strongly concerned.” Though not

empirically comparable to other recent measures of privacy concern, these results appear

almost diametically opposite to those seen in similar recent surveys of privacy concerns in

Western nations.

Table 1

Q22. How concerned are you about personal

privacy when accessing the Internet? Total Male Female

Unweighted Base 3405 1915 1490

Weighted Base 2785 1493 1293

Strongly concerned 9% 10% 8%

Slightly concerned 22% 20% 25%

Moderately concerned 18% 17% 18%

Not really concerned 28% 26% 31%

No concern at all 23% 26% 18%

Across the 20 respondents in three focus groups and the 64 participants in CimigoLive’s online

platform, the perceived advantages of the Internet were similar: they included (in no particular

order) entertainment, access to news and information, connecting with friends, and savings to

time and money.3

The perceived disadvantages of the Internet broke more clearly across the three groups. For

teen respondents in the focus groups, some of the Internet’s main problems were that it’s too

slow, there are too many advertisements, and too many computer viruses.

Young adults shared teens’ unhappiness with the prevalence of viruses and advertisements.

To this, they added the problem of spam, noting also that it’s “too difficult to hide personal

information” online. Office workers cited the proliferation of “hi-tech criminals and hackers” as

a major downside of the online environment, noting as well the resulting consequences:

“personal information gets made public.” Office workers additionally blamed the Internet for

making people lazy and less thoughtful, asserting that it has an addictive quality and takes up

too much work time.

All respondents worried that too much of the information available online is of questionable

accuracy, truth, or usefulness. And, finally, all mentioned as a major disadvantage the presence

of “inappropriate content” on the Web, commonly known in Vietnam as known “black”

websites. These include sites that feature either pornographic material or content that is critical

of the Communist Party in Vietnam, its policies or members, or which advocates for democracy,

3What was not mentioned as advantages or benefits by respondents in both the interactive online platform and the

focus groups may be as noteworthy as what was. The most commonly acknowledged benefits of the Internet among

residents of developed nations (Brey 2006) that went unmentioned by Vietnamese respondents included: information

dissemination (as opposed to gathering and consuming), production and commerce, cultural understanding, and

civic engagement.

or which touches on any subject the government of Vietnam has deemed “sensitive” and

therefore unmentionable.4

All respondents in both the focus groups and the online CimigoLive platform were asked about

personal information on the Internet. The topic was introduced using the words “bảo mật thông

tin cá nhân trên mạng,” which roughly translates as “confidential online personal information”

(again, there is no perfect analogue for “privacy” in the Vietnamese language.)

There is clearly a belief among young Vietnamese Internet users that people online need to

take steps to secure personal information like passwords, bank details and photographs. Fewer

numbers said they preferred to keep their list of contacts and friends on social networks private.

“Bảo mật thông tin cá nhân trên mạng is about people protecting their privacy – keeping

their passwords secret on their accounts. On websites, forums and on your computer you

can protect your information if you find out how to use the tools that are there. The

trouble is when you forget your passwords then it takes effort and time to get back in to

your account.”

“Bảo mật thông tin cá nhân trên mạng is when we have things that we can do, methods,

to protect important information, like the data that is relevant to us that we don’t want

competitors and information hunters (hackers) to know.”

“Bảo mật thông tin cá nhân trên mạng is doing things to make sure information, pictures

and your personal conversations on the Internet are kept away from people who have

bad intentions to use your information over the Internet.”

There were also respondents who said that information security on the Internet was not

relevant to them.

“Nowadays, it is quite safe for ordinary people on the web because our information is

not worth much. If you are a government or a celebrity, then you have to be careful,

because hackers all over the world are excellent.”

Overwhelmingly, the key to assuring personal privacy online was regarding as being strong

passwords and tightly guarded login information, rather than website privacy policies or legal

frameworks. To several respondents, particularly to teens, a compromised password or login key

was viewed as an almost existential threat:

“Password is the key to access our personal world. If we lose it, we lose our whole world.”

4Interestingly, such “black” content does not include file-sharing sites where copyrighted material is freely traded –

content which in many Western nations is currently far more contentious than pornography or political advocacy.

