skip to main content
10.1145/3025453.3025632acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Spiders in the Sky: User Perceptions of Drones, Privacy, and Security

Published:02 May 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Drones are increasingly being used for various purposes from recording footage in inaccessible areas to delivering packages. A rise in drone usage introduces privacy and security concerns about flying boundaries, what data drones collect in public and private spaces, and how that data is stored and disseminated. However, commercial and personal drone regulations focusing on privacy and security have been fairly minimal in the USA. To inform privacy and security guidelines for drone design and regulation, we need to understand users' perceptions about drones, privacy and security. In this paper, we describe a laboratory study with 20 participants who interacted with a real or model drone to elicit user perceptions of privacy and security issues around drones. We present our results, discuss the implications of our work and make recommendations to improve drone design and regulations that enhance individual privacy and security.

References

  1. Maria de Fatima Bento. 2008. Unmanned aerial vehicles: an overview. Inside GNSS 3, 1 (2008), 54--61.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Philip Boucher. 2015. 'You Wouldn't have Your Granny Using Them': Drawing Boundaries Between Acceptable and Unacceptable Applications of Civil Drones. Science and Engineering Ethics (2015), 1--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Tom Buchanan, Carina Paine, Adam N. Joinson, and Ulf-Dietrich Reips. 2007. Development of Measures of Online Privacy Concern and Protection for Use on the Internet. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58, 2 (Jan. 2007), 157--165. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Eric Baldwin Carr. 2013. Unmanned aerial vehicles: Examining the safety, security, privacy and regulatory issues of integration into US airspace. National Centre for Policy Analysis (NCPA). Retrieved on September 23 (2013), 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jessica R. Cauchard, Jane L. E, Kevin Y. Zhai, and James A. Landay. 2015. Drone & Me: An Exploration into Natural Human-drone Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 361--365. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Jessica Rebecca Cauchard, Kevin Y. Zhai, Marco Spadafora, and James A. Landay. 2016. Emotion Encoding in Human-Drone Interaction. In The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI '16). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 263--270. http://dl.acm.org.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/citation.cfm?id=2906831.2906878 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. D. Cavett, M. Coker, R. Jimenez, and B. Yaacoubi. 2007. Human-Computer Interface for Control of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. In 2007 IEEE Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium. 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ann Cavoukian. 2012. Privacy and drones: Unmanned aerial vehicles. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Ontario, Canada.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Ethan Chiel. 2016. The Service That Promised to Keep Drones Away From Your Home Silently Shut Down. (2016). http://fusion.net/story/305654/noflyzone-no-fly-zone-drone-shuts-down/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Reece A. Clothier, Dominique A. Greer, Duncan G. Greer, and Amisha M. Mehta. 2015. Risk perception and the public acceptance of drones. Risk analysis 35, 6 (2015), 1167--1183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Adam Conner-Simons. 2016. Wireless tech means safer drones, smarter homes and password-free WiFi. (2016). https://news.mit.edu/2016/wireless-tech-means-safer-drones-smarter-homes-password-free-wifi-0331Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. DJI Geo System. http://www.dji.com/flysafe/geo-systemGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Serge Egelman and Eyal Peer. 2015. Scaling the Security Wall: Developing a Security Behavior Intentions Scale (SeBIS). In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2873--2882. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. FAA. 2016. FAA Aerospace Forecasts. (2016). Retrieved September 13, 2016 from https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Federal Aviation Administration 2016a. B4UFLY Smartphone App. (2016). Retrieved September 13,2016 from https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_to_fly/b4ufly/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Federal Aviation Administration 2016b. Unmanned Aircraft Systems. (2016). Retrieved September 13,2016 from https://www.faa.gov/uas/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Dan Gettinger and Arthur Holland Michel. 2015. Drone sightings and close encounters: An analysis. (2015). Retrieved September 13,2016 from http://dronecenter.bard.edu/files/2015/12/12-11-Drone-Sightings-and-Close-Encounters.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Eberhard Graether and Florian Mueller. 2012. Joggobot: A Flying Robot As Jogging Companion. In CHI '12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1063--1066. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Kerry G Herron, Hank C Jenkins Smith, and Carol L Silva. 2014. US Public Perspectives on Privacy, Security, and Unmanned Aircraft Systems. (2014). Retrieved September 13, 2016 from http://crcm.ou.edu/pvcy2014/report.