skip to main content
10.1145/2632048.2632107acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesubicompConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Intruders versus intrusiveness: teens' and parents' perspectives on home-entryway surveillance

Published:13 September 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

We investigated how household deployment of Internet-connected locks and security cameras could impact teenagers' privacy. In interviews with 13 teenagers and 11 parents, we investigated reactions to audit logs of family members' comings and goings. All parents wanted audit logs with photographs, whereas most teenagers preferred text-only logs or no logs at all. We unpack these attitudes by examining participants' parenting philosophies, concerns, and current monitoring practices. In a follow-up online study, 19 parents configured an Internet-connected lock and camera system they thought might be deployed in their home. All 19 participants chose to monitor their children either through unrestricted access to logs or through real-time notifications of access. We discuss directions for auditing interfaces that could improve home security without impacting privacy.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p129-ur.mov

mov

61.3 MB

References

  1. Bauer, L., Cranor, L. F., Komanduri, S., Mazurek, M. L., Reiter, M. K., Sleeper, M., and Ur, B. The post anachronism: The temporal dimension of Facebook privacy. In Proc. WPES (2013). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Beyer, H., and Holtzblatt, K. Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Boesen, J., Rode, J. A., and Mancini, C. The domestic panopticon: Location tracking in families. In Proc. UbiComp (2010). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Brush, A. B., Jung, J., Mahajan, R., and Martinez, F. Digital neighborhood watch: Investigating the sharing of camera data amongst neighbors. In Proc. CSCW (2013). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Brush, A. B., Lee, B., Mahajan, R., Agarwal, S., Saroiu, S., and Dixon, C. Home automation in the wild: Challenges and opportunities. In Proc. CHI (2011).} Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Choe, E. K., Consolvo, S., Jung, J., Harrison, B., Patel, S. N., and Kientz, J. A. Investigating receptiveness to sensing and inference in the home using sensor proxies. In Proc. UbiComp (2012). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Cranor, L. F., Durity, A. L., Marsh, A., and Ur, B. Parents' and teens' perspectives on privacy in a technology-filled world. In Proc. SOUPS (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Czeskis, A., Dermendjieva, I., Yapit, H., Borning, A., Friedman, B., Gill, B., and Kohno, T. Parenting from the pocket: Value tensions and technical directions for secure and private parent-teen mobile safety. In Proc. SOUPS (2010). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. danah boyd. It's Complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Edwards, W. K., and Grinter, R. E. At home with ubiquitous computing: Seven challenges. In Proc. UbiComp (2001). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Hawk, S., Keijsers, L., Hale, W., and Meeus, W. Mind your own business! Longitudinal relations between perceived privacy invasion and adolescent-parent conflict. Journal of Family Psychology 23, 4 (2009), 511--520.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Kurutz, S. Losing the key. New York Times, June 11, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., and Dornbusch, S. M. Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development 62 (1991), 1049--1065.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Livingstone, S., and Bober, M. Regulating the Internet at home: Contrasting the perspectives of children and parents. In Digital Generations: Children, young people and new media. 2006, 93--113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Madden, M., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., Lenhart, A., and Duggan, M. Parents, teens, and online privacy. Pew Internet Report, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. March, W., and Fleuriot, C. Girls, technology and privacy: "Is my mother listening?". In Proc. CHI (2006). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Marwick, A. E., Diaz, D. M., and Palfrey, J. Youth, privacy, and reputation. Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 10--29, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Metzger, A., Ice, C., and Cottrell, L. But I trust my teen: Parents' attitudes and response to a parental monitoring intervention. AIDS Research and Treatment (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Nelson, M. K. Parenting Out of Control: Anxious Parents in Uncertain Times. NYU Press, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Oulasvirta, A., Pihlajamaa, A., Perkiö, J., Ray, D., Vähäkangas, T., Hasu, T., Vainio, N., and Myllymäki, P. Long-term effects of ubiquitous surveillance in the home. In Proc. UbiComp (2012). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Petronio, S. Privacy binds in family interactions: The case of parental privacy invasion. In The Dark Side of Interpersonal Communication. 1994, 241--258.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Rode, J. A. Digital parenting: Designing children's safety. In Proc. BCS-HCI (2009). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Shklovski, I., Vertesi, J., Troshynski, E., and Dourish, P. The commodification of location: Dynamics of power in location-based systems. In Proc. UbiComp (2009). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Troshynski, E., Lee, C., and Dourish, P. Accountabilities of presence: Reframing location-based systems. In Proc. CHI (2008). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Turkington, R. C. Protection for invasions of conversational and communication privacy by electronic surveillance in family, marriage, and domestic disputes under federal and state wiretap and store communications acts and the common law privacy intrusion tort. Nebraska Law Review 82, 693.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Vasalou, A., Oostveen, A.-M., and Joinson, A. N. A case study of non-adoption: The values of location tracking in the family. In Proc. CSCW (2012). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Yardi, S., and Bruckman, A. Social and technical challenges in parenting teens' social media use. In Proc. CHI (2011). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Intruders versus intrusiveness: teens' and parents' perspectives on home-entryway surveillance

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      UbiComp '14: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing
      September 2014
      973 pages
      ISBN:9781450329682
      DOI:10.1145/2632048

      Copyright © 2014 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 13 September 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate764of2,912submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader