Keeping ubiquitous computing to yourself: A practical model for user control of privacy

Abstract

As with all the major advances in information and communication technology, ubiquitous computing (ubicomp) introduces new risks to individual privacy. Our analysis of privacy protection in ubicomp has identified four layers through which users must navigate: the regulatory regime they are currently in, the type of ubicomp service required, the type of data being disclosed, and their personal privacy policy. We illustrate and compare the protection afforded by regulation and by some major models for user control of privacy. We identify the shortcomings of each and propose a model which allows user control of privacy levels in a ubicomp environment. Our model balances the user's privacy preferences against the applicable privacy regulations and incorporates five types of user controlled "noise" to protect location privacy by introducing ambiguities. We also incorporate an economics-based approach to assist users in balancing the trade-offs between giving up privacy and receiving ubicomp services. We conclude with a scenario and heuristic evaluation which suggests that regulation can have both positive and negative influences on privacy interfaces in ubicomp and that social translucence is an important heuristic for ubicomp privacy interface functionality.

‘Aware of What?’ A Formal Model of Awareness Systems That Extends the Focus-Nimbus Model

“…The term plausible deniability has been often used (e.g., see [3], [1]) to describe how users of communication systems may rely on ambiguity in order to have a plausible excuse for avoiding communication or interaction with a third party.…”

“…Price et al [3] explore the social need for plausible deniability in ubicomp systems and in relation with one's location and identity. As they point out, many systems depart from social norms that are otherwise present in face-to-face interactions (where a person can easily see whether he/she is being observed by others).…”

“…For example, T.Erickson [9] has introduced the concept of social translucence that encapsulates issues of inter-subjectivity between users of awareness systems. Other issues relate to privacy of people and ways in which they might manage their accessibility to others, (e.g., [13], [3], [14]). …”

How elderly users of a socially interactive robot experience adaptiveness, adaptability and user control

“…Should a system ask for confirmation before it autonomously adapts? Several studies addressed these questions, finding that indeed the desire for user control limits the acceptance of autonomy [24][25][26], which means there is a delicate balance between automation/autonomous behavior and user control. We want to know how this intervenes with the interpretation and perception of adaptivity by our target group of aging adults.…”

Emerging Technologies in the Service Sector: An Early Exploration of Item-Level RFID on the Fashion Sales Floor

“…As this emerging technology moves to multi-application, enterprise-wide deployments, RFID readers could become the most numerous and densely deployed network devices, with both positive and negative ramifications. Item-level traceability can reveal new information about shoppers' interests and behaviors and increase organizations' monitoring capabilities (Price et al 2005), extending the literature on ubiquitous computing and networked organizations. At the same time, ubiquitous RFID gives rise to privacy concerns (Shapiro and Baker 2001;Spiekermann and Ziekow 2006) and suggests investigating the counterintuitive, adverse behavioral effects (Scheepers et al 2006) more fully.…”