skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Discovering Smart Home Internet of Things Privacy Norms Using Contextual Integrity

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 July 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The proliferation of Internet of Things (IoT) devices for consumer "smart" homes raises concerns about user privacy. We present a survey method based on the Contextual Integrity (CI) privacy framework that can quickly and efficiently discover privacy norms at scale. We apply the method to discover privacy norms in the smart home context, surveying 1,731 American adults on Amazon Mechanical Turk. For $2,800 and in less than six hours, we measured the acceptability of 3,840 information flows representing a combinatorial space of smart home devices sending consumer information to first and third-party recipients under various conditions. Our results provide actionable recommendations for IoT device manufacturers, including design best practices and instructions for adopting our method for further research.

References

  1. Monica Anderson. 2015. Key takeaways on mobile apps and privacy. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/10/key-takeaways-mobile-apps/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Noah Apthorpe, Dillon Reisman, and Nick Feamster. 2016. A Smart Home is No Castle: Privacy Vulnerabilities of Encrypted IoT Traffic. In Workshop on Data and Algorithmic Transparency.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Paul Ashley, Satoshi Hada, Günter Karjoth, Calvin Powers, and Matthias Schunter. 2003. Enterprise privacy authorization language (EPAL). IBM Research (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Itai Asseo, Maggie Johnson, Bob Nilsson, Neti Chalapathy, and TJ Costello. 2016. The Internet of things: Riding the wave in higher education. Educause Review (2016), 11--31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Louise Barkhuus. 2012. The mismeasurement of privacy: using contextual integrity to reconsider privacy in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 367--376. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Adam Barth, Anupam Datta, John C Mitchell, and Helen Nissenbaum. 2006. Privacy and contextual integrity: Framework and applications. In 2006 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, 15--pp. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Christoph Bartneck, Andreas Duenser, Elena Moltchanova, and Karolina Zawieska. 2015. Comparing the similarity of responses received from studies in Amazon's Mechanical Turk to studies conducted online and with direct recruitment. PloS one 10, 4 (2015), e0121595.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Douglas Bates, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker. 2014. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Omar Chowdhury, Andreas Gampe, Jianwei Niu, Jeffery von Ronne, Jared Bennatt, Anupam Datta, Limin Jia, and William H Winsborough. 2013. Privacy promises that can be kept: A policy analysis method with application to the HIPAA privacy rule. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies. ACM, 3--14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Federal Communications Commission. 2017. Green Paper: Fostering the Advancement of the Internet of Things. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2017/green-paper-fostering-advancement-internet-thingsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Lorrie Faith Cranor, Joseph Reagle, and Mark S Ackerman. 2000. Beyond concern: Understanding net users' attitudes about online privacy. The Internet upheaval: raising questions, seeking answers in communications policy (2000), 47--70.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Natalia Criado and Jose M Such. 2015. Implicit Contextual Integrity in Online Social Networks. Information Sciences (2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Paul Daugherty, Prith Banerjee, Walid Negm, and Allan E Alter. 2015. Driving unconventional growth through the industrial internet of things. (2015). https://www.accenture.com/us-en/_acnmedia/Accenture/next-gen/reassembling-industry/pdf/Accenture-Driving-Unconventional-Growth-through-IIoT.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Tom Davenport and John Lucker. 2015. Running on data: Activity trackers and the Internet of Things. https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/deloitte-review/issue-16/internet-of-things-wearable-technology.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Julia Brande Earp, Annie I Antón, Lynda Aiman-Smith, and William H Stufflebeam. 2005. Examining Internet privacy policies within the context of user privacy values. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 52, 2 (2005), 227--237.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Serge Egelman, Janice Tsai, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Alessandro Acquisti. 2009. Timing is everything?: the effects of timing and placement of online privacy indicators. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 319--328. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Enterprise Privacy Authorization Language (EPAL 1.2) 2003. https://www.w3.org/Submission/2003/SUBM-EPAL-20031110/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Federal Communications Commission. 