A framework for comparing perspectives on privacy and pervasive technologies

Abstract

Legal challenges to pervasive computing systems have largely centered on the question of whether using certain systems constitutes a search according to the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. The sidebar "Relevant US Supreme Court Decisions" summarizes several key cases relating to privacy and technology, including Katz v. United States (1967), Kyllo v. United States (2001), Silverman v. United States (1961), and United States v. Karo (1984). When a government agency uses a sensing system to collect data, the legal questions often entail whether that Developing a framework for judging pervasive technologies against social norms can give technology developers insight into how and why the systems they create test those norms.

Investigating receptiveness to sensing and inference in the home using sensor proxies

“…To address some of these concerns, Langheinrich describes the concept of "privacy borders" and argues that designers of ubicomp systems should prevent unintended personal border crossings [21]. Jacobs and Abowd offer a legal perspective on these issues [16]; they introduce an analytic framework consisting of two dimensions-1) the size of the intended audience and 2) the motivation of the reasoning process. They demonstrate how this framework can be used to analyze a case where a family has a location service installed in the home, and the system collects data from multiple stakeholders (residents and guests).…”

“…They demonstrate how this framework can be used to analyze a case where a family has a location service installed in the home, and the system collects data from multiple stakeholders (residents and guests). These [16,20,21] and other theoretical work [13,28] can help assess privacy aspects of ubicomp systems and explore their socio-technical implications. They also attempt to increase public awareness of privacy issues in ubicomp environments and provide general guidelines to inform design.…”

End-User Privacy in Human-Computer Interaction

“…In contrast, the communitarian view emphasizes the common interest, and espouses an utilitarian view of privacy where individual rights may be circumscribed to benefit the society at large [93]. For an example of how this dichotomy has been translated into a framework for assessing the privacy concerns brought about by ubiquitous computing technologies, see work by Terrel, Jacobs, and Abowd [159,278].…”

Privacy and proportionality

“…From a multilateral security perspective, a standard security threat analysis can yield good results, although quantifying threats might prove difficult. In some instances, it might be possible to calculate the benefits and burdens through risk analysis, as done by Hong et al [18], assuming that the designer's goal is that of minimizing global risk at the social level, which might not always be the case [20].…”