Maximiliane Windl
Sven Mayer
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
As ubiquitous computing brings sensors and actuators directly into our homes, they introduce privacy concerns for the owners and bystanders. However, privacy concerns may vary among devices and depend on the bystanders' social relation to the owner. In this work, we hypothesize 1) that bystanders assign more privacy concerns to smart home devices than personal computing devices, such as smartphones, even though they have the same capabilities, and 2) that a stronger social relationship mitigates some of the bystanders' privacy concerns. By conducting an online survey (n=170), we found that personal computing devices are perceived as significantly less privacy-concerning than smart home devices while having equal capabilities. By varying the assumed social relationship, we further found that a stronger connection to the owner reduces privacy concerns. Thus, as bystanders underestimate the risk of personal computing devices and are generally concerned about smart home devices, it is essential to alert the user about the presence of both. We argue that bystanders have to be informed about the privacy risks while entering a new space, in the best case, already in the entrance area.
- Imtiaz Ahmad, Rosta Farzan, Apu Kapadia, and Adam J. Lee. 2020. Tangible Privacy: Towards User-Centric Sensor Designs for Bystander Privacy. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. , Vol. 4, CSCW2, Article 116 (oct 2020), 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415187Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Tousif Ahmed, Apu Kapadia, Venkatesh Potluri, and Manohar Swaminathan. 2018. Up to a Limit? Privacy Concerns of Bystanders and Their Willingness to Share Additional Information with Visually Impaired Users of Assistive Technologies. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. , Vol. 2, 3, Article 89 (sep 2018), 27 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3264899Google ScholarDigital Library
- Noah Apthorpe, Dillon Reisman, and Nick Feamster. 2016. A smart home is no castle: Privacy vulnerabilities of encrypted iot traffic. Workshop on Data and Algorithmic Transparency (2016).Google Scholar
- Noah Apthorpe, Yan Shvartzshnaider, Arunesh Mathur, Dillon Reisman, and Nick Feamster. 2018. Discovering Smart Home Internet of Things Privacy Norms Using Contextual Integrity. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. , Vol. 2, 2, Article 59 (jul 2018), 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3214262Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nat a M Barbosa, Joon S Park, Yaxing Yao, and Yang Wang. 2019. "What if?" Predicting Individual Users' Smart Home Privacy Preferences and Their Changes. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Vol. 2019, 4 (2019), 211--231. https://doi.org/10.2478/popets-2019-0066Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joseph Bugeja, Andreas Jacobsson, and Paul Davidsson. 2016. On privacy and security challenges in smart connected homes. In 2016 European Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference (EISIC, 16). IEEE, 172--175. https://doi.org/10.1109/EISIC.2016.044Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mark Chatfield and Adrian Mander. 2009. The Skillings-Mack test (Friedman test when there are missing data). The Stata journal, Vol. 9, 2 (01 Apr 2009), 299--305. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19829764Google Scholar
- Eun Kyoung Choe, Sunny Consolvo, Jaeyeon Jung, Beverly Harrison, Shwetak N. Patel, and Julie A. Kientz. 2012. Investigating Receptiveness to Sensing and Inference in the Home Using Sensor Proxies. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) (UbiComp '12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 61--70. https://doi.org/10.1145/2370216.2370226Google ScholarDigital Library
- Benjamin R. Cowan, Nadia Pantidi, David Coyle, Kellie Morrissey, Peter Clarke, Sara Al-Shehri, David Earley, and Natasha Bandeira. 2017. "What Can i Help You with?": Infrequent Users' Experiences of Intelligent Personal Assistants. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Vienna, Austria) (MobileHCI '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 43, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3098539Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tamara Denning, Zakariya Dehlawi, and Tadayoshi Kohno. 2014. In Situ with Bystanders of Augmented Reality Glasses: Perspectives on Recording and Privacy-Mediating Technologies. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (CHI '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2377--2386. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557352Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wenrui Diao, Xiangyu Liu, Zhe Zhou, and Kehuan Zhang. 2014. Your Voice Assistant is Mine: How to Abuse Speakers to Steal Information and Control Your Phone. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Workshop on Security and Privacy in Smartphones & Mobile Devices (Scottsdale, Arizona, USA) (SPSM '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 63--74. https://doi.org/10.1145/2666620.2666623Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thomas Franke, Christiane Attig, and Daniel Wessel. 2019. A Personal Resource for Technology Interaction: Development and Validation of the Affinity for Technology Interaction (ATI) Scale. International Journal of Human--Computer Interaction, Vol. 35, 6 (2019), 456--467. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1456150Google ScholarCross Ref
- Frederik Funke and Ulf-Dietrich Reips. 2012. Why Semantic Differentials in Web-Based Research Should Be Made from Visual Analogue Scales and Not from 5-Point Scales. Field Methods, Vol. 24, 3 (2012), 310--327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X12444061Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sidney Fussell. 2019. Airbnb Has a Hidden-Camera Problem. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/what-happens-when-you-find-cameras-your-airbnb/585007/Google Scholar
- Nina Gerber, Benjamin Reinheimer, and Melanie Volkamer. 2018. Home Sweet Home? Investigating Users' Awareness of Smart Home Privacy Threats. In Proceedings of An Interactive Workshop on the Human aspects of Smarthome Security and Privacy (WSSP). USENIX, Baltimore, MD, USA. https://doi.org/10.5445/IR/1000083578Google Scholar
- Loni Hagen. 2017. Overcoming the Privacy Challenges of Wearable Devices: A Study on the Role of Digital Literacy. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (Staten Island, NY, USA) (dg.o '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 598--599. https://doi.org/10.1145/3085228.3085254Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gunnar Harboe and Elaine M. Huang. 2015. Real-World Affinity Diagramming Practices: Bridging the Paper-Digital Gap. In Proc. 33rd Annual ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 95--104. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702561Google ScholarDigital Library
- Roberto Hoyle, Luke Stark, Qatrunnada Ismail, David Crandall, Apu Kapadia, and Denise Anthony. 2020. Privacy Norms and Preferences for Photos Posted Online. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. , Vol. 27, 4, Article 30 (aug 2020), 27 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3380960Google ScholarDigital Library
- Roberto Hoyle, Robert Templeman, Denise Anthony, David Crandall, and Apu Kapadia. 2015. Sensitive Lifelogs: A Privacy Analysis of Photos from Wearable Cameras. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1645--1648. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702183Google ScholarDigital Library
- Roberto Hoyle, Robert Templeman, Steven Armes, Denise Anthony, David Crandall, and Apu Kapadia. 2014. Privacy Behaviors of Lifeloggers Using Wearable Cameras. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (Seattle, Washington) (UbiComp '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 571--582. https://doi.org/10.1145/2632048.2632079Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hilary Hutchinson, Wendy Mackay, Bo Westerlund, Benjamin B. Bederson, Allison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, Nicolas Roussel, and Björn Eiderb"ack. 2003. Technology Probes: Inspiring Design for and with Families. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA) (CHI '03). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 17--24. https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642616Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anindya Maiti Kirsten Crager. 2017. Information Leakage through Mobile Motion Sensors: User Awareness and Concerns. Proceedings of the European Workshop on Usable Security (EuroUSEC) (2017). http://dx.doi.org/10.14722/eurousec.2017.23013Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marion Koelle, Katrin Wolf, and Susanne Boll. 2018. Beyond LED Status Lights - Design Requirements of Privacy Notices for Body-Worn Cameras. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (Stockholm, Sweden) (TEI '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 177--187. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173225.3173234Google ScholarDigital Library
- Evan Lafontaine, Aafaq Sabir, and Anupam Das. 2021. Understanding People's Attitude and Concerns towards Adopting IoT Devices. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 307, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451633Google ScholarDigital Library
- Josephine Lau, Benjamin Zimmerman, and Florian Schaub. 2018. Alexa, Are You Listening? Privacy Perceptions, Concerns and Privacy-Seeking Behaviors with Smart Speakers. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. , Vol. 2, CSCW, Article 102 (nov 2018), 31 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274371Google ScholarDigital Library
- Naresh K. Malhotra, Sung S. Kim, and James Agarwal. 2004. Internet Users' Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model. Information Systems Research , Vol. 15, 4 (2004), 336--355. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23015787Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nathan Malkin, Julia Bernd, Maritza Johnson, and Serge Egelman. 2018. "What Can't Data Be Used For?" Privacy Expectations about Smart TVs in the US. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Workshop on Usable Security (EuroUSEC), London, UK. https://doi.org/10.14722/eurousec.2018.23016Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nathan Malkin, Joe Deatrick, Allen Tong, Primal Wijesekera, Serge Egelman, and David Wagner. 2019. Privacy attitudes of smart speaker users. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Vol. 2019, 4 (2019). https://doi.org/10.2478/popets-2019-0068Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shrirang Mare, Franziska Roesner, and Tadayoshi Kohno. 2020. Smart Devices in Airbnbs: Considering Privacy and Security for both Guests and Hosts. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Vol. 2020, 2 (2020), 436--458. https://doi.org/doi:10.2478/popets-2020-0035Google ScholarCross Ref
- Justin Matejka, Michael Glueck, Tovi Grossman, and George Fitzmaurice. 2016. The Effect of Visual Appearance on the Performance of Continuous Sliders and Visual Analogue Scales. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 5421--5432. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858063Google ScholarDigital Library
- Maryam Mehrnezhad, Ehsan Toreini, and Sami Alajrami. 2018a. Making Sense of Sensors: Mobile Sensor Security Awareness and Education. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Socio-Technical Aspects in Security and Trust (Orlando, Florida, USA) (STAST '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 40--52. https://doi.org/10.1145/3167996.3168001Google ScholarDigital Library
- Maryam Mehrnezhad, Ehsan Toreini, Siamak F Shahandashti, and Feng Hao. 2018b. Stealing PINs via mobile sensors: actual risk versus user perception. International Journal of Information Security, Vol. 17, 3 (2018), 291--313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-017-0369-xGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- Andrés Molina-Markham, Prashant Shenoy, Kevin Fu, Emmanuel Cecchet, and David Irwin. 2010. Private Memoirs of a Smart Meter. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Workshop on Embedded Sensing Systems for Energy-Efficiency in Building (Zurich, Switzerland) (BuildSys '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 61--66. https://doi.org/10.1145/1878431.1878446Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pardis Emami Naeini, Sruti Bhagavatula, Hana Habib, Martin Degeling, Lujo Bauer, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Norman Sadeh. 2017. Privacy Expectations and Preferences in an IoT World. In Thirteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2017). USENIX Association, Santa Clara, CA, 399--412. https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2017/technical-sessions/presentation/naeiniGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- Johannes Obermaier and Martin Hutle. 2016. Analyzing the Security and Privacy of Cloud-Based Video Surveillance Systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Workshop on IoT Privacy, Trust, and Security (Xi'an, China) (IoTPTS '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 22--28. https://doi.org/10.1145/2899007.2899008Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rebecca S. Portnoff, Linda N. Lee, Serge Egelman, Pratyush Mishra, Derek Leung, and David Wagner. 2015. Somebody's Watching Me? Assessing the Effectiveness of Webcam Indicator Lights. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1649--1658. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702164Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ulf-Dietrich Reips and Frederik Funke. 2008. Interval-level measurement with visual analogue scales in Internet-based research: VAS Generator. Behavior Research Methods , Vol. 40, 3 (01 Aug 2008), 699--704. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.699Google ScholarCross Ref
- Emmanuel Sebastian Udoh and Abdulwahab Alkharashi. 2016. Privacy risk awareness and the behavior of smartwatch users: A case study of Indiana University students. In 2016 Future Technologies Conference (FTC). IEEE, 926--931. https://doi.org/10.1109/FTC.2016.7821714Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yang Wang, Huichuan Xia, Yaxing Yao, and Yun Huang. 2016. Flying Eyes and Hidden Controllers: A Qualitative Study of People's Privacy Perceptions of Civilian Drones in The US. Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol. , Vol. 2016, 3 (2016), 172--190. https://doi.org/10.1515/popets-2016-0022Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jacob O. Wobbrock, Leah Findlater, Darren Gergle, and James J. Higgins. 2011. The Aligned Rank Transform for Nonparametric Factorial Analyses Using Only Anova Procedures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI '11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 143--146. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978963Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peter Worthy, Ben Matthews, and Stephen Viller. 2016. Trust Me: Doubts and Concerns Living with the Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (Brisbane, QLD, Australia) (DIS '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 427--434. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901890Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yaxing Yao, Justin Reed Basdeo, Oriana Rosata Mcdonough, and Yang Wang. 2019. Privacy Perceptions and Designs of Bystanders in Smart Homes. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. , Vol. 3, CSCW, Article 59 (nov 2019), 24 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359161Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yaxing Yao, Huichuan Xia, Yun Huang, and Yang Wang. 2017a. Free to Fly in Public Spaces: Drone Controllers' Privacy Perceptions and Practices. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 6789--6793. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3026049Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yaxing Yao, Huichuan Xia, Yun Huang, and Yang Wang. 2017b. Privacy Mechanisms for Drones: Perceptions of Drone Controllers and Bystanders. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 6777--6788. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025907Google ScholarDigital Library
- Serena Zheng, Noah Apthorpe, Marshini Chetty, and Nick Feamster. 2018. User Perceptions of Smart Home IoT Privacy. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. , Vol. 2, CSCW, Article 200 (nov 2018), 20 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274469Google ScholarDigital Library
Recommendations
“It would probably turn into a social faux-pas”: Users’ and Bystanders’ Preferences of Privacy Awareness Mechanisms in Smart Homes
CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsThe opaque data practices in smart home devices have raised significant privacy concerns for smart home users and bystanders. One way to learn about the data practices is through privacy-related notifications. However, how to deliver these notifications ...
Privacy Perceptions and Designs of Bystanders in Smart Homes
As the Internet of Things (IoT) devices make their ways into people's homes, traditional dwellings are turning into smart homes. While prior empirical studies have examined people's privacy concerns of smart homes and their desired ways of mitigating ...
”I don’t know how to protect myself”: Understanding Privacy Perceptions Resulting from the Presence of Bystanders in Smart Environments
NordiCHI '20: Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping SocietyIoT devices no longer affect single users only because others like visitors or family members - denoted as bystanders - might be in the device’s vicinity. Thus, data about bystanders can be collected by IoT devices and bystanders can observe what IoT ...
Comments