2016. FCC Adopts Broadband Consumer Privacy Rules. https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-broadband-consumer-privacy-rulesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Federal Communications Commission. 2016. FCC Releases Rules to Protect Broadband Consumer Privacy. https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-broadband-consumer-privacy-rulesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Federal Trade Commission. 2007. Fair Information Practice Principles. https://web.archive.org/web/20100309105100/http://www.ftc.gov/reports/privacy3/fairinfo.shtm#Notice/AwarenessGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. David Ferraiolo, D Richard Kuhn, and Ramaswamy Chandramouli. 2003. Role-based access control. Artech House. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. David F Ferraiolo, Ravi Sandhu, Serban Gavrila, D Richard Kuhn, and Ramaswamy Chandramouli. 2001. Proposed NIST standard for role-based access control. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC) 4, 3 (2001), 224--274. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai. 2017. Internet of Things Teddy Bear Leaked 2 Million Parent and Kids Message Recordings. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pgwean/internet-of-things-teddy-bear-leaked-2-million-parent-and-kids-message-recordingsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Frances Grodzinsky and Herman T Tavani. 2010. Applying the "Contextual Integrity" Model of Privacy to Personal Blogs in the Blogoshere. Computer Science and Information Technology Faculty Publications (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group. 2016. Internet of Things (IoT) Security and Privacy Recommendations. Technical Report. https://www.bitag.org/documents/BITAG_Report_-_Internet_of_Things_(IoT)_Security_and_Privacy_Recommendations.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Hayley Tsukayama. 2017. Bose headphones have been spying on customers, lawsuit claims. The Washington Post (2017). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/04/19/bose-headphones-have-been-spying-on-their-customers-lawsuit-claims/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Paul Hitlin. 2016. Turkers in this canvassing: young, well-educated and frequent users. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/07/11/turkers-in-this-canvassing-young-well-educated-and-frequent-users/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Christine Horne, Brice Darras, Elyse Bean, Anurag Srivastava, and Scott Frickel. 2015. Privacy, technology, and norms: The case of Smart Meters. Social science research 51 (2015), 64--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Gordon Hull, Heather Richter Lipford, and Celine Latulipe. 2011. Contextual gaps: privacy issues on Facebook. Ethics and information technology 13, 4 (2011), 289--302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Carlos Jensen and Colin Potts. 2004. Privacy policies as decision-making tools: an evaluation of online privacy notices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 471--478. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. David Kravets. 2016. Sex toys and the Internet of Things collide---what could go wrong? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/sex-toys-and-the-internet-of-things-collide-what-could-go-wrong/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Nile Lars. 2014. Connected Medical Devices, Apps: Are They Leading the IoT Revolution -- or Vice Versa? https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/06/connected-medical-devices-apps-leading-iot-revolution-vice-versa/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Jialiu Lin, Shahriyar Amini, Jason I. Hong, Norman Sadeh, Janne Lindqvist, and Joy Zhang. 2012. Expectation and Purpose: Understanding Users' Mental Models of Mobile App Privacy Through Crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '12). ACM, 501--510. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Jialiu Lin, Bin Liu, Norman Sadeh, and Jason I. Hong. 2014. Modeling Users' Mobile App Privacy Preferences: Restoring Usability in a Sea of Permission Settings. In 10th Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2014). USENIX Association, 199--212. https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2014/proceedings/presentation/lin Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Leib Litman, Jonathan Robinson, and Tzvi Abberbock. 2017. TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior research methods 49, 2 (2017), 433--442.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Richard Lowry. 2014. Concepts and applications of inferential statistics. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. 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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Kirsten Martin. 2015. Privacy notices as tabula rasa: An empirical investigation into how complying with a privacy notice is related to meeting privacy expectations online. Journal of Public Policy 8 Marketing 34, 2 (2015), 210--227.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Kirsten Martin and Helen Nissenbaum. 2016. Measuring privacy: an empirical test using context to expose confounding variables. Colum. Sci. 8 Tech. L. Rev. 18 (2016), 176.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Chris Matyszczyk. 2015. Samsung's warning: Our Smart TVs record your living room chatter. https://www.cnet.com/news/samsungs-warning-our-smart-tvs-record-your-living-room-chatter/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Aleecia M McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2008. The cost of reading privacy policies. ISJLP 4 (2008), 543.