Drones are unmanned aircraft controlled remotely or operated autonomously. While the extant literature suggests that drones can in principle invade people’s privacy, little is known about how people actually think about drones. Drawing from a series of in-depth interviews conducted in the United States, we provide a novel and rich account of people’s privacy perceptions of drones for civilian uses both in general and under specific usage scenarios. Our informants raised both physical and information privacy issues against government, organization and individual use of drones. Informants’ reasoning about the acceptance of drone use was in part based on whether the drone is operating in a public or private space. However, our informants differed significantly in their definitions of public and private spaces. While our informants’ privacy concerns such as surveillance, data collection and sharing have been raised for other tracking technologies such as camera phones and closed-circuit television (CCTV), our interviews highlight two heightened issues of drones: (1) powerful yet inconspicuous data collection, (2) hidden and inaccessible drone controllers. These two aspects of drones render some of people’s existing privacy practices futile (e.g., notice recording and ask controllers to stop or delete the recording). Some informants demanded notifications of drones near them and expected drone controllers asking for their explicit permissions before recording. We discuss implications for future privacy-enhancing drone designs.
The under-reporting of public safety incidents is a long-standing issue. In this paper, we propose a computational cognitive modeling approach to understand and design a mobile crowdsourcing system for improving campus safety reporting. In particular, we adopt drift-diffusion models (DDMs) from cognitive psychology to investigate the effect of various factors on users' reporting tendency for public safety. Our lab experiment and online study show consistent results on how location context impacts people's reporting decisions. This finding informs the design of a novel location-based nudge mechanism, which is tested in another lab experiment with 84 participants and proved to be effective in changing users' reporting decisions. Our follow-up interview study further suggests that the influence of people's mobility patterns (e.g., expected walking distance) could explain why the nudge design is effective. Our work not only informs the design of mobile crowdsourcing for public safety reporting but also demonstrates the value of applying a computational cognitive modeling approach to address HCI research questions more broadly.
Academic scholars have leveraged crowd work platforms such as MTurk to conduct research and collect data. Though prior studies have discussed data quality and validity issues in crowd work via surveys and experiments, they kind of neglected to explore the scholars' and particularly the IRB's ethical concerns in these respects. In this study, we interviewed 17 scholars from six disciplines and 15 IRB directors and analysts in the U.S. to fill this research gap. We identified common themes among our respondents but also discovered distinctive and even opposing views regarding the approval rate, rejection, internal and external research validity. Based on the findings, we discussed a potential Tragedy of the Commons regarding the data quality deterioration and the disciplinary differences regarding validity in crowd work-based research. Finally, we advocated that the IRB's ethical concerns in crowd work-based research should be heard and respected further.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.