Jawaban :     Menurut saya dengan berkembangnya Teknologi di dunia manusia yang modern ini, kita sebagai manusia dengan sangat mudah untuk menjalankan kehidupan sehari hari karna teknologi dapat mempermudah segala kegiatan maupun pekerjaan kita sehari hari, akan tetapi tidak dapat dipungkiri bahwa kita harus selalu waspada dengan hal negatif yang ada pada teknologi


SOFTWARE
No belakang 0 Profesi Mobile App Engineer
No belakang 1 Profesi Digital Strategist
No belakang 2 Profesi Social Media Specialist
No belakang 3 Profesi UI / UX Designer
No belakang 4 Profesi Developer Software
No belakang 5 Profesi Data Scientist
No belakang 6 Profesi Game Tester
No belakang 7 Profesi Network Information and Security
No belakang 8 Profesi SEO Marketing
No belakang 9 Profesi Satistical Analysis dan Data Mining

HARDWARE
No belakang 0 Profesi Programmer
No belakang 1 Profesi Network Engineer
No belakang 2 Profesi IT Support
No belakang 3 Profesi Database Administrator
No belakang 4 Profesi Mobile Developer
No belakang 5 Profesi QA Engineer
No belakang 6 Profesi Back end Developers
No belakang 7 Profesi UX Researcher
No belakang 8 Profesi iOS/Android Developer
No belakang 9 Profesi EDP Operator


Jawaban : 

A.    Developer Software

  1.  Developer software adalah orang yang bertugas untuk menciptakan serta merancang software.
  2.  Struktur dan algoritma, Bahasa pemrograman, SDLC (Software Development Life Cycle), Problem solving, Komunikasi, TeamworkGaji Software Developer
  3.  Rp. 5Jt - Rp. 8Jt / Bulan
  4.  IRVAN JAHJA
  5.  Game Developer
B.    Mobile Developer
  1. Mobile Developer di Dalamnya Sederhananya, application developer adalah profesi yang bertugas mengembangkan aplikasi mobile.
  2. Struktur dan algoritma, Bahasa pemrograman, SDLC (Software Development Life Cycle), Problem solving, Komunikasi, TeamworkGaji Software Developer
  3. Rp. 3Jt - Rp. 7Jt / Bulan
  4. Andro Dynamight
  5. Tech Support


Jawaban :
  1. Data 5G dan Extended Reality (XR)
  2. Ide saya adalah mengembangkan data internet yang lebih cepat lagi bahkan melampaui batas nalar manusia, yaitu dimana dimasa depan manusia sedang memfikirkan tentang Data 6G atau 7G dan saya adalah satu satunya manusia yang memfikirkan Data 8G dimana kecepatanya bahkan dapat melampaui penglihatan manusia itu sendiri. Sungguh Mind Blowing


Putting the privacy paradox to the test: Online privacy and security behaviors among users with technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources

    Research shows that people’s use of computers and mobile phones is often characterized by a privacy paradox: Their self-reported concerns about their online privacy appear to be in contradiction with their often careless online behaviors. Earlier research into the privacy paradox has a number of caveats. Most studies focus on intentions rather than behavior and the influence of technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources is not systematically ruled out. This study therefore tests the privacy paradox under extreme circumstances, focusing on actual behavior and eliminating the effects of a lack of technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources. We designed an experiment on the downloading and usage of a mobile phone app among technically savvy students, giving them sufficient money to buy a paid-for app. Results suggest that neither technical knowledge and privacy awareness nor financial considerations affect the paradoxical behavior observed in users in general. Technically-skilled and financially independent users risked potential privacy intrusions despite their awareness of potential risks. In their considerations for selecting and downloading an app, privacy aspects did not play a significant role; functionality, app design, and costs appeared to outweigh privacy concerns.

