Links table
Abstract and 1. Introduction
-
GDP background
-
Literature review
3.1 Consumer awareness and knowledge of the list
3.2 consumer awareness and knowledge of the organizer
3.3 Consumer perceptions of privacy
3.4 Business response to regulate data protection
3.5 Employee’s awareness of the employee data protection organizer
3.6 The employee depicted in favor of GDP to the employer
3.7 The search goal is to perceive the consumer/employee of the gross domestic product
3.8 Summary
-
Blind
4.1 Design
4.2 data analysis and 4.3 ethical considerations
-
Analysis and results
5.1 The population composition of the background and 5.2 hypothesis 1: Consumers are aware and knowing with gross domestic product
5.3 hypothesis 2: Consumers lack awareness and knowledge about the organizer
5.4 hypothesis 3: Consumers feel that their privacy is better since the provision of GDP
5.5 hypothesis 4: The companies responded to the gross domestic product and made changes
5.6 hypothesis 5: Employees lack awareness of the gross domestic product organizer
5.7 hypothesis 6: Employees have not seen little benefits for their company from GDP
5.8 Research Question: GDP: Is it worth it? And 5.9 slope model depends on the double professional consumer perspective
-
Discussion
6.2 The respondents lack
6.4 Privacy perceptions improved and 6.5 may not matter the regulator file
6.6 Regulatory regulator and 6.7 GDP is worth it if …
6.8 Archeology
6.9 restrictions and future work
-
Conclusion and clarification of financing, disclosure and references
A. Surveying table schedule
Steel analysis
C. Survey
5.5 hypothesis 4: The companies responded to the gross domestic product and made changes
The respondents were presented with seven data according to the question “That is, the following are the rules that the company must
Compatible with when dealing with personal data within the gross domestic product? He asked to answer yes, no or not sure. See Table 4 to see the results.
We have two groups of multiple modified Christquared tests. The first test if the responses can be distributed (yes/ not sure/ no) randomly. This was rejected with P <0.001 for all phrases. The second group that focuses on responses yes/not sure, and again, all of which differ greatly from the random point of view regardless of "must be provided" for national security if requested ", which have 𝑝 = 0.2. The participants record a rise in knowing the company's individual obligations, with some uncertainty regarding national security exemption.
The respondents were offered 10 data on how the employer company responds to the gross domestic product. Table 11 in the appendix clarifies the results. Six of them were requested in the Luxor Pilot.
Finally, we compared the grades of the Phase 2 pilot and the main study. Figure 5 shows the violin plot from the absolute difference in Lakert’s response to the questions posed in both studies. Wilcoxon tests signed of the rank of any statistically significant differences (𝑝 <01) reveal the responses of the participants via repeated questions in the main survey, after 8 weeks. The unequal average, with an average of 0.09, pointed out the minimum change in time between the pilot and the main study. In general, people's perceptions of changes in their company remained significantly stable.
We conclude that our sample believes that their employers have responded to GDP and observed changes. Although they may lack confidence that they know the requirements for compliance with GDP in theory, their high degrees are high on specific questions that explain knowledge in practice.
5.6 hypothesis 5: Employees lack awareness of the gross domestic product organizer
After making sure that the participants know that ICO was the regulator of GDP in the United Kingdom, the participants were asked to respond to three data related to the vision, reputation and punitive ICO powers in their workplace. Table 5 shows questions and results.
The poll shows that ICO is not the subject of a conversation in the office; People have no opinion about their reputation, but they realize that the employer may be responsible for the fines of abuse of data or data violations. We calculated a vehicle for the hypothesis 5 by weighting each individual’s response from -3 to +3 depending on where the answer sat on the Likert scale and its average of the three questions. The average is. 2330.23 with a standard deviation of 1.41. We cannot reject the empty hypothesis that this distribution is extracted from the normal distribution with an average of 0 (one T test with statistics =. 61.61, 𝑝 = 0.11). Participants can randomly respond to this question. We have concluded that the awareness of the employees of the GDP in the office is mixed at best.