“It’s [the Internet] a beautiful world if we manage to secure our information, but once

we fail, that world disappears just like a dream.”

Respondents in both the online interactive platform and the focus groups expressed great

concern regarding perceived threats to personal information on the Internet and the need to

take precautions against data privacy violations. But this concern was overwhelmingly limited to

the threat of valuable personal information (in the form of finances or reputation, and, to a

lesser degree, personal intellectual property) being stolen or illegitimately acquired by

individuals for malicious intent. Respondents expressed little concern about organizations,

commercial entities, or the government accessing their information, and little to no discomfort

with organizational online surveillance or tracking. Online personal privacy was viewed only

through the prism of securing personal information online against malign use by other

individuals.

“Someone on the Internet can steal our personal information to [impersonate us and]

cheat others.”

“Someone hacked my online game account. I had played a long time to build up points,

but when I went back to it someone else had been using my account and my points were

gone. The hackers sell the points to other gamers.”

“I have worked in an Internet shop and have seen hackers who sit on the computers and

get into other people’s bank accounts and mobile phone accounts. They steal the

information and use it to purchase things for themselves over the Internet.”

“Even some IT members in my company secretly sell our customer database. It happens a

lot these days.”

Most had no idea what a browser cookie is or what purpose it might serve. When told what

cookies are, respondents rarely expressed any discomfort with this kind of third-party tracking

of their browsing behavior. Some found the idea helpful, or at least benign in terms of threats to

their personal data privacy.

“If it’s personal computer, it’s very convenient because we don’t have to log in the next

time.”

“They can’t do anything with that information on which websites we go to, as they don’t

have our passwords.”

Rather than website privacy policies or legal frameworks, the key to personal privacy online

among respondents seemed to be strong passwords and tightly guarded login information.

Respondents generally had no idea of the purpose of Internet privacy policies. Of those who did

understand them, there was considerable cynicism regarding their actual purpose. Few had ever

closely read a privacy policy, and there was general agreement that any given privacy policy

exists for one of only three reasons:

1) to ensure the security of the business’s information, not that of the user,

2) to indemnify the business in the event that a user’s personal information is

compromised

3) to prohibit any copyright or IP infringement on the part of the user

Clearly, none of these rationales would appear to be in the user’s interests.

“I don’t read it much. It’s too long and I’m lazy to read it. Generally, it’s about [their]

information security, not giving their information to other people, etc. Just that simple.”

“... they have them [privacy policies] to secure their own information.”

“...they need to secure their own information first. When our information is stolen, it’s

our matter or just a secondary issue to them … in terms of our information issues, they

don’t care.”

Respondents were universally unaware of Article 46 of the 2005 Law on E-Transactions. When it

was read to them, they dismissed it as being deliberately vague, unavailable or not applicable to

ordinary citizens, and easily circumvented for those with the wherewithal to do so.

“It may just apply to big companies and organizations. They need information security

and they can sue when someone violates it.”

“At present mostly big companies, organizations or such people as celebrities and models

have private information, personal photos that they can make use of the law to sue

when it’s violated. Normal people like us don’t have anything that serious to feel violated

that much to need this law.”

“It’s more for organizations and companies. We’re just individuals, there are probably

not many people finding us, searching our information.”

Respondents showed little concern over the accessibility of personal information like

individual purchase history and browsing history – except insofar as that information might be

of value to an individual with malicious intent. Indeed, many found the idea of companies

tracking their purchase and browsing history potentially helpful or otherwise benign.

The overall conception of online personal privacy in Vietnam revealed is one in which privacy

is a means of safeguarding valuable personal information from dangerous individuals who seek

to obtain it for malign purposes. Vietnamese netizens appear to be consumed by worries about

the danger from nefarious individuals online, which may include peers and work colleagues. In

fact, respondents indicated much greater concern about the threat posed by individuals (e.g.

hackers, thieves, malicious peers) than from other entities (e.g. the government, corporations,

third-party marketers). Again, this result would appear to flip current privacy concerns in most

Western nations on their head.