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Eliott McLaughlin. 2017. Suspect OKs Amazon to hand over Echo recordings in murder case. https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/tech/amazon-echo-alexa-bentonville-arkansas-murder-case/index.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Pardis Emami Naeini, Sruti Bhagavatula, Hana Habib, Martin Degeling, Lujo Bauer, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Norman Sadeh. 2017. Privacy Expectations and Preferences in an IoT World. In Thirteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2017). USENIX Association, Santa Clara, CA, 399--412. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Helen Nissenbaum. 2010. Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford Law Books. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Bill Parducci. 2005. eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) specification. (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Joseph Phelps, Glen Nowak, and Elizabeth Ferrell. 2000. Privacy concerns and consumer willingness to provide personal information. Journal of Public Policy 8 Marketing 19, 1 (2000), 27--41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Qualtrics Online. 2017. http://www.qualtrics.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Lee Rainie and Maeve Duggan. 2017. Privacy and Information Sharing. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/01/14/privacy-and-information-sharing/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Andrew D Selbst. 2013. Contextual expectations of privacy. Cardozo Law Review (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Juliet Popper Shaffer. 1995. Multiple Hypothesis Testing. Annual Review of Psychology 46, 1 (1995), 561--584.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Pan Shi, Heng Xu, and Yunan Chen. 2013. Using contextual integrity to examine interpersonal information boundary on social network sites. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 35--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Yan Shvartzshnaider, Schrasing Tong, Thomas Wies, Paula Kift, Helen Nissenbaum, Lakshminarayanan Subramanian, and Prateek Mittal. 2016. Learning Privacy Expectations by Crowdsourcing Contextual Informational Norms. The Fourth AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Daniel J Simons and Christopher F Chabris. 2012. Common (mis) beliefs about memory: A replication and comparison of telephone and Mechanical Turk survey methods. PloS one 7, 12 (2012), e51876.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Snap Spectacles 2017. Snap Spectacles. https://www.spectacles.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. FTC Staff. 2010. Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change--A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality 3, 1 (2010), 5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Seymour Sudman, Norman M Bradburn, and Norbert Schwarz. 1996. Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. Jossey-Bass.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. UserBob - Usability Testing. 2017. https://userbob.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Primal Wijesekera, Arjun Baokar, Ashkan Hosseini, Serge Egelman, David Wagner, and Konstantin Beznosov. 2015. Android Permissions Remystified: A Field Study on Contextual Integrity. In 24th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 15). USENIX Association, 499--514. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity15/technical-sessions/presentation/wijesekera Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Jenifer S Winter. 2012. Privacy and the emerging internet of things: using the framework of contextual integrity to inform policy. In Pacific Telecommunications Council Conference Proceedings.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Christopher Wolf and Jules Polonetsky. 2013. An Updated Privacy Paradigm for the "Internet of Things". https://fpf.org/wp-content/uploads/Wolf-and-Polonetsky-An-Updated-Privacy-Paradigm-for-the-%E2%80%9CInternet-of-Things%E2%80%9D-11-19-2013.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Kathryn Zickuhr. 2013. Who's not online and why. Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2013/PIP_Offline%20adults_092513_PDF.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Michael Zimmer. 2008. Privacy on planet Google: Using the theory of contextual integrity to clarify the privacy threats of Google's quest for the perfect search engine. J. Bus. 8 Tech. L. 3 (2008), 109.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Discovering Smart Home Internet of Things Privacy Norms Using Contextual Integrity

      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

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies
        Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies  Volume 2, Issue 2
        June 2018
        741 pages
        EISSN:2474-9567
        DOI:10.1145/3236498
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2018 Owner/Author

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 5 July 2018
        • Revised: 1 April 2018
        • Accepted: 1 April 2018
        • Received: 1 February 2018
        Published in imwut Volume 2, Issue 2

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader