The Privacy-Utility Tradeoff for Remotely Teleoperated Robots

Though teleoperated robots have become common for more extreme tasks such as bomb diffusion, search-and-rescue, and space exploration, they are not commonly used in human-populated environments for more ordinary tasks such as house cleaning or cooking. This presents near-term opportunities for teleoperated robots in the home. However, a teleoperator’s remote presence in a consumer’s home presents serious security and privacy risks, and the concerns of end-users about these risks may hinder the adoption of such in-home robots. In this paper, we define and explore the privacy-utility tradeoff for remotely teleoperated robots: as we reduce the quantity or fidelity of visual information received by the teleoperator to preserve the end-user’s privacy, we must balance this against the teleoperator’s need for sufficient information to successfully carry out tasks. We explore this tradeoff with two surveys that provide a framework for understanding the privacy attitudes of end-users, and with a user study that empirically examines the effect of different filters of visual information on the ability of a teleoperator to carry out a task. Our findings include that respondents do desire privacy protective measures from teleoperators, that respondents prefer certain visual filters from a privacy perspective, and that, for the studied task, we can identify a filter that balances privacy with utility. We make recommendations for in-home teleoperation based on these findings. Categories and Subject Descriptors H.1.2 [Models and Principles]: User/Machine Systems— human factors, software psychology General Terms Design; Human Factors

[1]  Vitaly Shmatikov,et al.  A Scanner Darkly: Protecting User Privacy from Perceptual Applications , 2013, 2013 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy.

[2]  M. Calo Against Notice Skepticism In Privacy (And Elsewhere) , 2011 .

[3]  H. Corriveau,et al.  A qualitative study of in-home robotic telepresence for home care of community-living elderly subjects , 2007, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.

[4]  Pascal Fua,et al.  SLIC Superpixels Compared to State-of-the-Art Superpixel Methods , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[5]  David J. Crandall,et al.  PlaceAvoider: Steering First-Person Cameras away from Sensitive Spaces , 2014, NDSS.

[6]  Ponnurangam Kumaraguru,et al.  Privacy Indexes: A Survey of Westin's Studies , 2005 .

[7]  John F. Canny,et al.  A Computational Approach to Edge Detection , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[8]  Jessie Y. C. Chen,et al.  Human Performance Issues and User Interface Design for Teleoperated Robots , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[9]  Holly A. Yanco,et al.  Improved interfaces for human-robot interaction in urban search and rescue , 2004, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37583).

[10]  Ashwin Machanavajjhala,et al.  MarkIt: privacy markers for protecting visual secrets , 2014, UbiComp Adjunct.

[11]  Selma Sabanovic,et al.  The effect of monitoring by cameras and robots on the privacy enhancing behaviors of older adults , 2012, 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[12]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Human–Robot Interaction , 2016, Hum. Factors.

[13]  Shwetak N. Patel,et al.  BlindSpot: Creating Capture-Resistant Spaces , 2009, Protecting Privacy in Video Surveillance.

[14]  Helen J. Wang,et al.  Enabling Fine-Grained Permissions for Augmented Reality Applications with Recognizers , 2013, USENIX Security Symposium.

[15]  Leila Takayama,et al.  Mobile remote presence systems for older adults: Acceptance, Benefits, and Concerns , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[16]  Michael Burmester,et al.  Teleoperation of Domestic Service Robots: Effects of Global 3D Environment Maps in the User Interface on Operators' Cognitive and Performance Metrics , 2013, ICSR.

[17]  M. Matarić,et al.  Benchmarks for evaluating socially assistive robotics , 2007 .

[18]  Leila Takayama,et al.  Strategies for human-in-the-loop robotic grasping , 2012, 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[19]  Sharath Pankanti,et al.  Blinkering Surveillance: Enabling Video Privacy through Computer Vision , 2004 .

[20]  Brent Waters,et al.  Privacy management for portable recording devices , 2004, WPES '04.

[21]  Helen J. Wang,et al.  World-Driven Access Control for Continuous Sensing , 2014, CCS.

[22]  Takayuki Kanda,et al.  What is a Human? - Toward Psychological Benchmarks in the Field of Human-Robot Interaction , 2006, ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[23]  Thomas B. Sheridan Teleoperation, Telerobotics, and Telepresence: A Progress Report , 1992 .

[24]  M. Ryan Calo The Drone as Privacy Catalyst , 2011 .