Privacy perception Case studies Presenter: Daniel Massaguer dmassaguuci'edu November 2006

1
Privacy perceptionCase studiesPresenter
Daniel Massaguerdmassagu_at_uci.eduNovember 2006
2
Outline
1.- Privacy perception literature review of
case studies 2.- Discussion research study
3
Privacy and privacy perception
This talk is part of a bigger study 1.-
Definitions of privacy 2.- Right to privacy
3.- Privacy perception 3.1.- Case studies
Current drafts http//www.ics.uci.edu/dmassagu/d
oc/privacy
4
Privacy perception case studies
Iachello et al, Prototyping and Sampling
Experience to Evaluate Ubiquitous Computing
Privacy in the Real World, CHI 2006
US 41 surveys 24 responders IT or research
occupations age from 18 to 60-gt biased 30-39
(age group of proxies). 17 female 24 male. No
observed strong influence of occupations, age, or
gender (that was not the goal of the study,
though). No correlation between subject
sensitivity and perceived confidentiality
5
Privacy perception case studies
Iachello et al, Prototyping and Sampling
Experience to Evaluate Ubiquitous Computing
Privacy in the Real World, CHI 2006
High confidentiality-gt ask to erase otherwise do
not ask to erase avoid conflict? Awareness of
PAL is important Purpose of use more important
than temporal retention
6
Privacy perception case studies
Robles et al, Being Watched or Being Special
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Being
Monitored, Surveilled, and Assessed
Most acceptable system is that which reveals
everyone is being monitored and provides some
basis for the feedback basis for evaluation
appropriate when giving public feedback (social),
can be damaging in a private context. Monitoring
is made acceptable when being watched and
assessed in an apparently uniform
process. Stanford University, CA USA
7
Privacy perception case studies
Technology, security, and individual privacy New
tools, new threats, and new public
perceptions Lee S. Strickland Laura E.
Hunt Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology Feb 1, 2005
56, 3 ABI/INFORM Global

• Population public librarians and
  technology-oriented librarians (selection via
  mailing lists)
• US-based, avg 30 years old, most female with an
  MS degree, 1/3 had lived outside US more than 3
  months, 1 in 10 victims of ID theft.
• Biased? before asking level of support, right
  answers to technology are given
• Results
• compared to domestic-resident only, those with
  foreign experience agree or are at least neutral
  with respect to smart card technology by a ratio
  of 50 to 20
• there is more fear than knowledge of information
  collecting technologies
• antibusiness attitude, a wariness of
  self-regulation, and a doubt their privacy will
  be protected
• demand for government regulation
• regardless of public view, benefits of RFID
  smartcards and similar are too advantageous for
  retailers, private companies, government
  agencies, etc.

8
Privacy perception case studies
Polarization of Perceptions of IT-enabled Privacy
Violations at Workplace Impact of Responder
Position, Peer Belief and Peer Pressure Nivedita
Debnath Kanika T Bhal, Global Journal of
Flexible Systems Management Jul-Sep 2003 4, 3
ABI/INFORM Global

• Population 125 undergrad (56) and postgrad (MBA)
  students (69) (UT Delhi, India). Undergrads 20
  years old, grads 30 years . 91 male and 34
  female
• Scenario workplace (monitoring of phone calls
  and email)
• Results
• Perceived ethicality is higher when the
  individual is the actor (neutralization
  psychological defense mechanism) and lower when
  the individual is the target (tendency to
  inflate).
• Peer belief strongly affects perceived ethicality
  of the individuals both targets and actors
• Peer pressure moderates relationship between
  perceived ethicality and peers belief

9
Privacy perception case studies
Multimedia Information Changes the Whole Privacy
Ballgame, Anne Adams
In this scenario (Adams Sasse, 1999a) the
technology instigators had considered the use of
a web-camera in a specific situation as
applicable. However ... mis-interpreted the
situation as being public while the majority of
users perceived it as a private/semi-private
situation. .. Others noted that the
recording conference sessions dissuaded them
from asking questions in sessions lt-- change of
behavior, does privacy violation undermine
freedom of acting/speech? 3 major factors on
privacy perception Information Sensitivity,
Receiver, and Usage ...
10
Privacy perception case studies
Unpacking Privacy for a Networked World Leysia
Palen, Paul Dourish CHI 2003

