Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Kongresse
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Veranstaltungskalender Awards MyNewsletter Firmensuche
Kunden Login
Über Einzelzugang informieren
Über Unternehmenszugang informieren
Referenzkunden
Elektrische Antriebe und Energiesysteme 2025 | 26 + 27 März 2025

19. Internationaler MTZ-Fachkongress Zukunftsantriebe

Seien Sie bei der Konferenz dabei! Dort treffen Experten aus der Automobilindustrie, Energieerzeugung und Stromnetzbetrieb auf Vertreter aus Politik und Wissenschaft. Diskutiert werden wichtige Themen der Branche.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2024 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

User-Driven Privacy Factors in Trigger-Action Apps: A Comparative Analysis with General IoT

verfasst von : Piero Romare

Erschienen in: Privacy and Identity Management. Sharing in a Digital World

Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The growing adoption of Trigger-Action Platforms (TAPs) in the Internet of Things (IoT) paradigm has evolved users’ ability to automate their digital environments. However, this automation also introduces potential threats to users’ privacy. To enhance users’ privacy decisions and develop effective permission management systems, it is crucial to understand users’ comprehension of privacy factors in the IoT. This paper presents a literature review on privacy factors in the general IoT environment and compares them with users’ priorities and preferences for privacy factors specific to TAPs. To this end, we earlier conducted three Focus Groups (FGs) to gather users’ definitions and rankings of privacy factors in the TAPs context. Through the comparison with the general IoT literature, we highlight the similarities and differences in privacy factors between TAPs and traditional IoT applications. The outcomes of this study can inform the designers and developers with an emphasis on privacy-centric IoT TAPs.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Enhancing Transparency Through Personal Information Management Systems: Current State of Service Offerings and Considerations for Further Advancements
Nächstes Kapitel Privacy and Utility Evaluation of Synthetic Tabular Data for Machine Learning
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
Literatur
1.
Abbott, J., et al.: Privacy lessons learnt from deploying an IoT ecosystem in the home. In: EuroUSEC 2022 (2022)
2.
Al-Ameen, M.N., Chauhan, A., Ahsan, M.A.M., Kocabas, H.: A look into user’s privacy perceptions and data practices of IoT devices. IJICS (2021)
3.
Alaiad, A., Zhou, L.: Patients’ Adoption of WSN-based smart home healthcare systems: an integrated model of facilitators and barriers. In: ProComm (2017)
4.
Alraja, M.: Frontline healthcare providers’ behavioural intention to internet of things (IoT)-enabled healthcare applications: a gender-based, cross-generational study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 174, 121256 (2022)CrossRef
5.
Alshehri, A., Spielman, J., Prasad, A., Yue, C.: Exploring the privacy concerns of bystanders in smart homes from the perspectives of both owners and bystanders. In: Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (2022)
6.
Ando, R., Shima, S., Takemura, T.: Analysis of privacy and security affecting the intention of use in personal data collection in an IoT environment (2016)
7.
Apthorpe, N., Shvartzshnaider, Y., Mathur, A., Reisman, D., Feamster, N.: Discovering smart home internet of things privacy norms using contextual integrity. In: IMWUT (2018)
8.
Brandtzaeg, P.B., Pultier, A., Moen, G.M.: Losing control to data-hungry apps: a mixed-methods approach to mobile app privacy. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 37, 466–488 (2019)CrossRef
9.
Cannizzaro, S., Procter, R., Ma, S., Maple, C.: Trust in the smart home: findings from a nationally representative survey in the UK. PLoS ONE 15, e0231615 (2020)CrossRef
10.
Celik, Z.B., McDaniel, P., Tan, G.: SOTERIA: automated IoT safety and security analysis. In: USENIX ATC 2018 (2018)
11.
Cheong, P.H., Nyaupane, P.: Smart campus communication, IoT, and data governance: understanding student tensions and imaginaries. Big Data Soc. (2022)
12.
Cleveland, S.M., Haddara, M.: Internet of Things for diabetics: identifying adoption issues. Internet Things (2023)
13.
Cobb, C., et al.: How risky are real users’ IFTTT applets? In: Sixteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2020) (2020)
14.
Colnago, J., et al.: Informing the design of a personalized privacy assistant for the internet of things. In: CHI (2020)
15.
16.
Dong, X., Chang, Y., Wang, Y., Yan, J.: Understanding usage of internet of things (IOT) systems in China. Inf. Technol. People 30, 117–138 (2017)CrossRef
17.
Emami-Naeini, P., Agarwal, Y., Cranor, L.F., Hibshi, H.: Ask the experts: what should be on an IoT privacy and security label? In: S&P (2020)
18.
Emami-Naeini, P., Dheenadhayalan, J., Agarwal, Y., Cranor, L.F.: Which privacy and security attributes most impact consumers’ risk perception and willingness to purchase IoT devices? In: S&P (2021)
19.
Emami-Naeini, P., Dixon, H., Agarwal, Y., Cranor, L.F.: Exploring how privacy and security factor into IoT device purchase behavior. In: CHI (2019)
20.
Foltz, C.B., Foltz, L.: Mobile users’ information privacy concerns instrument and IoT. Inf. Comput. Secur. 28, 359–371 (2020)CrossRef
21.
George, J.F., Chen, R., Yuan, L.: Intent to purchase IoT home security devices: fear vs privacy. PLoS ONE 16, e0257601 (2021)CrossRef
22.
Gopalakrishna, N.K., Anandayuvaraj, D., Detti, A., Bland, F.L., Rahaman, S., Davis, J.C.: If security is required. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Software Engineering Research and Practice for the IoT (2022)
23.
Harkin, D., Mann, M., Warren, I.: Consumer IoT and its under-regulation: findings from an Australian study. Policy Internet 14, 96–113 (2022)CrossRef
24.
Hong, A., Nam, C., Kim, S.: What will be the possible barriers to consumers’ adoption of smart home services? Telecommun. Policy 44, 101867 (2020)CrossRef
25.
Hsu, C.L., Lin, J.C.C.: An empirical examination of consumer adoption of Internet of Things services: network externalities and concern for information privacy perspectives. Comput. Hum. Behav. 62, 516–527 (2016)CrossRef
26.
Jaspers, E.D.T., Pearson, E.: Consumers’ acceptance of domestic internet-of-things: the role of trust and privacy concerns. J. Bus. Res. 142, 255–265 (2022)CrossRef
27.
Jeon, H., Lee, C.: Internet of things technology: balancing privacy concerns with convenience. Telemat. Inform. 70, 101816 (2022)CrossRef
28.
Kim, D., Park, K., Park, Y., Ahn, J.H.: Willingness to provide personal information: perspective of privacy calculus in IoT services. Comput. Hum. Behav. 92, 273–281 (2019)CrossRef
29.
30.
31.
Kulyk, O., Milanovic, K., Pitt, J.: Does my smart device provider care about my privacy? investigating trust factors and user attitudes in iot systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th NordiCHI (2020)
32.
Lafontaine, E., Sabir, A., Das, A.: Understanding people’s attitude and concerns towards adopting IoT devices. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI (2021)
33.
Lee, A.R.: Investigating the personalization-privacy paradox in internet of things (IoT) based on dual-factor theory, moderating effects of type of IoT service and user value. Sustainability 13, 10679 (2021)CrossRef
34.
Lee, H., Kobsa, A.: Privacy preference modeling and prediction in a simulated campuswide IoT environment. In: PerCom (2017)
35.
36.
Lenz, J., Bozakov, Z., Wendzel, S., Vrhovec, S.: Why people replace their aging smart devices: a push-pull-mooring perspective. Comput. Secur. 130, 103258 (2023)CrossRef
37.
Liu, Y.L., Huang, L., Yan, W., Wang, X., Zhang, R.: Privacy in AI and the IoT: the privacy concerns of smart speaker users and the personal information protection law in China. Telecommun. Policy 46, 102334 (2022)CrossRef
38.
Luthfi, A., Emigawaty, E.: Towards privacy by design on the internet of things (IoT) use: a qualitative descriptive study. IJHISI (2022)
39.
Mahadewa, K., et al.: Identifying privacy weaknesses from multi-party trigger-action integration platforms. In: 30th ACM SIGSOFT (2021)
40.
Mann, M., Wilson, M., Warren, I.: Smart parenting? The internet of things, children’s privacy, and data justice. Int. J. Child. Rights 30, 204–231 (2022)CrossRef
41.
Marky, K., Gerber, N., Pelzer, M.G., Khamis, M., Mühlhäuser, M.: “You offer privacy like you offer tea”: investigating mechanisms for improving guest privacy in IoT-equipped households. Proc. Priv. Enhanc. Technol. (2022)
42.
Marreiros, H., Gomer, R.C., Vlassopoulos, M., Tonin, M., Schraefel, M.C.: Exploring user perceptions of online privacy disclosures. In: IADIS (2015)
43.
Maus, B., Olsson, C.M., Salvi, D.: Privacy personas for IoT-based health research: a privacy calculus approach. Front. Digit. Health 3, 675754 (2021)CrossRef
44.
Menard, P., Bott, G.J.: Analyzing IOT users’ mobile device privacy concerns: extracting privacy permissions using a disclosure experiment. Comput. Secur. 95, 101856 (2020)CrossRef
45.
Montanari, A., Mashhadi, A., Mathur, A., Kawsar, F.: Understanding the privacy design space for personal connected objects. In: eWiC (2016)
46.
Morgan, P.L., Collins, E.I., Spiliotopoulos, T., Greeno, D.J., Jones, D.M.: Reducing risk to security and privacy in the selection of trigger-action rules: implicit vs. explicit priming for domestic smart devices. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 168, 102902 (2022)
47.
Naeini, P.E., et al.: Privacy expectations and preferences in an IoT world. In: SOUPS (2017)
48.
Naeini, P.E., et al.: Privacy expectations and preferences in an IoT world. In: Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (2017)
49.
Padyab, A., Ståhlbröst, A.: Exploring the dimensions of individual privacy concerns in relation to the internet of things use situations. Digit. Policy Regul. Govern. 20, 528–544 (2018)CrossRef
50.
Pal, D., Papasratorn, B., Chutimaskul, W., Funilkul, S.: Embracing the smart-home revolution in Asia by the elderly: an end-user negative perception modeling. IEEE Access 7, 38535–38549 (2019)CrossRef
51.
Ponciano, L., Barbosa, P., Brasileiro, F., Brito, A., Andrade, N.: Designing for pragmatists and fundamentalists. In: IHC (2017)
52.
Psychoula, I., Singh, D., Chen, L., Chen, F., Holzinger, A., Ning, H.: Users’ privacy concerns in IoT based applications. In: SmartWorld/SCALCOM/UIC/ATC/CBDCom/IOP/SCI (2018)
53.
Railean, A., Reinhardt, D.: Life-long privacy in the IoT? Measuring privacy attitudes throughout the life-cycle of IoT devices. In: Hansen, M., Kosta, E., Nai-Fovino, I., Fischer-Hübner, S. (eds.) Privacy and Identity 2017. IAICT, vol. 526, pp. 132–149. Springer, Cham (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-319-92925-5_​9CrossRef
54.
Romare, P., Morel, V., Karegar, F., Fischer-Hübner, S.: Tapping into privacy: a study of user preferences and concerns on trigger-action platforms. In: 2023 20th Annual International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST) (2023)
55.
Saeidi, M., Calvert, M., Au, A., Sarma, A., Bobba, R.B.: If this context then that concern: exploring users’ concerns with IFTTT applets. CoRR (2020)
56.
Sah, J., Jun, S.: The role of consumers’ privacy awareness in the privacy calculus for IoT services. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. (2023)
57.
58.
Spahn, M., Dörner, C., Wulf, V.: End user development: approaches towards a flexible software design. In: European Conference on Information Systems (2008)
59.
Surbatovich, M., Aljuraidan, J., Bauer, L., Das, A., Jia, L.: Some recipes can do more than spoil your appetite: analyzing the security and privacy risks of IFTTT recipes. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on WWW (2017)
60.
Wang, S., et al.: Technology to Support Aging in Place: Older Adults’ Perspectives. In: Healthcare (2019)
61.
Wang, X., McGill, T.J., Klobas, J.E.: I want it anyway: consumer perceptions of smart home devices. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. (2018)
62.
Wickramasinghe, C.I., Reinhardt, D.: A survey-based exploration of users’ awareness and their willingness to protect their data with smart objects. In: Friedewald, M., Önen, M., Lievens, E., Krenn, S., Fricker, S. (eds.) Privacy and Identity 2019. IAICT, vol. 576, pp. 427–446. Springer, Cham (2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-030-42504-3_​27CrossRef
63.
Williams, M., Nurse, J.R.C., Creese, S.: Privacy is the boring bit: user perceptions and behaviour in the internet-of-things. In: PST (2017)
64.
Yao, Y., Basdeo, J.R., Mcdonough, O.R., Wang, Y.: Privacy perceptions and designs of bystanders in smart homes. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 3, 1–24 (2019)CrossRef
65.
Yildirim, H., Ali-Eldin, A.M.T.: A model for predicting user intention to use wearable IoT devices at the workplace. J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inf. Sci. 31, 497-505 (2019)
66.
Zeng, E., Mare, S., Roesner, F.: End user security & privacy concerns with smart homes. In: USENIX (2017)
67.
68.
Zhao, V., Zhang, L., Wang, B., Lu, S., Ur, B.: Visualizing differences to improve end-user understanding of trigger-action programs. In: CHI EA 2020 (2020)
69.
Zheng, S., Apthorpe, N., Chetty, M., Feamster, N.: User perceptions of smart home IoT privacy. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 2, 1–20 (2018)CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
User-Driven Privacy Factors in Trigger-Action Apps: A Comparative Analysis with General IoT
verfasst von
Piero Romare
Copyright-Jahr
2024
Buch
Privacy and Identity Management. Sharing in a Digital World

Print ISBN: 978-3-031-57977-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-031-57978-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2024

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57978-3_16

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise