skip to main content
10.1145/1978942.1979419acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Situating the concern for information privacy through an empirical study of responses to video recording

Published:07 May 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we present the results of an empirical study of perceptions towards pervasive video recording. We describe a commonly used model for understanding information privacy, the Concern for Information Privacy (CFIP) model, and present the ways that this model and its associated questionnaire can shed light on information privacy concerns about pervasive and ubiquitous computing technologies. Specifically, the CFIP model encourages analysis of data across four facets of experience: the collection of personal data, the risk of improper access, the potential for unauthorized secondary use, and the challenge of preventing or correcting errors in the data. We further identify areas not well handled by this model of information privacy and suggest avenues for future work, including research on how and when to notify people about recording technologies, awareness of data provenance and leakage, and understanding of and access to the data assemblage being created about individuals.

References

  1. Andrews, S. Privacy and Human Rights in 2002: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Developments. Electronic Privacy Information Center (2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, B., Taylor, A., Izadi, S., Sellen, A., Kaye, J. and Eardley, R. Locating Family Values: A Field Trial of the Whereabouts Clock. In Proc UbiComp 2007, Springer (2007), 354--371. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Cespedes, F.V. and Smith, H.J. Database Marketing: New Rules for Policy and Practice. Sloan Management Review 34, 4 (1993),, 7--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke, R. Information Technology and Dataveillance. Communications of the ACM 31, 5 (1988), 498--512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Connelly, K., Khalil, A., and Liu, Y. Do I Do What I Say?: Observed Versus Stated Privacy Preferences. In Proc. INTERACT 2007, Springer (2007), 620--623. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Consolvo, S., Smith, I.E., Matthews, T., LaMarca, A., Tabert, J. and Powledge, P. Location Disclosure to Social Relations: Why, When, & What People Want to Share. In Proc CHI 2005. ACM Press (2005), 81--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Dixon, J.A., Levine, M. and McAuley, R. Street Drinking Legislation, CCTV and Public Space: Exploring Attitudes Towards Public Order Measures. Home Office On-Line Report, London, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Equifax Inc. Harris-Equifax Consumer Privacy Survey 1992. Equifax Inc., Atlanta, GA, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Fox, S. Privacy Implications of Fast, Mobile Internet Access., Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Goffman, E. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday (1959).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodwin, C. Professional Vision. American Anthropologist 96, 3 (1994), 606--633.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Honess, T. and Charman, E. Closed Circuit Television in Public Places: Its Acceptability and Perceived Effectiveness. Home Office On-Line Report, London, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Hong, J.I. and Landay, J.A. An Architecture for Privacy-Sensitive Ubiquitous Computing. In Proc. MobiSys 2004. ACM Press (2004), 177--189. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Hong, J.I., Ng, J.D., Lederer, S. and Landay, J.A. Privacy Risk Models for Designing Privacy-Sensitive Ubiquitous Computing Systems. In Proc DIS 2004. ACM Press (2004), 91--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Iachello, G. Privacy and Proportionality. Doctoral Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Iachello, G. and Hong, J. End-User Privacy in Human-Computer Interaction. Foundations and Trends® in Human-Computer Interaction 1, 1 (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A.B., Schkade, D.A., Schwarz, N. and Stone, A.A. A Survey Method for Characterizing Daily Life Experience: The Day Reconstruction Method. Science 306, 5702 (2004), 1776--1780.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Langheinrich, M. Privacy by Design - Principles of Privacy-Aware Ubiquitous Systems. In Proc. UbiComp 2001, Springer (2001) 273--291. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Laudon, K.C. Dossier Society: Value Choices in the Design of National lnformation Systems, Columbia University Press, New York, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Lehikoinen, J.T., Lehikoinen, J., and Huuskonen, P. Understanding Privacy Regulation in Ubicomp Interactions. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 12, 8 (2008), 543--553. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Linowes, D.F. Privacy in America: Is Your Private Life in the Public Eye? University of Illinois Press, Champaign, IL, 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Lyon, D. Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. and Agarwal, J. Internet Users' Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model. Information Systems Research 15, 4 (2004), 336--355. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Massimi, M., Truong, K.N., Dearman, D. and Hayes, G.R. Understanding Recording Technologies in Everyday Life. IEEE Pervasive Computing 9, 3 (2010), 64--71. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Miller, A. Computers and Privacy. In W.M. Hoffman and J.M. Moore (Eds.), Ethics and the Management of Computer Technology. Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Hain, Cambridge, MA (1982), 93--108.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Nguyen, D.H., Kobsa, A. and Hayes, G.R. An Empirical Investigation of Concerns of Everyday Tracking and Recording Technologies. In Proc. Ubicomp 2008, ACM Press (2008), 182--191. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Nguyen, D.H., Marcu, G., Hayes, G.R., Truong, K.N., Scott, J., Langheinrich, M. and Roduner, C. Encountering SenseCam: Personal Recording Technologies in Everyday Life. In Proc. UbiComp 2009, ACM Press (2009), 165--174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Palen, L. and Dourish, P. Unpacking "Privacy" for a Networked World. In Proc. CHI 2003. ACM Press (2003), 129--136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Privacy Protection Study Commission. Personal Privacy in an lnformation Society: Report of the Privacy Protection Study Commission, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1977.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith, H.J. Managing Privacy: lnformation Technology and Organizational America, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Smith, H.J., Milberg, S.J. and Burke, S.J. Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals' Concerns about Organizational Practices. MIS Quarterly 20, 2 (1996), 167--196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Stone, E.F., Gardner, D.G., Gueutal, H.G. and McClure, S. A Field Experiment Comparing Information-Privacy Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes Across Several Types of Organizations, Journal of Applied Psychology 68, 3 (1983), 459--468.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Tolchinsky, P.D., McCuddy, M.K., Adams, J., Ganster, D.C., Woodman, R.W. and Fromkin, H.L. Employee Perceptions of Invasion of Privacy: A Field Simulation Experiment, Journal of Applied Psychology 66, 3 (1981), 308--313.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Truong, K.N. and Hayes, G.R. Ubiquitous Computing for Capture and Access. Foundations and Trends® in Human-Computer Interaction 2, 2 (2009). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Westin, A.F. Social and Political Dimensions of Privacy. Journal of Social Issues 59, 2 (2003), 431--453.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Situating the concern for information privacy through an empirical study of responses to video recording
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CHI '11: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          May 2011
          3530 pages
          ISBN:9781450302289
          DOI:10.1145/1978942

          Copyright © 2011 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 7 May 2011

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          CHI '11 Paper Acceptance Rate410of1,532submissions,27%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader