Consumers

1
Consumers Elders

• Sunny Consolvo
• Intel Research Seattle UW iSchool
• Technology Society
• November 17, 2005

2
What do you think?
S1 Consumers have lost all control over how
personal information is collected and used by
companies
3
What do you think?

• S2 Most businesses handle the personal
  information they collect about consumers in a
  proper and confidential way

4
What do you think?

• S3 Existing laws and organizational practices
  provide a reasonable level of protection for
  consumer privacy today

5
Scoring your responses

• S1 response
• S2 response
• S3 response

6
Who has 0 points?

• You are Privacy Unconcerned
• When it comes to consumer privacy, you
• have little to no concern about consumer privacy
  issues.

Thanks to Privacy American Business for
allowing us to use the Westin/Harris Privacy
Segmentation Model
7
Who has 1-2 points?

• You are a Privacy Pragmatist
• When it comes to consumer privacy, you
• ask what benefits you get as consumers in
  sharing your personal information to balance
  against risks to your privacy interests, and
  you usually favor a mixture of government and
  private solutions.

Thanks to Privacy American Business for
allowing us to use the Westin/Harris Privacy
Segmentation Model
8
Who has 3 points?

• You are a Privacy Fundamentalist
• When it comes to consumer privacy, you
• have very high privacy concern and are
  passionate about what you see as business
  threats to your consumer privacy, and favor
  active government regulation of business and
  information practices

Thanks to Privacy American Business for
allowing us to use the Westin/Harris Privacy
Segmentation Model
9
How many of you use a retail store loyalty
card(s)?

• Who uses a loyalty card and is a fundamentalist?

10
Selling their Secrets A Look at Privacy
Fundamentalists Collaborators Jennifer Rode (UC
Irvine) David McDonald (UW) Christine Riley
(Intel Research)
11
The idea

• Can tools like the Westin/Harris Privacy
  Segmentation Model help us design
  privacy-observant technologies?

12
Our study

• 95 participants from Seattle area
• 46 male / 49 female
• Ages 18-55
• Mix of marital employment statuses, education
  income levels, religions
• Most middle-class Christian Caucasians with
  Bachelors degrees

13
Methodology

• (11) one-hour sessions of 6-11 participants each
  at our lab in Aug 2004
• 3 questionnaires
• 6-factor personality questionnaire (6FPQ)
• Demographics technical experience
• Loyalty cards, cell phones, privacy
• Westin/Harris Privacy Seg. Model
• Compensation 50 gift card

14
Our hypothesis

• Participants privacy classifications would help
  predict their behavior with potentially invasive
  technologies such as store loyalty cards
• i.e., fundamentalists wouldnt use loyalty cards
  or would create schemes to protect their privacy
  (e.g., swapping cards, fake data, etc.)

15
Participants Classifications (compared to U.S.)
16
Some results

• No meaningful differences in patterns of
  personality profiles observed across
  classifications
• No major demographic differences

17
Store Loyalty Cards

• 97 (N95) reported having a store loyalty card
• Type of most commonly used card for most
  grocery (90 of 92)
• 95 (N92) reported using their most commonly
  used card at every visit

18
Just the fundamentalists

• 95 of fundamentalists (N42) used a store
  loyalty card
• Type of most commonly used card for all 40
  grocery
• 90 (N40) used it at every visit
• Privacy-protecting schemes were seldom employed

19
A few schemers

• While not statistically significant
• (4) individuals gave a fake name
• (3) did not use the card at every visit
• (1) used it only when purchasing with a credit
  card
• (2) used it only when purchasing items that
  required the card for a discount
• All (7) schemers were fundamentalists

20
What does this mean?

• Fundamentalists behaviors conflicted with their
  attitudes
• Why?
• Perhaps fundamentalists
• do not understand the privacy risks of using
  loyalty cards
• distrust businesses in general but trust their
  grocery store
• value financial savings over consumer privacy
• and many other explanations
• Bottom line we need to know more

21
Switching Gears
22
The CareNet Display Collaborators Peter
Roessler (UC Berkeley) Brett E. Shelton (UW)
23
Meet Rita

• Rita was one of the elders in our study
• She is
• 83 years old
• Lives alone
• Conditions
• Mild dementia
• Type 2 Diabetes (takes insulin)

24
Ritas Care Network
Significant contributor son Zack
Hannahs boyfriend
Drastic life changer daughter Hannah
Son
Daughter-in-law
Significant contributor son Simon
Neighbor
Part-time professional caregiver
Daughter-in-law
25
The focus of our work

• Improve the quality of life for ALL care network
  members, including the elder
• Help members coordinate care activities
• Ensure elder gets care she needs
• Give time back to overburdened members

26
The CareNet Display

• Interactive digital picture frame
• Augments photo of elder with updates
• Goal help local care network members provide
  day-to-day care

27
Target users

• Local care network members
• Provide elders day-to-day care
• Most are 40-65 years of age
• Family, friends, and neighbors of the elder
• Comfort experience with technology vary quite a
  bit

28
Outings
Medications
Meals
Activities
Calendar
Mood
Fall Alert History
29
Get an overall picturefrom the main screen
Dig for details by touchingan events icon
30
See the trend for the pastseveral days
31
Control for elders Who sees what
Different updates for different users
32
Control for elders Not sharing an update
If this mornings breakfast
33
Control for elders Not sharing an update
Then breakfast update
34
Study Participants

• 4 care networks in the Seattle area
• 4 elders, three female (aged 80-91)
• 2 had mild dementia, but were reasonably
  independent
• 9 network members, five female (aged 51-65)
• i.e., 2-3 network members per elder who were not
  living with the elder or each other

35
Methodology

• September December 2003
• In home Wizard of Oz deployments
• Duration 3 weeks/network
• Semi-structured interviews before after
  deployments
• No special instructions on
• how or when to use it
• where to place it

36
Wizard of Oz-Style Updates
37
CareNet Display Prototype

• Touch-screen tablet PC in a custom built beech
  wood frame
• UI on a web-browser (not obvious)
• Wireless GPRS card for always-on Internet access

38
Where they kept it

• In often used, common areas of the home
• kitchen, home office, family / TV room, dining
  room
• Not kept in personal places like the bedroom or
  bathroom

39
Interaction

• Drastic Life Changers reported
• checking frequently through casual glancing
• only dug for details occasionally
• Significant Contributors Peripherally Involved
  Members reported
• casually glanced for red icons in passing
• interacted with the display as often as 10x/day
• novelty effect?

40
Drastic Life Changers More Me time

• The CareNet Display did many of their
  information dissemination tasks
• More relaxed because they knew that others had
  the same information they didless of a burden
  than knowing alone

41
Drastic Life Changers Meaningful
conversations

• Got information they needed without having to ask
  demeaning questions, e.g.,
• Did you take your meds today, Mom?
• What did you have for breakfast?
• Spent the saved time discussing more meaningful
  things with the elders, e.g.,
• the grandkids

42
Significant ContributorsNew appreciation for
others

• Increased awareness of how much others contribute
  to the elders care
• e.g., Simon and Zack mentioned that Hannah did a
  lot more than they realized
• Many significant contributors originally thought
  that they and the drastic life changer
  contributed equally

43
Peripherally Involved Facilitated communication

• Many of these members have difficulty starting
  conversations with elders
• Knowing what the elder did gave them something to
  talk about, e.g.,
• How was the senior center today?
• The frequency of their communications increased
• They also got excited about being more involved

44
Elders Improved Care

• Regular, structured reports access to previous
  updates helped members diagnose problems
• e.g., Ritas lack of food variety

45
Elders Not as open anymore

• Pre-deployment very open sharing all 7 types of
  information with local members
• Only expressed concern with distant members
• Post-deployment no change with drastic life
  changers significant contributors, but want
  restrictions for some peripherally involved
• e.g., alcoholic grandson or forgetful neighbor

46
Elders Experience with Study

• Really liked talking with Peter and the other
  researchers so often
• Potential premium service instead of / in
  addition to sensor solution?
• Did not want a display of themselves
• Same in pre- and post-deployment interviews

47
Challenges When the display stopped being ambient

• The glowing screen disturbed participants who
• could see the glow from their bedrooms at night
• were trying to watch movies in a dark room
• Imagine trying to watch a movie or go to sleep
  with that thing in your periphery

48
Challenges Sensor data with a human touch

• Participants are afraid sensor data will be too
  impersonal
• How can we provide this human touch without
  adding to the responsibilities of already
  overburdened network members?

49
I would like to thank

• Privacy American Business
• Morgan Ames
• Anthony LaMarca
• Jeff Towle
• Lenny Lim
• Jimmi Montgomery
• Gaetano Borriello
• James Landay
• Carol Johnston
• Asuman Kiyak
• Linda Reeder
• Sandy Sabersky
• Karen Sisson
• Cherie Fenner
• Ken Smith

• Jay Lundell
• Brad Needham
• Margie Morris
• Eric Dishman
• Batya Friedman
• Bill Schilit
• Sara Bly
• Ken Fishkin
• Scott Mainwaring
• Paul Dourish
• Ian Smith
• Nicky Kern
• Scott Saponas
• Kishore Sundara-Rajan
• and others

50
More info at

• CASPIAN Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy
  Invasion Numbering www.nocards.org
• Eldercare project website publications
• http//seattleweb.intel-research.net/projects/cscc
  /
• S. Consolvo, P. Roessler, B.E. Shelton, "The
  CareNet Display Lessons Learned from an In Home
  Evaluation of an Ambient Display," Proceedings of
  the 6th Int'l Conference on Ubiquitous Computing
  UbiComp '04 (Sep 2004), pp.1-17.
• S. Consolvo, P. Roessler, B.E. Shelton, A.
  LaMarca, B. Schilit, S. Bly, "Technology for
  Care Networks of Elders," IEEE Pervasive
  Computing Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems
  Successful Aging, Vol. 3, No. 2, (Apr-Jun 2004),
  pp.22-29.

51
Thanks!

• Contact me at
• sunny.consolvo_at_intel.com
• consolvo_at_u.washington.edu