• When presenting The Identity Boundary -gt
• Security cameras in public spaces can violate
  privacy depends who can see one's actions.
• Case study of Active Badges
• 2 labs,
• one where people worked at central lab -gt reroute
  phone calls highly valued,
• in the other lab -gt less useful and even
  intrusive
• different staff administrative staff more
  positive than scientific staff

11
Privacy perception case studies
Moving Out of the Lab Deploying Pervasive
Technologies in a Hospital Hansen, Bardram,
Soegaard IEEE Pervasive computing, July-Sep 2006
However, we have been surprised how little
privacy concerned our participants. ... users
trusted our system because an overall
well-functioning work environment and some
well-chosen design decisions, such as using only
partial location tracking and low-resolution
video-streams. ... tracking free areas
.... System deployed at Danish hospital.
Project carried out in close collaboration with
clinicians.
12
Privacy perception case studies
Others Practical Lessons from PlaceLab Lessons
from the e-Campus Display Deployments
13
Research Study
DOMAIN PURPOSE SCOPE QUESTIONS METHODO
LOGY PUBLICATION
14
Research Study Brainstorm
DOMAIN Privacy concerns affecting the adoption
of technology within pervasive spaces. PURPOSE
To understand privacy concerns affecting the
adoption of technology within pervasive spaces at
the Responsphere within UCI. Apply these lessons
to Responsphere/SATware. SCOPE Responsphere
pervasive space?, CalIT2? population? QUESTIONS
What are the privacy-related concerns of studied
population? How do they vary depending on what
factors (e.g., culture)? What would make people
accept and/or reject some privacy-preserving
technology? Privacy-violation-perception/acceptanc
e rating of device type (factored with location
of device and their known/unknown benefits).
Concerns at different hierarchy level. Acceptance
of sensors w and w/o knowing benefits. Indoor vs
outdoor METHODOLOGY Quantitative?
hypothesis?, Qualitative? PUBLICATION What
journal? conference?
15
Research Study Plan
1.- list factors (from literature) that influence
privacy perception 2.- come with a theoretical
framework for factors that influence privacy
perception in the scope of adoption of pervasive
technology 3.- brainstorm more factors e.g., IT
governance (users involved in design/implementatio
n of system), education, ..., real-time feedback
of what is being monitored or that monitoring is
happening 4.- identify gaps (factors that have
not been studied) 5.- decide concrete technology
e.g., monitoring of coffee room 6.- decide
questions and scenario e.g., use 2 kitchens in
Bren Hall equipped with people counters and
cameras. One kitchen also has an LCD that
displays what is being monitored (it shows people
being masked out). Study resistance/concerns
immediately after deployment and two weeks after
deployment (how about a month after?). Study
traffic patterns as well. 7.- build prototype
borrow sensors from calit2 mask people from
camera aiming at the coffee pot. 8.- run
study series of studies instead of just one.
16
Research study Phase 1 (Quantitative Methodology)
Set up people counters in all coffee rooms of
new ICS building 1 coffee room (coffee room c1)
with 2 cameras. (1 camera aiming at coffee pot,
the other at people). 1 coffee room (coffee room
c2) with 2 cameras, 1 LCD display, and a IRB
Study Information Sheet. LCD display shows the
video being broadcast. The video is privacy
preserving. It also gives URL of video and
explains the purpose of the cameras to check how
much coffee is left. This way, people see what is
being broadcast at any time and benefit of
sensors. Hypothesis one more people go to the
less instrumented kitchens (change of behavior)
H1/H1a Hypothesis two more people go to c2 than
to c1 H2/H2a If this is true, why? Because they
can see what is being broadcast is privacy
preserving, because benefit of sensors, or
combination of both? How helpful was the Study
Information Sheet? (Likert Scale) -Publish
17
Research study Next Steps
Secure Approval from Debra _at_ ICS -Sharad
Gloria IRB Protocol -Sharad, Gloria,Dani,
Chris Fortify the Coffee Cam software -Dani Floor
Plans / help from Jim Doyle -Chris Order
Instrumentation -Chris Instrument Space -Dani
Chris Create On-line Survey Instrument -Ronen,
Chris, Dani -Gloria Supervise Pilot test Survey
Instrument (Calit2 folks) -Ronen, Chris, Dani
Gloria Supervise
18
Research study Phase 2 (Qualitative Methodology)
Ask the why regarding the results from Phase
1 -Create sampling plan for unstructured
interviews -Interview subjects that participated
in Phase1 -Publish
19
Research study Phase 3
REPEAT -Longitudinal or Different Sample
Population?
20
Read about Cost and culture barriers to the
adoption of technology