1. Introduction
    This study aims to address deficiencies in the current privacy paradox literature. Firstly, when compared to the desktop online environment, research into the privacy paradox as it pertains to the mobile online environment is still very limited. Most available studies focus on social networking (Debatin et al., 2009; Dienlin and Trepte, 2015; Flender and Müller, 2012; Hu and Ma, 2010; Hughes-Roberts, 2013; Krämer and Haferkamp, 2011; Oetzel and Gonja, 2011; Poikela et al., 2015; Shklovski et al., 2014; Sundar et al., 2013; Young and Quan-Haase, 2013) and e-commerce activities (Acquisti, 2004; Acquisti and Grossklags, 2005; Motiwalla et al., 2014; Sundar et al., 2013; Wilson and Valacich, 2012), while research focusing on smartphone behavior and the use of mobile applications in particular remains scarce (Deuker, 2010; Oetzel and Gonja, 2011; Zafeiropoulou et al., 2013). Unlike when using traditional phones or computers, users are more prone to privacy intrusion in a (smart) mobile environment (Benenson et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2017), which underlines the need for more research in the mobile domain. Mobile application usage and the resulting data storage are continuously increasing. Considered alarming by many, the user is often excluded from decisions about which data can be shared and which should remain private. In order to support user empowerment, more research is needed into mobile application usage as it pertains to conscious, unintended or unwitting data distribution and sharing. Secondly, actual behavior is seldom measured in studies addressing the privacy paradox. In order to gain better insights into the privacy paradox and offer an explanation of why people behave online as they do, we want to measure actual behavior instead of drawing conclusions based on stated intentions. This study aims to explore whether or not the privacy paradox is observable in actual behavior, making it more than a theoretical phenomenon which may be attributed to a measurement bias known as the intentionbehavior gap. 
    Thirdly, research has shown that a knowledge and awareness gap can lead to a certain paradoxical behavior as it pertains to information disclosure online. For most users, technical processes that run in the background when doing business online are neither visible nor understandable. Consequently, technical skills (e.g., downloading an app) cannot be equated with technical literacy (e.g., understanding the data flow processes in play while downloading an app), leading to a situation in which users make use of online services despite concerns about privacy or security issues (Liccardi et al., 2014). In order to mitigate the potential influence a lack of technical know-how might have, we studied the privacy paradox among users with a high level of technical expertise and awareness regarding online privacy and security. 
    Fourthly, financial restrictions are considered a significant factor in this paradoxical behavior as well, especially as they pertain to mobile computing and more specifically, when installing apps on smartphones. Users have a tendency to not buy their apps, even if they cost mere cents (Liccardi et al., 2014). App developers often use advertising or re-use app data for other purposes to generate revenues. It is a proven fact that free versions of many types of apps require a broader scope of permissions—often unrelated to the apps’ functionality—than purchasable versions of similar apps (Chia et al., 2012), opening the door to user data misuse. In order to compensate for the possible effects of financial restrictions, participacipants in our study were provided with a certain amount of money that could be used for, among other things, an app purchase.

2. Theoretical framework 
    The purpose of this study was to further investigate some of the factors that play a role in the decision-making process of consumers while downloading and installing an app. The main focus was on the privacy and security precautions users might take during the installation and usage of an app. Many definitions of privacy exist and the concept of privacy has changed over time and with continuously evolving new (smart) technologies. When we talk about privacy, we refer to information privacy. It involves deciding what personal information may be revealed to others and understanding how this personal information is obtained by others and how other parties make use of this information (Westin, 2003). 

    2.1. Mobile users’ privacy and security behavior
    2.2. The privacy paradox

3. Method 
    3.1. Research design
    3.2. Stimulus materials: Selection of apps
    3.3. Procedure
    3.4. Measurement instruments
    3.5. Participants
    3.6. Analysis

4. Results 
    Below, the results of the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data will be presented. In the first two sub sections, overviews will be given of, respectively, participants’ technical knowledge and skills and their privacy awareness. After that, the focus will be on their app downloading and installing behavior. The final sub sections will, respectively, focus on the results regarding download considerations and the reviews

    4.1. Technical knowledge and skills
    4.2. Privacy and security awareness
    4.3. Actual privacy-related behavior
    4.4. Participants’ download considerations
    4.5. Privacy and security related considerations in the reviews

5. Discussion 
    The purpose of this paper was to research the phenomenon of the privacy paradox. More specifically, this study aimed at exploring whether or not the privacy paradox is in fact observable in actual behavior and not attributed to a given intention/attitudebehavior gap as reported in literature (Baek, 2014; Barth and de Jong, 2017; Dienlin and Trepte, 2015) 

    5.1. Main findings
    5.2. Implications
    5.3. Limitations and future research
    5.4. Conclusions