Log My Dog: Perceived Impact of Dog Activity Tracking

Zamansky, Anna; Linden, Dirk van der; Hadar, Irit; Bleuer-Elsner, Stephane

doi:10.1109/mc.2018.2889637

Cited by 28 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To mitigate this threat, we performed an additional study with 201 pet owners, asking them what, if any, reasons would make them not purchase (or stop using) a pet wearable. We presented participants with a number of reasons derived from requirements found in other work with pet wearable users [75] and asked them to elaborate on their choice(s). See Appendix A for the used questionnaire.…”

Section: Comparison To Pet Owners Not Using Pet Wearablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pets without PETs: on pet owners’ under-estimation of privacy concerns in pet wearables

Linden

Edwards

Hadar

et al. 2020

Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report on a mixed-method, comparative study investigating whether there is a difference between privacy concerns expressed about pet wearables as opposed to human wearables – and more importantly, why. We extracted the privacy concerns found in product reviews (N=8,038) of pet wearables (activity, location, and dual-function trackers), contrasting the (lack of) concerns and misuse to a curated set of reviews for similar human-oriented wearables (N=20,431). Our findings indicate that, while overall very few privacy concerns are expressed in product reviews, for pet wearables they are expressed even less, even though consumers use these devices in a manner which impacts both personal and bystander privacy. An additional survey of pet owners (N=201) eliciting what factors would cause them to not purchase (or stop using) pet wearables indicated comparably few privacy concerns, strengthening the representativeness of our findings. A thematic analysis reveals that the lack of privacy concerns may be explained by, among other factors, emotional drivers to purchase the device, and prioritization of (desired) functionality to support those emotional drivers over privacy requirements. Moreover, we found that pet wearables are used in different ways than originally intended, which raise novel privacy implications to be dealt with. We propose that in order to move towards more privacy-conscious use of pet wearables, a combination of understanding consumer rationale and behavior as well as ensuring data protection legislation is adequate to real-world use is needed.

show abstract

Section: Comparison To Pet Owners Not Using Pet Wearablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pets without PETs: on pet owners’ under-estimation of privacy concerns in pet wearables

Linden

Edwards

Hadar

et al. 2020

Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While such devices can measure activity and sleep patterns, none of them has yet been scientifically validated, and thus are not always appropriate to be used in clinical and scientific settings. Wearables have been investigated in the context of predicting the success of future guide dogs ( [16,13]), impacting the bonding between dog and owner [17,18], and supporting the relationship between guide dog centers and puppy raisers ( [19]). van der Linden et al [20] provide a comprehensive overview of commercially available dog trackers, discussing also their privacy implications.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Dogs’ Sleep Patterns Using Convolutional Neural Networks

Zamansky

Sinitca

Kaplun

et al. 2019

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[34,86,121]) and integrating them into development methods [101]. Yet, the design and use of an IIS may lead to unexpected real-world challenges that transcend beyond the individual people, animals, and technology they envelop, as existing research investigating the use of animal-centered technology has hinted at [102,103,122]. Dog activity trackers may indirectly capture unrelated bystanders' behavior, impacting on privacy, while industrial technology for farm animals may unintentionally reveal commercially sensitive information, and poorly designed wildlife technology may affect more ecosystems than envisioned and intended.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interspecies information systems

Linden

2021

Requirements Eng

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article introduces a new class of socio-technical systems, interspecies information systems (IIS) by describing several examples of these systems emerging through the use of commercially available data-driven animal-centered technology. When animal-centered technology, such as pet wearables, cow health monitoring, or even wildlife drones captures animal data and inform humans of actions to take towards animals, interspecies information systems emerge. I discuss the importance of understanding them as information systems rather than isolated technology or technology-mediated interactions, and propose a conceptual model capturing the key components and information flow of a general interspecies information system. I conclude by proposing multiple practical challenges that are faced in the successful design, engineering and use of any IIS where animal data informs human actions.

show abstract

Log My Dog: Perceived Impact of Dog Activity Tracking

Cited by 28 publications

References 13 publications

Pets without PETs: on pet owners’ under-estimation of privacy concerns in pet wearables

Pets without PETs: on pet owners’ under-estimation of privacy concerns in pet wearables

Analysis of Dogs’ Sleep Patterns Using Convolutional Neural Networks

Interspecies information systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About