Using relationship to control disclosure in Awareness servers

Awareness servers provide information about a person to help observers determine whether they are available for contact. A tradeoff exists in these systems: more sources of information, and higher fidelity in those sources, can improve people's decisions, but each increase in information reduces privacy. In this paper, we look at whether the type of relationship between the observer and the person being observed can be used to manage this tradeoff. We conducted a survey that asked people what amount of information from different sources that they would disclose to seven different relationship types. We found that in more than half of the cases, people would give different amounts of information to different relationships. We also found that the only relationship to consistently receive less information was the acquaintance -- essentially the person without a strong relationship at all. Our results suggest that awareness servers can be improved by allowing finer-grained control than what is currently available.

[1]  Scott E. Hudson,et al.  Techniques for addressing fundamental privacy and disruption tradeoffs in awareness support systems , 1996, CSCW '96.

[2]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  Attention-Sensitive Alerting , 1999, UAI.

[3]  Anind K. Dey,et al.  Who wants to know what when? privacy preference determinants in ubiquitous computing , 2003, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[4]  FogartyJames,et al.  Presence versus availability , 2004 .

[5]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Portholes: supporting awareness in a distributed work group , 1992, CHI.

[6]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Unpacking "privacy" for a networked world , 2003, CHI '03.

[7]  Joe Tullio,et al.  Augmenting shared personal calendars , 2002, UIST '02.

[8]  John C. Tang,et al.  Lilsys: Sensing Unavailability , 2004, CSCW.

[9]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Evaluating video as a technology for informal communication , 1992, CHI.

[10]  Michael Boyle,et al.  The language of privacy: Learning from video media space analysis and design , 2005, TCHI.

[11]  Carman Neustaedter,et al.  Blur filtration fails to preserve privacy for home-based video conferencing , 2006, TCHI.

[12]  Andy Hopper,et al.  The active badge location system , 1992, TOIS.

[13]  James Fogarty,et al.  Presence versus availability: the design and evaluation of a context-aware communication client , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[14]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaboration , 1990, CSCW '88.

[15]  Christopher G. Atkeson,et al.  Predicting human interruptibility with sensors: a Wizard of Oz feasibility study , 2003, CHI '03.

[16]  John C. Tang,et al.  Supporting distributed groups with a Montage of lightweight interactions , 1994, CSCW '94.

[17]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Controlling interruptions: awareness displays and social motivation for coordination , 2004, CSCW.

[18]  Saul Greenberg,et al.  Peepholes: low cost awareness of one's community , 1996, CHI Conference Companion.

[19]  Daniel C. McFarlane,et al.  Comparison of Four Primary Methods for Coordinating the Interruption of People in Human-Computer Interaction , 2002, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[20]  Marina Jirotka,et al.  Unpacking collaboration: the interactional organisation of trading in a city dealing room , 1993, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[21]  Mark S. Ackerman,et al.  Thunderwire: a field study of an audio-only media space , 1996, CSCW '96.

[22]  John C. Tang,et al.  ConNexus to awarenex: extending awareness to mobile users , 2001, CHI.