Investigating Receptiveness to Sensing and Inference in the Home Using Sensor Proxies

Eun Kyoung Choe, Sunny Consolvo, Jaeyeon Jung, Beverly Harrison, Shwetak N. Patel, Julie A. Kientz

TsungYun 20130701

Outline

• Introduction• Study Method• Analysis• Discussion• Conclusion

Introduction

• Recent technical advances accelerate the integration of sensors into consumer devices in the home– Full-body 3D motion capture in games– Facial/voice recognition capabilities– Energy sensing systems– Wearable RFID in security systems

But … is this a good thing? Privacy problem?

Introduction

• Sensing and inference data captured in the home could be highly sensitive– Intimacy/secretive activities– Confidential conversations– Innocuous activities : cooking and eating [4]

• Multiple stakeholders may have different perspectives on what is acceptable– Stakeholder: both householders and visitors

Introduction

• This study investigates householders’ receptiveness to various sensing technologies

• Offer a number of design insights which designers can use to reduce some concerns observed in the study

Study Method

• Three phase– Initial in-lab session– Four weeks using sensor proxies in-situ– Exit interviews

• Participants– 11 households (10 females, 12 males, aged 28-54)– various levels of education, occupation– owned a desktop/laptop with an average of 2.5

computers per household (min=1, max=5)

Study Method

• (I) In-lab session– General population is not familiar with how

sensing technologies work and what might be logged

– Background survey and technology education session

– Four sensing data: video, audio, electricity use, and movement

Study Method

• (I) In-lab session– Encouraged participants to brainstorm possible

application scenarios for each sensing technology– Consider the trade-offs (benefits/risks)– If participants were too positive about the sensors

or applications, we probed about potential risks and vice versa

Study Method

• (II) In-situ Phase– Cultural Probes method [7]• A technique used to inspire ideas in a design process• Probes : small packages that can include any sort of

artifact (like a map, postcard, camera or diary)• participants record specific events, feelings or

interactions using probes– Take-home packages

Study Method

Study Method

• (II) In-situ Phase– 4 weeks– kitchen, master bedroom, family room, and child’s

or guest bedroom/study room– not to turn on the sensor proxies during the first

week– sensor light turned on whenever motion was

detected

Study Method

Study Method

• (III) Exit Interview– Ask participants about…• perceptions toward different sensing data• utility of the potential applications• issues regarding data access• issues regarding notification methods

Analysis

• Perceived benefits and risks– Perceived benefits of in-home sensing applications– Perceived risks and concerns of in-home sensing

• Tensions regarding sensing and inference– Tensions between couples– Tensions between parents and children– Tensions between householders and visitors

Analysis

• Perceived benefits and risks– Perceived benefits of in-home sensing applications– Perceived risks and concerns of in-home sensing

• Tensions regarding sensing and inference– Tensions between couples– Tensions between parents and children– Tensions between householders and visitors

Analysis

• Perceived benefits of in-home sensing applications– People may be willing to accept invasive

technologies if perceived benefits outweigh potential risks [19]

– Applications directly related to household members’ health and safety

– Monetary benefits and incentives

Analysis

• Applications directly related to household members’ health and safety–

–

Analysis

• Still many participants were reluctant to the use of home automation systems–

–

Analysis

• Monetary benefits and incentives–

–

Analysis

• Perceived benefits and risks– Perceived benefits of in-home sensing applications– Perceived risks and concerns of in-home sensing

• Tensions regarding sensing and inference– Tensions between couples– Tensions between parents and children– Tensions between householders and visitors

Analysis

• Perceived risks and concerns of in-home sensing applications– Private Nature of the In-home Sensing and

Inference Data – Unintended Consequences of Recording and

Playback– Possibility of Data Leaks: Security and Data

Storage

Analysis

• Private Nature of the In-home Sensing and Inference Data–

Analysis

• Unintended Consequences of Recording and Playback–

–

Analysis

• Possibility of Data Leaks: Security and Data Storage–

Analysis

• Perceived benefits and risks– Perceived benefits of in-home sensing applications– Perceived risks and concerns of in-home sensing

• Tensions regarding sensing and inference– Tensions between couples– Tensions between parents and children– Tensions between householders and visitors

Analysis

• Tensions between couples–

–

Analysis

• Tensions between couples–

Analysis

• Perceived benefits and risks– Perceived benefits of in-home sensing applications– Perceived risks and concerns of in-home sensing

• Tensions regarding sensing and inference– Tensions between couples– Tensions between parents and children– Tensions between householders and visitors

Analysis

• Tensions between parents and children–

–

Analysis

• Tensions between parents and children– Not everyone agreed on including their child’s

opinion in deciding whether to adopt sensing and inference systems

–

Analysis

• Perceived benefits and risks– Perceived benefits of in-home sensing applications– Perceived risks and concerns of in-home sensing

• Tensions regarding sensing and inference– Tensions between couples– Tensions between parents and children– Tensions between householders and visitors

Analysis

• Tensions between householders and visitors–

Analysis

• Tensions between householders and visitors– Participants had different strategies for how they

communicate an in-home sensing to a visitor– Depending on the relationship between the

householder and visitor

Analysis

• Tensions between householders and visitors–

Discussion

• Mechanisms to Reduce Privacy Risks– Limited capability sensors for the home• A new microphone-based cough sensor that only sends

the relevant features of coughing sounds• Non-invertible audio processing techniques• Convert a general-purpose camera into a single event

detector, e.g., fall detector

Discussion

• Mechanisms to Reduce Privacy Risks– Context-aware sensing• Switch back and forth between high-fidelity (e.g., raw

video) and low-fidelity (e.g., blurred video) sensing• High-fidelity when they are not at home and low-

fidelity when they are at home• Automatically switch

Discussion

• Mechanisms to Reduce Privacy Risks– Secure recording with limited playback• Enforce recorded data to be automatically deleted after

a certain time period• To be viewed only a pre-specified number of times

Discussion

• Tensions between Aesthetics and Visible Notification – Participants did not like to have sensing devices be

visibly installed in their home– System sometimes needs to be hidden (e.g.,

supervising service people and babysitters)– Designing a gentle notification system (e.g., a

location-based reminder on a cell phone) warrants future research efforts.

Conclusion

• While in-home sensing and inference systems can provide numerous benefits, privacy risks and concerns exist

• Conduct in-lab activities and four-weeks in situ with a cultural probe that used sensor proxies with 22 participants

Conclusion

• Gather contextualized feedback on participants’ perceived benefits and risks of in-home sensing applications

• Provide design insights to alleviate perceived privacy concerns and tensions

Q&A

Thanks for your listening