Designing Interactive Privacy Labels for Advanced Smart Home Device Configuration Options
Pages 3372 - 3388
Abstract
Labels inform smart home users about the privacy of devices before purchase and during use. Yet, current privacy labels fail to fully reflect the impact of advanced device configuration options like sensor state control. Based on the successful implementation of related privacy and security labels, we designed extended static and interactive labels that reflect sensor states and device connectivity. We first did expert interviews (N = 10) that informed the final label design. Second, we ran an online survey (N = 160) to assess the interpretation and usability of the novel interactive privacy label. Lastly, we conducted a second survey (N = 120) to investigate how well our interactive labels educate users about sensor configuration. We found that most participants successfully used the interactive label and retrieved sensor information more efficiently and correctly. We discuss our findings in the context of a potential shift in label use toward control and use-case-based interaction.
References
[1]
Imtiaz Ahmad, Rosta Farzan, Apu Kapadia, and Adam J. Lee. 2020. Tangible Privacy: Towards User-Centric Sensor Designs for Bystander Privacy. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW2, Article 116 (oct 2020), 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415187
[2]
Bayan Al Muhander, Jason Wiese, Omer Rana, and Charith Perera. 2023. Interactive Privacy Management: Toward Enhancing Privacy Awareness and Control in the Internet of Things. ACM Trans. Internet Things 4, 3, Article 18 (sep 2023), 34 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3600096
[3]
Noah Apthorpe, Dillon Reisman, and Nick Feamster. 2016. A smart home is no castle: Privacy vulnerabilities of encrypted iot traffic. Workshop on Data and Algorithmic Transparency (2016).
[4]
Natã M Barbosa, Joon S Park, Yaxing Yao, and Yang Wang. 2019. “What if?” Predicting Individual Users’ Smart Home Privacy Preferences and Their Changes. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2019, 4 (2019), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.2478/popets-2019-0066
[5]
Susanne Barth, Dan Ionita, and Pieter Hartel. 2022. Understanding Online Privacy—A Systematic Review of Privacy Visualizations and Privacy by Design Guidelines. ACM Comput. Surv. 55, 3, Article 63 (feb 2022), 37 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3502288
[6]
Sapna Bedi, Javier Diaz Ruvalcaba, Zoltan Foley-Fisher, Noreen Kamal, and Vincent Tsao. 2010. Health Shelf: Interactive Nutritional Labels. In CHI ’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (CHI EA ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4405–4410. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753846.1754161
[7]
Ann Blandford, Dominic Furniss, and Stephann Makri. 2016. Qualitative HCI Research: Going Behind the Scenes. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00706ED1V01Y201602HCI034
[8]
Joseph Bugeja, Andreas Jacobsson, and Paul Davidsson. 2016. On privacy and security challenges in smart connected homes. In 2016 European Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference(EISIC, 16). IEEE, 172–175. https://doi.org/10.1109/EISIC.2016.044
[9]
George Chalhoub, Martin J Kraemer, Norbert Nthala, and Ivan Flechais. 2021. “It Did Not Give Me an Option to Decline”: A Longitudinal Analysis of the User Experience of Security and Privacy in Smart Home Products. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445691
[10]
Yuxin Chen, Huiying Li, Shan-Yuan Teng, Steven Nagels, Zhijing Li, Pedro Lopes, Ben Y. Zhao, and Haitao Zheng. 2020. Wearable Microphone Jamming. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376304
[11]
Eun Kyoung Choe, Sunny Consolvo, Jaeyeon Jung, Beverly Harrison, Shwetak N. Patel, and Julie A. Kientz. 2012. Investigating Receptiveness to Sensing and Inference in the Home Using Sensor Proxies. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) (UbiComp ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1145/2370216.2370226
[12]
Youngwook Do, Jung Wook Park, Yuxi Wu, Avinandan Basu, Dingtian Zhang, Gregory D. Abowd, and Sauvik Das. 2022. Smart Webcam Cover: Exploring the Design of an Intelligent Webcam Cover to Improve Usability and Trust. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 5, 4, Article 154 (dec 2022), 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3494983
[13]
Pardis Emami-Naeini, Yuvraj Agarwal, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Hanan Hibshi. 2020. Ask the experts: What should be on an IoT privacy and security label?. In 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1109/SP40000.2020.00043
[14]
Pardis Emami-Naeini, Henry Dixon, Yuvraj Agarwal, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2019. Exploring How Privacy and Security Factor into IoT Device Purchase Behavior. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300764
[15]
Sebastian S. Feger, Maximiliane Windl, Jesse Grootjen, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2023. ConnectivityControl: Providing Smart Home Users with Real Privacy Configuration Options. In End-User Development: 9th International Symposium, IS-EUD 2023, Cagliari, Italy, June 6–8, 2023, Proceedings (Cagliari, Italy). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 180–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34433-6_11
[16]
Gert Franke, Thomas Clever, Wouter van Dijk, Jeremy Raider, and Roel de Jonge. 2019. Privacy Label. https://medium.com/sensor-lab/the-privacy-illusion994ed98ec3ab Retrieved December 10, 2019.
[17]
Frederik Funke and Ulf-Dietrich Reips. 2012. Why Semantic Differentials in Web-Based Research Should Be Made from Visual Analogue Scales and Not from 5-Point Scales. Field Methods 24, 3 (2012), 310–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X12444061
[18]
Nina Gerber, Benjamin Reinheimer, and Melanie Volkamer. 2018. Home Sweet Home? Investigating Users’ Awareness of Smart Home Privacy Threats. In Proceedings of An Interactive Workshop on the Human aspects of Smarthome Security and Privacy (WSSP). USENIX, Baltimore, MD, USA. https://doi.org/10.5445/IR/1000083578
[19]
Timo Goeschl. 2019. Cold Case: The forensic economics of energy efficiency labels for domestic refrigeration appliances. Energy Economics 84 (2019), 104468.
[20]
Roberto Hoyle, Luke Stark, Qatrunnada Ismail, David Crandall, Apu Kapadia, and Denise Anthony. 2020. Privacy Norms and Preferences for Photos Posted Online. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 27, 4, Article 30 (aug 2020), 27 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3380960
[21]
Haojian Jin, Boyuan Guo, Rituparna Roychoudhury, Yaxing Yao, Swarun Kumar, Yuvraj Agarwal, and Jason I. Hong. 2022. Exploring the Needs of Users for Supporting Privacy-Protective Behaviors in Smart Homes. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 449, 19 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517602
[22]
Nari Kim, Juntae Kim, Bomin Kim, and Young-Woo Park. 2021. The Trial of Posit in Shared Offices: Controlling Disclosure Levels of Schedule Data for Privacy by Changing the Placement of a Personal Interactive Calendar. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Virtual Event, USA) (DIS ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461778.3462073
[23]
Spyros Kokolakis. 2017. Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & Security 64 (2017), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002
[24]
Hyosun Kwon, Joel E. Fischer, Martin Flintham, and James Colley. 2018. The Connected Shower: Studying Intimate Data in Everyday Life. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2, 4, Article 176 (dec 2018), 22 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287054
[25]
Evan Lafontaine, Aafaq Sabir, and Anupam Das. 2021. Understanding People’s Attitude and Concerns towards Adopting IoT Devices. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 307, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451633
[26]
Josephine Lau, Benjamin Zimmerman, and Florian Schaub. 2018. Alexa, Are You Listening? Privacy Perceptions, Concerns and Privacy-Seeking Behaviors with Smart Speakers. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW, Article 102 (nov 2018), 31 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274371
[27]
Roxanne Leitão. 2019. Anticipating Smart Home Security and Privacy Threats with Survivors of Intimate Partner Abuse. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference (San Diego, CA, USA) (DIS ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 527–539. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322366
[28]
Kun Liu and Evimaria Terzi. 2010. A Framework for Computing the Privacy Scores of Users in Online Social Networks. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data 5, 1, Article 6 (dec 2010), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/1870096.1870102
[29]
Naresh K. Malhotra, Sung S. Kim, and James Agarwal. 2004. Internet Users’ Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model. Information Systems Research 15, 4 (2004), 336–355. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23015787
[30]
Nathan Malkin, Julia Bernd, Maritza Johnson, and Serge Egelman. 2018. “What Can’t Data Be Used For?” Privacy Expectations about Smart TVs in the US. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Workshop on Usable Security (EuroUSEC), London, UK. https://doi.org/10.14722/eurousec.2018.23016
[31]
Nathan Malkin, Joe Deatrick, Allen Tong, Primal Wijesekera, Serge Egelman, and David Wagner. 2019. Privacy attitudes of smart speaker users. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2019, 4 (2019). https://doi.org/10.2478/popets-2019-0068
[32]
Justin Matejka, Michael Glueck, Tovi Grossman, and George Fitzmaurice. 2016. The Effect of Visual Appearance on the Performance of Continuous Sliders and Visual Analogue Scales. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 5421–5432. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858063
[33]
Andrés Molina-Markham, Prashant Shenoy, Kevin Fu, Emmanuel Cecchet, and David Irwin. 2010. Private Memoirs of a Smart Meter. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Workshop on Embedded Sensing Systems for Energy-Efficiency in Building (Zurich, Switzerland) (BuildSys ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1145/1878431.1878446
[34]
David H. Nguyen, Alfred Kobsa, and Gillian R. Hayes. 2008. An Empirical Investigation of Concerns of Everyday Tracking and Recording Technologies. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (Seoul, Korea) (UbiComp ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1145/1409635.1409661
[35]
Johannes Obermaier and Martin Hutle. 2016. Analyzing the Security and Privacy of Cloud-Based Video Surveillance Systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Workshop on IoT Privacy, Trust, and Security (Xi’an, China) (IoTPTS ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/2899007.2899008
[36]
Pascal Oser, Rens W. van der Heijden, Stefan Lüders, and Frank Kargl. 2022. Risk Prediction of IoT Devices Based on Vulnerability Analysis. ACM Trans. Priv. Secur. 25, 2, Article 14 (may 2022), 36 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510360
[37]
Charlie Parker, Sam Scott, and Alistair Geddes. 2019. Snowball sampling. SAGE research methods foundations (2019).
[38]
Ulf-Dietrich Reips and Frederik Funke. 2008. Interval-level measurement with visual analogue scales in Internet-based research: VAS Generator. Behavior Research Methods 40, 3 (01 Aug 2008), 699–704. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.699
[39]
Russell L. Rothman, Ryan Housam, Hilary Weiss, Dianne Davis, Rebecca Gregory, Tebeb Gebretsadik, Ayumi Shintani, and Tom A. Elasy. 2006. Patient Understanding of Food Labels: The Role of Literacy and Numeracy. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 31, 5 (2006), 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2006.07.025
[40]
Tanuja Singh and Mark E Hill. 2003. Consumer privacy and the Internet in Europe: a view from Germany. Journal of consumer marketing (2003).
[41]
Christian Tiefenau, Maximilian Häring, Eva Gerlitz, and Emanuel von Zezschwitz. 2019. Making Privacy Graspable: Can we Nudge Users to use Privacy Enhancing Techniques?https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1911.07701
[42]
Federico G Topolansky Barbe, Magdalena M Gonzalez-Triay, and Anna Hensel. 2013. Eco-labels in Germany. Journal of customer behaviour 12, 4 (2013), 341–359.
[43]
Signe Waechter, Bernadette Sütterlin, and Michael Siegrist. 2015. The misleading effect of energy efficiency information on perceived energy friendliness of electric goods. Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.011
[44]
Maximiliane Windl, Niels Henze, Albrecht Schmidt, and Sebastian S. Feger. 2022. Automating Contextual Privacy Policies: Design and Evaluation of a Production Tool for Digital Consumer Privacy Awareness. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 34, 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517688
[45]
Maximiliane Windl and Sven Mayer. 2022. The Skewed Privacy Concerns of Bystanders in Smart Environments. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, MHCI, Article 184 (sep 2022), 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3546719
[46]
Maximiliane Windl, Albrecht Schmidt, and Sebastian S. Feger. 2023. Investigating Tangible Privacy-Preserving Mechanisms for Future Smart Homes. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 70, 16 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581167
[47]
Peter Worthy, Ben Matthews, and Stephen Viller. 2016. Trust Me: Doubts and Concerns Living with the Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (Brisbane, QLD, Australia) (DIS ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 427–434. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901890
[48]
Serena Zheng, Noah Apthorpe, Marshini Chetty, and Nick Feamster. 2018. User Perceptions of Smart Home IoT Privacy. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW, Article 200 (nov 2018), 20 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274469
Index Terms
- Designing Interactive Privacy Labels for Advanced Smart Home Device Configuration Options
Recommendations
User Perceptions of Smart Home IoT Privacy
Smart home Internet of Things (IoT) devices are rapidly increasing in popularity, with more households including Internet-connected devices that continuously monitor user activities. In this study, we conduct eleven semi-structured interviews with smart ...
The UX of Things: Exploring UX Principles to Inform Security and Privacy Design in the Smart Home
CHI EA '20: Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsSmart home devices have been successful in fulfilling functional requirements but have often failed at incorporating user-centric security and privacy. This research project addresses the problem of security and privacy in the smart home through the lens ...
Privacy Lessons Learnt from Deploying an IoT Ecosystem in the Home
EuroUSEC '22: Proceedings of the 2022 European Symposium on Usable SecurityStudies of privacy perception in the Internet of Things (IoT) include in-laboratory evaluations as well as investigations of purchase decisions, deployment, and long-term use. In this study, we implemented identical IoT configurations in eight ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
July 2024
3616 pages
ISBN:9798400705830
DOI:10.1145/3643834
Copyright © 2024 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 the author(s) 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].
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 01 July 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
DIS '24
Sponsor:
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,158 of 4,684 submissions, 25%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 166Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)166
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)14
Reflects downloads up to 01 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format