Ask the Experts: What Should Be on an IoT Privacy and Security Label?

Emami-Naeini, Pardis; Agarwal, Yuvraj; Cranor, Lorrie Faith; Hibshi, Hanan

doi:10.1109/sp40000.2020.00043

Cited by 119 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While some participants suggested that device owners should go out of their way to inform others about devices (as in the solutions illustrated in Figures 1, 6, and 7), this could also be accomplished through technical means, for example sending smartphone notifications when devices are nearby. Existing recommendations for conveying the privacy risks of devices (e.g., [17]) are predominantly aimed at people considering purchasing one. Designers should consider how to convey relevant details to incidental users about the devices and their configuration, such as what data will be collected or the area captured by a camera.…”

Section: Meeting Incidental Users' Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“I would have to evaluate their objections”: Privacy tensions between smart home device owners and incidental users

Cobb

Bhagavatula

Garrett

et al. 2021

Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research and articles in popular press have raised concerns about the privacy risks that smart home devices can create for incidental users—people who encounter smart home devices that are owned, controlled, and configured by someone else. In this work, we present the results of a user-centered investigation that explores incidental users’ experiences and the tensions that arise between device owners and incidental users. We conducted five focus group sessions through which we identified specific contexts in which someone might encounter other people’s smart home devices and the main concerns device owners and incidental users have in such situations. We used these findings to inform the design of a survey instrument, which we deployed to a demographically representative sample of 386 adults in the United States. Through this survey, we can better understand which contexts and concerns are most bothersome and how often device owners are willing to accommodate incidental users’ privacy preferences. We found some surprising trends in terms of what people are most worried about and what actions they are willing to take. For example, while participants who did not own devices themselves were often uncomfortable imagining them in their own homes, they were not as concerned about being affected by such devices in homes that they entered as part of their jobs. Participants showed interest in privacy solutions that might have a technical implementation component, but also frequently envisioned an open dialogue between incidental users and device owners to negotiate privacy accommodations.

show abstract

Section: Meeting Incidental Users' Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“I would have to evaluate their objections”: Privacy tensions between smart home device owners and incidental users

Cobb

Bhagavatula

Garrett

et al. 2021

Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…P6 drew from their occupation as a technical writer in discussing how companies should educate users. Emami-Naeini et al [27] proposed privacy and security "nutrition labels" for IoT devices to inform consumers' purchase decisions. Akin to this idea, P6 envisioned that companies can feature safety-relevant information when there are new updates and on the product's front page saliently: "As smart devices evolve .…”

Section: Desired Improvements To Support Children's Smart Home Safetymentioning

confidence: 99%

Child Safety in the Smart Home: Parents' Perceptions, Needs, and Mitigation Strategies

Sun

Zou

Radesky

et al. 2021

Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concerns about child physical and digital safety are emerging with families' adoption of smart home technologies such as robot vacuums and smart speakers. To better understand parents' definitions and perceptions of child safety regarding smart home technologies, we interviewed 23 parents who are smart home adopters. We contribute insights into parents' perceptions of the physical and digital safety risks smart home technologies pose to children, and how such perceptions formed and changed across three phases. In acquiring smart home devices, parents already considered whether the device could cause physical harm to their children or pose privacy and security risks. Once children become active users of smart home technologies, parents however reported encountering unanticipated physical safety risks and digital safety issues (e.g., exposure to unsuitable content) that required their mitigation strategies. As their children grow up, parents further expressed the need to shift attention from physical safety to digital safety. Parents' safety perceptions influence how they involve children in smart home interactions and implement mitigation strategies, such as restricting access to certain devices and using parental controls. We identify six factors that shape parents' perception and evaluation of smart home safety risks to children, including parenting style, parents' tech-savviness, parents' trust in tech companies, children's age and developmental differences, news media, and device characteristics. We provide design and policy recommendations to better protect children's safety in the smart home environment. CCS Concepts: • Security and privacy → Social aspects of security and privacy; Usability in security and privacy; • Human-centered computing → Ubiquitous and mobile devices; • Social and professional topics → Children.

show abstract

“…Emami-Naeini et al [4] interviewed a group of security and privacy experts, and have proposed as set of security and privacy labels for IoT devices. The purpose of this is to enable users to understand how their data will be used in a standardised form.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Privacy-certification standards for extended-reality devices and services

Happa

Steed

Glencross

2021

2021 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this position paper, we discuss the need for, and potential requirements for privacy certification standards for extended-reality devices and related services. We begin by presenting motivations, before discussing related efforts. We then review the issue of certification as a research problem and identify key requirements. Finally, we outline key recommendations for how these might feed into a grander roadmap for privacy and security research.

show abstract

Ask the Experts: What Should Be on an IoT Privacy and Security Label?

Cited by 119 publications

References 52 publications

“I would have to evaluate their objections”: Privacy tensions between smart home device owners and incidental users

“I would have to evaluate their objections”: Privacy tensions between smart home device owners and incidental users

Child Safety in the Smart Home: Parents' Perceptions, Needs, and Mitigation Strategies

Privacy-certification standards for extended-reality devices and services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About