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Keita Higuchi and Jun Rekimoto. 2013. Flying Head: A Head Motion Synchronization Mechanism for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Control. In CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2029--2038. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Hyun Young Kim, Bomyeong Kim, and Jinwoo Kim. 2016. The Naughty Drone: A Qualitative Research on Drone As Companion Device. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication (IMCOM '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 91, 6 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Chantal Lidynia, Ralf Philipsen, and Martina Ziefie. 2017. Droning on About Drones - Acceptance of and Perceived Barriers to Drones in Civil Usage Contexts. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 317--329.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. A. Mashood, H. Noura, I. Jawhar, and N. Mohamed. 2015. A gesture based kinect for quadrotor control. In Information and Communication Technology Research (ICTRC), 2015 International Conference on. 298--301.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Mikhail Matrosov, Olga Volkova, and Dzmitry Tsetserukou. 2016. LightAir: A Novel System for Tangible Communication with Quadcopters Using Foot Gestures and Projected Image. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2016 Emerging Technologies (SIGGRAPH '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 16, 2 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Robert Molko. 2012. The Drones Are Coming! Will the Fourth Amendment Stop Their Threat to Our Privacy? Will the Fourth Amendment Stop Their Threat to Our Privacy (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. A node.js client for controlling Parrot AR Drone 2.0 quad-copters. Retrieved from https://github.com/felixge/node-ar-drone.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Parrot AR.Drone 2.0. https://www.parrot.com/us/drones/parrot-ardrone-20-power-edition.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Erika Shehan Poole, Marshini Chetty, Rebecca E. Grinter, and W. Keith Edwards. 2008. More Than Meets the Eye: Transforming the User Experience of Home Network Management. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 455--464. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Chris Schlag. 2012. New Privacy Battle: How the Expanding Use of Drones Continues to Erode Our Concept of Privacy and Privacy Rights, The. Pitt. J. Tech. L. & Pol'y 13 (2012), i.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Irving Seidman. 2013. Interviewing As Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. Teachers college press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Manya Sleeper, Sebastian Schnorf, Brian Kemler, and Sunny Consolvo. 2015. Attitudes Toward Vehicle-based Sensing and Recording. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1017--1028. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Jay Stanley and Catherine Crump. 2011. Protecting Privacy from Aerial Surveillance: Recommendations for Government Use of Drone Aircraft: Report. American Civil Liberties Union, Washington,D.C.,USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. David Stuckenberg and Stephen Maddox. 2014. Drones in the US National Airspace System. International Journal of Aviation Systems, Operations and Training (IJASOT) 1, 2 (2014), 1--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Ja-Young Sung, Lan Guo, Rebecca E. Grinter, and Henrik I. Christensen. 2007. "My Roomba is Rambo": Intimate Home Appliances. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '07). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 145--162. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1771592.1771601 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Teal Group Corporation 2016. Teal Group Predicts Worldwide Civil UAS Production Will Total $65 Billion in Its 2016 UAS Market Profile and Forecast. (2016). Retrieved September 15, 2016 from http://www.tealgroup.com/index.php/about-teal-group-corporation/press-releases/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Richard M Thompson II. 2015. Domestic Drones and Privacy: a primer. Vol. 43965. Congressional Research Service.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Gregory Voss. 2013. Privacy law implications of the use of drones for security and justice purposes. International Journal of Liability and Scientific Enquiry 6, 4 (2013), 171--192.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Tyler Wall. 2013. Unmanning the police manhunt: Vertical security as pacification. Socialist Studies/Études Socialistes 9, 2 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. 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. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2016, 3 (2016), 172--190.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Spiders in the Sky: User Perceptions of Drones, Privacy, and Security

    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
      CHI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2017
      7138 pages
      ISBN:9781450346559
      DOI:10.1145/3025453

      Copyright © 2017 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 ACM 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: 2 May 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '17 Paper Acceptance Rate600of2,400submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader