Privacy Concerns Regarding Wearable IoT Devices: How it is Influenced by GDPR?

Internet of Things (IoT) devices have implications for health and fitness. Fitness wearables can promote healthy behavior and improve an individual’s overall health and quality of life. Even though fitness wearables have various benefits, privacy concerns regarding the data collected remain as a major barrier to adoption of fitness wearables. Intrinsic factors like disposition to value privacy and extrinsic factors like privacy policies and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) can influence users’ privacy concerns. This research uses experimental design to understand how these factors influence privacy concerns. The results suggest that GDPR reduces the average privacy concerns of users. The study also shows that higher perception of effectiveness of privacy policy reduces the perception of privacy risks and increases the perception of privacy control. This study illustrates the effect of users’ perceptions on factors like privacy policy, privacy control and GDPR on mitigating privacy concerns. Disciplines Data Storage Systems | Health Information Technology | Management Information Systems | Operations and Supply Chain Management | Risk Analysis Comments This proceeding is published as Paul, C., Scheibe, K.P., Nilakanta, S., Privacy Concerns regarding Wearable IoT Devices: How it is Influenced by GDPR? Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii, USA.,Jan 7, 2020 Jan 10, 2020. Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. This conference proceeding is available at Iowa State University Digital Repository: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ scm_conf/19 Privacy Concerns regarding Wearable IoT Devices: How it is Influenced

[1]  Heng Xu,et al.  Information Privacy Concerns: Linking Individual Perceptions with Institutional Privacy Assurances , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[2]  H. Jeff Smith,et al.  Research Commentary - Informing Privacy Research Through Information Systems, Psychology, and Behavioral Economics: Thinking Outside the "APCO" Box , 2015, Inf. Syst. Res..

[3]  Chuan-Hoo Tan,et al.  Addressing the Personalization-Privacy Paradox: An Empirical Assessment from a Field Experiment on Smartphone Users , 2013, MIS Q..

[4]  Dan J. Kim,et al.  A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents , 2019 .

[5]  Hock-Hai Teo,et al.  Research Note - Effects of Individual Self-Protection, Industry Self-Regulation, and Government Regulation on Privacy Concerns: A Study of Location-Based Services , 2012, Inf. Syst. Res..

[6]  Joseph Gray Jackson,et al.  Privacy and Freedom , 1968 .

[7]  M. Sarstedt,et al.  A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling , 2015 .

[8]  Sarah Spiekermann,et al.  Perceived Control : Scales for Privacy in Ubiquitous Computing , 2005 .

[9]  Glyn Lawson,et al.  Exploring Acceptance and Consequences of the Internet of Things in the Home , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Conference on Green Computing and Communications.

[10]  Victor R. Prybutok,et al.  Consumer Acceptance of RFID Technology: An Exploratory Study , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[11]  Hock-Hai Teo,et al.  AIS Electronic , 2013 .

[12]  Paul A. Pavlou,et al.  Predicting E-Services Adoption: A Perceived Risk Facets Perspective , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  A. Canhoto,et al.  Exploring the factors that support adoption and sustained use of health and fitness wearables , 2017 .

[14]  Tamara Dinev,et al.  An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[15]  Paul A. Pavlou,et al.  Can online reviews reveal a product's true quality?: empirical findings and analytical modeling of Online word-of-mouth communication , 2006, EC '06.

[16]  H. Raghav Rao,et al.  A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents , 2008, Decis. Support Syst..

[17]  Bernd W. Wirtz,et al.  Understanding consumer acceptance of mobile payment services: An empirical analysis , 2010, Electron. Commer. Res. Appl..

[18]  Mayuram S. Krishnan,et al.  The Personalization Privacy Paradox: An Empirical Evaluation of Information Transparency and the Willingness to be Profiled Online for Personalization , 2006, MIS Q..

[19]  Keng Siau,et al.  An Experimental Study on Ubiquitous commerce Adoption: Impact of Personalization and Privacy Concerns , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Erik Rolland,et al.  How Much to Share with Third Parties? User Privacy Concerns and Website Dilemmas , 2018, MIS Q..

[21]  Paul A. Pavlou,et al.  Building Effective Online Marketplaces with Institution-Based Trust , 2004, Inf. Syst. Res..

[22]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  The personalization privacy paradox: An exploratory study of decision making process for location-aware marketing , 2011, Decis. Support Syst..

[23]  Lora Giangregorio,et al.  Behavior Change Techniques Present in Wearable Activity Trackers: A Critical Analysis , 2016, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[24]  Heng Xu,et al.  Information Privacy Research: An Interdisciplinary Review , 2011, MIS Q..

[25]  Ali Sunyaev,et al.  The Adoption of Wearables for a Healthy Lifestyle: Can Gamification Help? , 2017, HICSS.

[26]  S. Petronio.  Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure , 2002 .

[27]  David Kotz,et al.  Understanding sharing preferences and behavior for mHealth devices , 2012, WPES '12.

[28]  Zeynep Cemalcilar,et al.  Age differences in privacy attitudes, literacy and privacy management on Facebook , 2016 .

[29]  Manon Arcand,et al.  The impact of reading a web site's privacy statement on perceived control over privacy and perceived trust , 2007, Online Inf. Rev..