The onus of responsibility for securing personal information was widely perceived as being

on the user, rather than on the ISP, the website owner, the government, or any other entity.

Privacy policies were dismissed as altogether without relevance to ordinary Internet users –

either outright lies, meaningless boilerplate, or intended to secure the website owner’s

information rather than the user’s. Vietnam’s few legal regulations were deemed similarly

without value, believed to exist only for the benefit of powerful Vietnamese government and

corporate interests and influential private individuals.

Finally, of the 84 total respondents in the three focus groups and the online interactive

platform, only two referred to privacy as a “right.”

6. Conclusions

The observed results reveal an interesting paradox regarding privacy values in Vietnam as

they relate to Hofstede’s five dimensions.

With a high Long-Term Orientation (LTO) score of 80, Vietnam may be expected to cultivate a

culture of relative comfort with sharing personal information for the sake of group orientation,

respect for hierarchy, the concept of face, avoidance of conflict and confrontation, the

importance of relationships, and the need for harmony. Yet the results seem to show just the

opposite: not only were respondents not comfortable sharing much of their personal

information with other individuals, they were fiercely protective of it.

Similarly, Vietnam’s relatively low UAI score (30) suggests similarly low concern for

information privacy, but such was not found to be the case – at least regarding individuals, as

contrasted with groups.

A low Individualism (IDV) dimension, as in Vietnam (20), should mean that individuals would

exhibit markedly lower levels of concern for privacy. Yet, again, Vietnamese respondents were

highly protective of online personal privacy from other individuals.

Vietnam’s Masculinity (MAS) score of 40 indicates that individuals there tend to place

significant emphasis on material success, and that the economic benefits of using private

information should tend to outweigh the benefits of privacy control. Yet controlling against the

misuse of personal data online was widely viewed as critical.

Only in the case of Power Distance do the observed results fall along predicted lines. Vietnam

has a high Power Distance score of 70. Individuals in high PDI countries are expected to exhibit

higher levels of privacy concerns. Insofar as personal information security is concerned, in this

regard the observed results did meet expectations.

Yet the respondents’ relative comfort with institutional scrutiny tells a more complex and

nuanced tale than is revealed by attitudes toward sharing of information with other individuals.

That is, if we consider only attitudes toward group and organizational surveillance, then privacy

attitudes would seem to track much more closely with those predicted. In other words,

depending upon the conception of privacy we utilize – weighted toward individuals or groups,

scrutiny or appropriation – the observed results either fit many of those predicted by Hofstede’s

model or they fail them almost entirely.

These results clearly indicate that further research is needed regarding the relationship of

Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture to the complex characterizations of privacy across

national and cultural borders.

Westin and many other scholars and theorists speak of privacy as a right, yet this study

suggests that Vietnamese netizens may view privacy not as a right – that is, as a fundamental

individual entitlement – but rather as a normative behavior, a socially prescribed manner of

preventive action like locking one’s door or brushing one’s teeth, more responsibility than right.

It is not their privacy per se that Vietnamese respondents seem to feel is threatened on the

Internet; it is their wallets and their social capital.

This all suggests that Vietnamese conceptions of privacy may have more in common with

notions of mere personal information and data security than with traditional Western ideals

rooted in identity formation and personal autonomy.

Indeed, although Rachaels has observed that the unique interest protected by privacy is “our

ability to limit other people’s observation of us or access to information about us – even if we

have certain knowledge that the observation or information would not be used to our detriment

or used at all” 89

[italics mine], concerns about the potential for misuse of information would

seem to characterize Vietnamese conceptions of privacy almost in full. Regarding Laudon’s

formulation, that online privacy is “the claim of individuals to be left alone, free from

surveillance or interference from other individuals or organizations including the state,”90

the

Vietnamese expression of online privacy may best be understood as a curtailed, modified

version of that definition: Privacy in Vietnam is the responsibility of individuals to keep

themselves free from malign interference from other individuals.

Vietnam’s unique history and culture may shed further light on these findings. Vietnam has

only recently initiated free-market economic reforms which include private ownership, the

accumulation of capital, market competition, and wage labor. From 1954 until the Chinese-style

economic reforms of doi moi in 1989, Vietnam was among the poorest countries in the world, a

closed communist state in which the government oversaw the production and distribution of all

goods and services, and economic activity of any kind was proscribed. Today, tens of millions of

Vietnamese entrepreneurs are seeking to make up for lost time by engaging in a kind of

“turbocharged capitalism” in which capital, and the means of acquiring it, have become a

single-minded obsession for Vietnamese people. Ironically, it sometimes seems as if every

aspect of modern individual life in Vietnam has come to be ruled by this obsession, where

money is not only a means of providing for oneself and one’s family, it is an end in itself:

establishing status in a hierarchy-gripped culture and providing a safety net in a society in which

less than 20% of the population has a bank account and the notion of insurance is viewed with

deep scepticism.

Vietnam has very little established civil society, and, as in many developing nations, the

government and private industry are awash in institutionalized corruption. At the same time,

state resources for enforcing laws, policing the online environment, and prosecuting

malefactors are only a fraction of what is warranted by the amount of activity on the Internet.

As a result, criminal and illegitimate activity, online and off, is rampant, and citizens are

commensurately more sensitive to the possibility of becoming a victim of such activity than in

other developed countries with tighter oversight and regulatory controls.

As has been noted, Confucian-oriented societies such as Vietnam tend to be characterized by

strong hierarchical systems, with the government and its officials at the very top, and individual

citizens at the bottom. An individual’s placement in the vast territory between those two poles

depends on many factors, but in general terms, the more influence an individual has, the more

power (and, usually, wealth) he has. This is not much different from many capitalist societies,

but there is a significant difference in Vietnam: the more power one has in society, the more

rights one is also perceived to have. (This relationship is precisely what is represented by

Hofstede’s Power Distance dimension).

It is therefore a common belief among Vietnamese that ordinary individuals are, by default,

powerless, disenfranchised, and outside the system. Laws and other regulatory systems that

might appear to exist for the benefit of every citizen are in fact available only to those influential

persons who can manipulate the system to their benefit. Considered through this lens, it is

unsurprising that respondents (among whom there were no government officials, no

celebrities, no oil titans or media moguls) typically felt that privacy-related laws and policies

existed only for the benefit of a select elite, as inaccessible to ordinary Vietnamese as a Lexus or

a fashion model girlfriend.

The Vietnamese worldview also places the government in a paternalistic position in society,

very much like a parent who must be trusted to take care of its children, the citizens. While

personal liberty and autonomy are very important to American and European Internet users,

Vietnamese users are much more tolerant of, even receptive to, greater intrusion and scrutiny

by the government and corporate entities into their personal lives and affairs online. As

Hofstede has noted, cultural dimensions such as collectivism and power distance can affect the

standards of privacy rights. The notion of online surveillance or intrusion by the government, or

even by online businesses and other organizations, may not be considered a violation of privacy

because, for Vietnamese, such actions are to be expected and even sanctioned in the name of

collectivism, citizenship, Confucian values, and national economic development.

Notes

1 McCune, Jenny C. 1999. “Big Brother is watching you.” Management Review March: 10-15.

2 Purdy, Jedediah. 2000. “An intimate invasion.” USA Weekend June 30-July 2: 6-9.

3 Greenberg, Andy. 2008. “The Privacy Paradox.” Forbes.com, published on 15 February,

http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/15/search-privacy-ask-tech-security-cx_ag_0215search.html. 4 Phillips, David J. 2004. “Privacy Policy and PETs: the Influence of Policy Regimes on the Development and Social

Implications of Privacy Enhancing Technologies.” New Media & Society 6 (6): 691–706. 5 Wu, Yanfang, Tuenyu Lau, David J. Atkin, and Carolyn A. Lin. 2011. “A Comparative Study of Online Privacy

Regulations in the U.S. and China.” Telecommunications Policy 35: 603–61. 6 Warren, Samuel and Louis Brandeis. 1890. “The Right to Privacy.” Harvard Law Review 4: 193–220.

7 Ibid.

8 Rachaels, James. 1975. “Why privacy is important.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 4 (4): 295-333.

9 Schoeman, Ferdinand David. 1984. Philosophical dimensions of privacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10 Sheehan, Kim Bartel. 2002. “Toward a Typology of Internet Users and Online Privacy Concerns.” The Information

Society 18: 21-32. 11

Johnson, Deborah G. 2000. Computer Ethics. 3rd Ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 12

Reiman, Jeffrey H. 1976. “Privacy, Intimacy, and Personhood.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 6(1): 26-44. 13

De Boni, Marco and Martyn Prigmore. 2002. “Cultural Aspects of Internet Privacy,” Proceedings of the UKAIS

conference, Leeds. 14

EPIC. 2006. “Privacy and Human Rights: An international survey of privacy laws and practice.” Washington, D.C.:

Electronic Privacy Information Center. 15

Privacy International. 2012. Privacy and Human Rights 2006: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and

Developments. USA: Electronic Privacy Information Center and Privacy International. 16

Smith H. Jeff, Sandra J. Milberg, and Sandra J. Burke. 1996. “Information privacy: measuring individuals’ concerns

about corporate practices.” MIS Quarterly 20 (2): 167-196. 17

Wan Mohd Nor, Mirni and Ratnawati Asraf. 2011. “Technology and the Deterioration of Right to Privacy.” IJAPS 7

(2): 37-54. 18

Schneier, Bruce. 2006. “The Eternal Value of Privacy.” Wired, 18 May. 19

Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1975. “The right to privacy.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 4 (4): 295-333. 20

Lee. 2007. “Digital media technology and individual privacy,” In Communication Technology and Social Change,

eds. Carolyn A. Lin and David J. Atkin. (London: Routledge.) 21

Werro, Franz. 2009. “The Right to Inform v. The Right to be Forgotten: A Transatlantic Clash.” In Liability in the

Third Millennium, eds. Aurelia Colombi Ciacchi, Christine Godt, Peter Rott, Leslie Jane Smith (Baden-Baden,

Germany: Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 2). 22

Laudon, Kennth C. and Jane P. Laudon. 2008. Essentials of Management Information Systems. Organization &

Technology in the networked Enterprise (8th

Ed). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 23

Buchanan, Tom, Carina Paine, Adam M. Joinson, and Ulf-Dietrich Reips. 2006. “Development of Measures of

Online Privacy Concern and Protection for Use on the Internet.” Journal of the American Society for Information

Science and Technology 58: 157-165. DOI: 10.1002/asi.20459 24

Altman, Irwin. 1975. The Environment and Social Behavior. California: Brooks/Cole. 25

Bellman, Steven, Erik J. Johnson, Stephen J. Kobrin, and Gerald Lohse. 2004. “International differences in

information privacy concerns: a global survey of consumers.” The Information Society 20: 313-324. 26

De Boni, Marco. Proceedings of the UKAIS conference. 27

Cho, Hichang, Milagros Rivera-Sánchez, and Sun Sun Lim. 2009. “A multinational study on online privacy: global

concerns and local responses.” New Media & Society 11 (3): 395-416. 28

Cockcroft, Sophie and Jon Heales. 2005. “National culture, trust and Internet privacy concerns.” ACIS 2005: 16th

Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Paper 65: 2-10. 29

Smith H. Jeff, Sandra J. Milberg, and Sandra J. Burke. 1996. “Information privacy: measuring individuals’ concerns

about corporate practices.” MIS Quarterly 20 (2): 167-196. 30

Westin, Alan F. 2003. “Social and Political Dimensions of Privacy.” The Journal of Social Issues 59 (2): 431-453. 31

Zhang, Yue J., Jim Q. Chen, and Kuang-Wei Wen. 2002. “Characteristics of Internet Users and Their Privacy

Concerns: a Comparative Study Between China and the United States.” Journal of Internet Commerce 1 (2): 1-16. 32

Cho, Hichang, New Media & Society 33

Chen, Houn-Gee, Charlie C. Chen, Louis Lo, and Samuel C. Yang. 2008. “Online privacy control via anonymity and

pseudonym: Cross-cultural implications.” Behaviour & Information Technology 27 (3): 229-242. 34

Boritz, Efrim, Wan Gyun No, and R.P. Sundarraj. 2006. “Internet privacy: framework, review and opportunities for

future research.” Waterloo, ON: School of Accountancy, University of Waterloo. 35

Fusilier, Marcelline and Subhash Durlabhji. 2005. “An exploration of student Internet use in India: the technology

acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior.” Campus-Wide Information Systems 22 (4): 233-246.

36

Gupta, Babita, Lakshmi S. Iyer, and Robert S. Weisskirch. 2009. “Willingness to disclose personal information

online and its effect on ensuring and protecting privacy: a two-country study.” Americas Conference on Information

Systems 9, http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2009/172. 37

Kumaraguru, Ponnurangam, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Elaine Newton. 2005. “Privacy perceptions in India and the

United States: an interview study.” Paper presented at the 33rd Research Conference on Communication,

Information and Internet Policy, The National Center for Technology and Law, George Mason University School of

Law, September 23-25). 38

Lee, Monle. 2004. “Attitudes towards direct marketing, privacy, environment, and trust: Taiwan vs. U.S.”

International Journal of Commerce and Management 14 (1): 1-18. 39

Milberg, Sandra J., Sandra J. Burke, H. Jeff Smith, and Ernest A. Kallman. 1995. “Values, personal information

privacy, and regulatory approaches.” Communications of the ACM 38 (12): 65-74. 40

Milberg, Sandra J., H. Jeff Smith, and Sandra J. Burke. 2000 “Information Privacy: Corporate Management and

National Regulation.” Organization Science 11 (1): 35–57. 41

Park, Cheol and Jong-Kun Jun. 2003. “A cross-cultural comparison of Internet buying behavior: Effects of Internet

usage, perceived risks, and innovativeness.” International Marketing Review 20 (5): 534-553. 42

Tarn, J. Michael and Naoki Hamamoto. 2009. “Online Privacy Protection in Japan: The Current Status and

Practices.” In Online Consumer Protection: Theories of Human Relativism, eds. Kuanchen Chen and Adam Fadlalla

(Michigan, IL: IGI Global). 43

Wu, Yanfang, Tuenyu Lau, David J. Atkin, and Carolyn A. Lin. 2011. “A Comparative Study of online privacy

regulations in the U.S. and China.” Telecommunications Policy 35: 603–61, doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2011.05.002. 44

Zhang, Yue J. Journal of Internet Commerce. 45

Chen, Houn-Gee. Behaviour & Information Technology. 46

Westin, Alan F. 1970. Privacy and Freedom. London: Atheneum 47

Facebook: Company Statistics. Last updated 3 February 2012,

http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics 48

Miniwatts Marketing Group. 2011. “Internet World Stats.” Last updated 31 March 2011,

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm. 49

Reporters Without Borders. 2012. “Press Freedom Index.” http://ht.ly/9DONg 50

Minh, Duong Hoang. 2008. “Data Privacy and Data Protection in e-Commerce in Vietnam.” (Paper presented at

the Seminar on International Implementation of the APEC Privacy Framework, Lima, Peru, February 19-20). 51

Nguyen, Hoang T. 2011. (Interview with Director of Legal Council, RMIT International University Vietnam, Ho Chi

Minh City, Vietnam, 28 July 2011). 52

Socialist Republic of Vietnam. 2005. Law on E-Transactions [Law No.51/2005/QH11] Hanoi, Vietnam, National

Assembly, 11th Term, 8th session. 53

Nguyen, Hoang T. 2011. (Interview with Director of Legal Council, RMIT International University Vietnam, Ho Chi

Minh City, Vietnam, 28 July 2011). 54

Ibid. 55

Ibid. 56

Minh, Duong Hoang. “Data Privacy and Data Protection in e-Commerce in Vietnam.” 57

Hofstede, Geert H. 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill. 58

Ibid. 59

Bellman, Steven. The Information Society. 60

Milberg, Sandra J. Organization Science. 61

Hofstede, Geert H. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations

across Nations. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications 62

Chiou, Andy, Jeng-chung V. Chen, and Craig Bisset. 2009. “Cross-cultural perceptions on privacy in the United

States, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Taiwan,” in Online Consumer Protection: Theories of Human Relativism, eds.

Kuanchen Chen and Adam Fadlalla. (Michigan, IL: IGI Global).

63

Westin, Alan F. 1970. Privacy and Freedom. London: Atheneum 64

De Boni, Marco and Martyn Prigmore. 2002. “Cultural Aspects of Internet Privacy,” Proceedings of the UKAIS

conference, Leeds.

65

Zhang, Yue J., Jim Q. Chen, and Kuang-Wei Wen. 2002. “Characteristics of Internet Users and Their Privacy

Concerns: a Comparative Study Between China and the United States.” Journal of Internet Commerce 1 (2): 1-16. 66



Hofstede, Geert H. Culture’s Consequences 69

De Boni, Marco and Martyn Prigmore. 2002. Proceedings of the UKAIS Conference 70


Tarn, J. Michael and Naoki Hamamoto. 2009. “Online Privacy Protection in Japan: The Current Status and

Practices.” In Online Consumer Protection: Theories of Human Relativism, eds. Kuanchen Chen and Adam Fadlalla

(Michigan, IL: IGI Global). 72

Bennett, Colin J. 1992. Regulating Privacy: Data Protection and Public Policy in Europe and the United States.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 73

Flaherty, David H. 1989. Protecting Privacy in Surveillance Societies. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina

Press. 74

Rose, Ellen A. 2006. “An examination of the concern for information privacy in the New Zealand regulatory

context.” Information and Management 43 (3): 322-335. 75

Smith, H. Jeff. 1994. Managing Privacy: Information Technology and America. Chapel Hill, NC. University of North

Carolina Press. 76



Fusilier, Marcelline and Subhash Durlabhji. 2005. “An exploration of student Internet use in India: the technology

acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior.” Campus-Wide Information Systems 22 (4): 233-246. 79

Park, Cheol and Jong-Kun Jun. 2003. “A cross-cultural comparison of Internet buying behavior: Effects of Internet

usage, perceived risks, and innovativeness.” International Marketing Review 20 (5): 534-553. 80

Maynard, Michael L. and Charles R. Taylor. 1996. “A comparative analysis of Japanese and U.S. attitudes toward

direct marketing.” Journal of Direct Marketing 10 (1): 34-44, doi:10.1002/(SICI)1522-7138(199624)10:1<34::AID-

DIR3>3.0.CO;2-0. 81

Milne, George R., James Beckman, and Marc L. Taubman. 1996. “Consumer attitudes toward privacy and direct

marketing in Argentina.” Journal of Direct Marketing 10 (1): 22–29, doi:10.1002/(SICI)1522-

7138(199624)10:1<22::AID-DIR2>3.0.CO;2-1. 82

Lee, Monle. 2004. “Attitudes towards direct marketing, privacy, environment, and trust: Taiwan vs. U.S.”

International Journal of Commerce and Management 14 (1): 1-18. 83

Kumaraguru, Ponnurangam, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Elaine Newton. 2005. “Privacy perceptions in India and the

United States: an interview study.” Paper presented at the 33rd Research Conference on Communication,

Information and Internet Policy, The National Center for Technology and Law, George Mason University School of

Law, September 23-25). 84

Hofstede, Geert H. Culture’s Consequences 85


Chiou, Andy, Jeng-chung V. Chen, and Craig Bisset. Online Consumer Protection: Theories of Human Relativism. 87

Chen, Houn-Gee. Behaviour & Information Technology. 88

Braunstein, Alex, Laura Granka, and Jessica Staddon. 2011. “Indirect content privacy surveys: measuring privacy

without asking about it.” (Paper presented at the Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, Pittsburg, PA, July 20-

22).

89

Rachaels, James. 1975. Philosophy & Public Affairs. 90

Laudon, Kenneth C. Essentials of Management Information Systems.

wisdom of the crowd - understanding online personal privacy in vietnam

Documents