The technological nature of the Internet predetermines the transparency of many practices of online behaviour and actualises the issue of privacy in the online environment. The article presents the results of an analysis of attitudes towards online privacy in Russian society. The empirical basis is provided by the data of the study conducted in Moscow in 2021. It is shown that the practice of the Russian Internet audience widely includes actions related to leaving personal data online. The majority of respondents (84%) share the view that access to their personal data, their processing and use should be based on the consent of users. Such attitudes are combined with low awareness of the essence of the personal data use, and of the experience of their illegitimate use by third parties. Apparently, these circumstances were the reason that more than 60% of respondents indicated their concerns about security issues in the field of online privacy. Privacy in the digital environment is influenced by the technological evolution of media, on the one hand, and political, economic and sociocultural factors of their use, on the other hand.

In this regard, on the Russian empirical basis, the theoretical and applied concepts of the paradox of digital privacy and digital obedience, known in the world literature, were verified. A contradiction is revealed between the widespread concern about the confidentiality of personal data and low efforts to ensure their protection. In the group concerned about the security of personal data, 30% of users did not take any steps in this direction in their real online behaviour. As part of the study, manifestations of the phenomenon of digital obedience, associated with the installation of the “inevitability” of accepting the new coordinates of privacy that the Internet world brings with it, were recorded. The lack of action to protect personal data (with a general concern about this issue) is associated with a lack of confidence in the protection of online privacy. Overall, 40% of respondents across the array agreed that “it’s too late to protect person al data, all information about me is already on the Internet”. With the help of regression analysis, indicators were identified that correlate with such assessments. The results of the work can be used in the development of optimal solutions to ensure the security of personal data - an area where the interests of the individual, society, business, and the state collide today.

online privacy, personal data, internet, private and public, media, privacy, privacy paradox, digital obedience

1. Bauman Z. Freedom. Transl. from Eng. by G. Dashevsky. Moscow, Novoye izdatel’stvo, 2021: 204 (in Russ.).
2. Zayakin A. M., Komarov S. V. Mediation effect: being between publicity and privacy. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2019: 8 (430). Filosofskiye nauki: 53: 35–43 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.24411/1994-2796-2019-10806
3. Novaya filosofskaya entsiklopediya [The New Philosophical Encyclopedia]. Vol. III. Moscow, Mysl, 2010: 692 (in Russ.).
4. Orlov M. O., Shatkin M. A. Privacy in the conditions of digitalization. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 2019: 4: 15–25 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.31857/S013216250004583-4
5. Habermas J. The Structural Transformations of the Public Sphere. Research on the category of bourgeois society. Transl. from Germ. by V. V. Ivanov. Moscow, Ves Mir, 2016: 344 (in Russ.).
6. Chesnokova L. V. Individualized society as a socio-cultural foundation of privacy. Idei i idealy, 2019: 11: 3: 2: 375–379 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2019-11.3.2-375-389
7. Bagger C. An organisational cultivation of digital resignation? Enterprise social media, privacy, and autonomy. Nordicom Review, 2021: 42: 4: 185–198. DOI: 10.2478/nor-2021-0049
8. Bauman Z. Privacy, Secrecy, Intimacy, Human Bonds, Utopia – and Other Collateral Casualties of Liquid Modernity. In Modern Privacy. Shifting Boundaries, New Forms. Ed. by H. Blatterer, P. Johnson, M. R. Markus. London, Palgrave, 2010: 7–22.
9. Couldry N., Mejias U. The Costs of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating it for Capitalism. Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 2019: 323.
10. Draper N. From privacy pragmatist to privacy resigned: challenging narratives of rational choice in digital privacy debates. Policy & Internet, 2017: 9: 2: 232–251. DOI: 10.1002/POI3.1423333
11. Draper N., Turow J. The corporate cultivation of digital resignation. New media & society, 2019: 21: 8: 1824–1839. DOI: 10.1177/1461444819833331
12. Fuchs C. Social Media. A Critical Introduction. London, Sage, 2014: 293.
13. Kokolakis S. Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: a review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & Security, 2017: 64: 122–134. DOI: 10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002
14. Marx G. T. Privacy. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2007. Accessed 25.11.2021. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781405165518
15. Westin A. F. Privacy and Freedom. New York, Atheneum, 1967: 487.