Tangible Privacy

Sensor-enabled computers in the form of ‘IoT’ devices such as home security cameras and voice assistants are increasingly becoming pervasive in our environment. With the embedded cameras and microphones in these devices, this ‘invasion’ of our everyday spaces can pose significant threats to the privacy of bystanders. Because of their complex functionality, even when people attempt privacy measures (such as asking the owner to “turn the camera off”), these devices may still record information because of the lack of a ‘real’ off button. With the ambiguities of current designs, a bystander’s perceived privacy can diverge from their actual privacy. Indeed, being able to assess one’s actual privacy is a key aspect in managing one’s privacy according to Altman’s theory of boundary regulation, and current designs fall short in assuring people of their privacy. To understand how people as bystanders manage their privacy with IoT devices, we conducted an interview study about people’s perceptions of and behaviors around current IoT devices. We find that although participants’ behaviors line up with Altman’s theory of boundary regulation, in the face of uncertainty about their privacy, they desire or engage in various ‘tangible’ workarounds. Based on our findings, we identify and introduce the concept of ‘tangible privacy’ as being essential to boundary regulation with IoT devices. We argue that IoT devices should be designed in a way that clearly and unambiguously conveys sensor states to people around them and make actionable design recommendations to provide strong privacy assurances to bystanders.

[1]  I. Seidman Interviewing as qualitative research : a guide for researchersin education and the social sciences , 1991 .

[2]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Turn Signals Are The Facial Expressions Of Automobiles , 1992 .

[3]  Abigail Sellen,et al.  Design for Privacy in Ubiquitous Computing Environments , 1993, ECSCW.

[4]  David M. Newman Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life , 1995 .

[5]  Betty Boothroyd External cognition : how do graphical representations work ? , 1996 .

[6]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  External cognition: how do graphical representations work? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[7]  T. Marteau,et al.  The Place of Inter-Rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: An Empirical Study , 1997 .

[8]  J. Kendall Axial Coding and the Grounded Theory Controversy , 1999, Western journal of nursing research.

[9]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces , 2000, IBM Syst. J..

[10]  Joann Peck,et al.  To have and to Hold: The Influence of Haptic Information on Product Judgments , 2003 .

[11]  Laurie J. Bonnici,et al.  Beyond the FAQ: Explicit and implicit norms in Usenet newsgroups , 2003 .

[12]  H. Nissenbaum Privacy as contextual integrity , 2004 .

[13]  Jacob Buur,et al.  Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction , 2006, CHI.

[14]  L. Given,et al.  The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods , 2011 .

[15]  M. Skubic,et al.  Needing smart home technologies: the perspectives of older adults in continuing care retirement communities. , 2008, Informatics in primary care.

[16]  Tadayoshi Kohno,et al.  A spotlight on security and privacy risks with future household robots: attacks and lessons , 2009, UbiComp.

[17]  Batya Friedman,et al.  The Watcher and the Watched: Social Judgments About Privacy in a Public Place , 2006, Media Space 20+ Years of Mediated Life.

[18]  Artemis Moroni,et al.  Vision and Challenges for Realising the Internet of Things , 2010 .

[19]  L. Jean Camp,et al.  DigiSwitch: design and evaluation of a device for older adults to preserve privacy while monitoring health at home , 2010, IHI.

[20]  Bertrand Schneider,et al.  Benefits of a Tangible Interface for Collaborative Learning and Interaction , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[21]  J. Peck,et al.  Autotelic need for touch, haptics, and persuasion: The role of involvement , 2011 .

[22]  Apu Kapadia,et al.  Soundcomber: A Stealthy and Context-Aware Sound Trojan for Smartphones , 2011, NDSS.

[23]  Chris Harrison,et al.  Unlocking the expressivity of point lights , 2012, CHI.

[24]  Antti Oulasvirta,et al.  Long-term effects of ubiquitous surveillance in the home , 2012, UbiComp.

[25]  Tadayoshi Kohno,et al.  Computer security and the modern home , 2013, CACM.

[26]  Koen van Boerdonk,et al.  Moving Tangible Interaction Systems to the Next Level , 2013, Computer.

[27]  Rodrigo Roman,et al.  On the features and challenges of security and privacy in distributed internet of things , 2013, Comput. Networks.

[28]  Stephan Wensveen,et al.  Designing for perceptual crossing: designing and comparing three behaviors , 2013, CHI.

[29]  David J. Crandall,et al.  PlaceRaider: Virtual Theft in Physical Spaces with Smartphones , 2012, NDSS.

[30]  Tom Rodden,et al.  At home with agents: exploring attitudes towards future smart energy infrastructures , 2013, IJCAI.

[31]  Tadayoshi Kohno,et al.  In situ with bystanders of augmented reality glasses: perspectives on recording and privacy-mediating technologies , 2014, CHI.

[32]  Stephen Checkoway,et al.  iSeeYou: Disabling the MacBook Webcam Indicator LED , 2014, USENIX Security Symposium.

[33]  David J. Crandall,et al.  Privacy behaviors of lifeloggers using wearable cameras , 2014, UbiComp.

[34]  Luigi Alfredo Grieco,et al.  Security, privacy and trust in Internet of Things: The road ahead , 2015, Comput. Networks.

[35]  David A. Wagner,et al.  Somebody's Watching Me?: Assessing the Effectiveness of Webcam Indicator Lights , 2015, CHI.

[36]  Yier Jin,et al.  Privacy and Security in Internet of Things and Wearable Devices , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Multi-Scale Computing Systems.

[37]  Oren Zuckerman,et al.  Objects for Change: A Case Study of a Tangible User Interface for Behavior Change , 2015, TEI.

[38]  Mahadev Satyanarayanan,et al.  Privacy Mediators: Helping IoT Cross the Chasm , 2016, HotMobile.

[39]  Luke Stark,et al.  The emotional context of information privacy , 2016, Inf. Soc..

[40]  Avner Levin Privacy in Public , 2016, IEEE Potentials.

[41]  Andreas Jacobsson,et al.  On Privacy and Security Challenges in Smart Connected Homes , 2016, 2016 European Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference (EISIC).

[42]  Joemon M. Jose,et al.  Bystander Privacy in Lifelogging , 2016, BCS HCI.

[43]  Yang Wang,et al.  Flying Eyes and Hidden Controllers: A Qualitative Study of People’s Privacy Perceptions of Civilian Drones in The US , 2016, Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol..

[44]  Sadie Creese,et al.  The Perfect Storm: The Privacy Paradox and the Internet-of-Things , 2016, 2016 11th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES).

[45]  Volker Wulf,et al.  What Happened in my Home?: An End-User Development Approach for Smart Home Data Visualization , 2017, CHI.

[46]  Franziska Roesner,et al.  End User Security and Privacy Concerns with Smart Homes , 2017, SOUPS.

[47]  Daniel Vogel,et al.  A Modular Smartphone for Lending , 2017, UIST.

[48]  Yang Wang,et al.  Privacy Mechanisms for Drones: Perceptions of Drone Controllers and Bystanders , 2017, CHI.

[49]  Maya Cakmak,et al.  Toys that Listen: A Study of Parents, Children, and Internet-Connected Toys , 2017, CHI.

[50]  Lujo Bauer,et al.  Privacy Expectations and Preferences in an IoT World , 2017, SOUPS.

[51]  Gilad L. Rosner,et al.  Clearly Opaque: Privacy Risks of the Internet of Things , 2018 .

[52]  Andreas Holzinger,et al.  Users' Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Smart Home Technologies , 2018, ICOST.

[53]  Yaliang Chuang,et al.  Design Vocabulary for Human--IoT Systems Communication , 2018, CHI.

[54]  Nick Feamster,et al.  User Perceptions of Smart Home IoT Privacy , 2018, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[55]  Bilge Mutlu,et al.  Characterizing Privacy Perceptions of Voice Assistants: A Technology Probe Study , 2018, ArXiv.

[56]  Christena Nippert-Eng,et al.  "You don't want to be the next meme": College Students' Workarounds to Manage Privacy in the Era of Pervasive Photography , 2018, SOUPS @ USENIX Security Symposium.

[57]  L. Jean Camp,et al.  Poster Abstract: Who's Watching Your Child? Exploring Home Security Risks with Smart Toy Bears , 2018, 2018 IEEE/ACM Third International Conference on Internet-of-Things Design and Implementation (IoTDI).

[58]  Susanne Boll,et al.  Beyond LED Status Lights - Design Requirements of Privacy Notices for Body-worn Cameras , 2018, TEI.

[59]  Elena Mugellini,et al.  Internet of Tangible Things (IoTT): Challenges and Opportunities for Tangible Interaction with IoT , 2017, Informatics.

[60]  Melanie Volkamer,et al.  Home Sweet Home? Investigating Users’ Awareness of Smart Home Privacy Threats , 2018 .

[61]  James Pierce,et al.  Smart Home Security Cameras and Shifting Lines of Creepiness: A Design-Led Inquiry , 2019, CHI.

[62]  Yang Wang,et al.  Defending My Castle: A Co-Design Study of Privacy Mechanisms for Smart Homes , 2019, CHI.

[63]  Andrea Forte,et al.  Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research , 2019, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[64]  Yang Wang,et al.  Privacy Perceptions and Designs of Bystanders in Smart Homes , 2019, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[65]  Serge Egelman,et al.  Privacy Attitudes of Smart Speaker Users , 2019, Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol..

[66]  L. Jean Camp,et al.  Best Practices Would Make Things Better in the IoT , 2020, IEEE Security & Privacy.

[67]  Tadayoshi Kohno,et al.  Smart Devices in Airbnbs: Considering Privacy and Security for both Guests and Hosts , 2020, Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol..

[68]  Adam J. Lee,et al.  Making sense of risk in an increasingly cyber‐physical world , 2020 .

[69]  Zhongmin Cai,et al.  I'm All Eyes and Ears: Exploring Effective Locators for Privacy Awareness in IoT Scenarios , 2020, CHI.