Internet of Things (IoT) systems have aroused enthusiasm and concerns. Enthusiasm comes from their utilities in people daily life, and concerns may be associated with privacy issues. By using two IoT systems as case-studies, we examine users' privacy beliefs, concerns and attitudes. We focus on four major dimensions: the collection of personal data, the inference of new information, the exchange of information to third parties, and the risk-utility trade-off posed by the features of the system. Altogether, 113 Brazilian individuals answered a survey about such dimensions. Although their perceptions seem to be dependent on the context, there are recurrent patterns. Our results suggest that IoT users can be classified into unconcerned, fundamentalists and pragmatists. Most of them exhibit a pragmatist profile and believe in privacy as a right guaranteed by law. One of the most privacy concerning aspect is the exchange of personal information to third parties. Individuals' perceived risk is negatively correlated with their perceived utility in the features of the system. We discuss practical implications of these results and suggest heuristics to cope with privacy concerns when designing IoT systems.
Concerns about privacy usually arise from unauthorized collection of personal data, unauthorized secondary use of the data, errors in personal data, and improper access to personal data @cite_22 . People concerns are indeed associated to possible consequences that these occurrences may have on their lives. Two relevant theoretical constructs that explore this view are face keeping and information boundary.
@cite_22
2119486295 2898683213 2077217970 1981794546
The advent of the Internet has made the transmission of personally identifiable information more common and often unintended by the user. As personal information becomes more accessible, individuals worry that businesses misuse the information that is collected while they are online. Organizations have tried to mitigate this concern in two ways: (1) by offering privacy policies regarding the handling and use of personal information and (2) by offering benefits such as financial gains or convenience. In this paper, we interpret these actions in the context of the information-processing theory of motivation. Information-processing theories, also known as expectancy theories in the context of motivated behavior, are built on the premise that people process information about behavior-outcome relationships. By doing so, they are forming expectations and making decisions about what behavior to choose. Using an experimental setting, we empirically validate predictions that the means to mitigate privacy concerns are associated with positive valences resulting in an increase in motivational score. In a conjoint analysis exercise, 268 participants from the United States and Singapore face trade-off situations, where an organization may only offer incomplete privacy protection or some benefits. While privacy protections (against secondary use, improper access, and error) are associated with positive valences, we also find that financial gains and convenience can significantly increase individuals' motivational score of registering with a Web site. We find that benefits-monetary reward and future convenience-significantly affect individuals' preferences over Web sites with differing privacy policies. We also quantify the value of Web site privacy protection. Among U.S. subjects, protection against errors, improper access, and secondary use of personal information is worth @math 44.62. Finally, our approach also allows us to identify three distinct segments of Internet users-privacy guardians, information sellers, and convenience seekers. Concerns about genetic privacy affect individuals’ willingness to accept genetic testing in clinical care and to participate in genomics research. To learn what is already known about these views, we conducted a systematic review, which ultimately analyzed 53 studies involving the perspectives of 47,974 participants on real or hypothetical privacy issues related to human genetic data. Bibliographic databases included MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, and Sociological Abstracts. Three investigators independently screened studies against predetermined criteria and assessed risk of bias. The picture of genetic privacy that emerges from this systematic literature review is complex and riddled with gaps. When asked specifically “are you worried about genetic privacy,” the general public, patients, and professionals frequently said yes. In many cases, however, that question was posed poorly or only in the most general terms. While many participants expressed concern that genomic and medical information would be revealed to others, respondents frequently seemed to conflate privacy, confidentiality, control, and security. People varied widely in how much control they wanted over the use of data. They were more concerned about use by employers, insurers, and the government than they were about researchers and commercial entities. In addition, people are often willing to give up some privacy to obtain other goods. Importantly, little attention was paid to understanding the factors–sociocultural, relational, and media—that influence people’s opinions and decisions. Future investigations should explore in greater depth which concerns about genetic privacy are most salient to people and the social forces and contexts that influence those perceptions. It is also critical to identify the social practices that will make the collection and use of these data more trustworthy for participants as well as to identify the circumstances that lead people to set aside worries and decide to participate in research. In the information realm, loss of privacy is usually associated with failure to control access to information, to control the flow of information, or to control the purposes for which information is employed. Differential privacy arose in a context in which ensuring privacy is a challenge even if all these control problems are solved: privacy-preserving statistical analysis of data. The problem of statistical disclosure control – revealing accurate statistics about a set of respondents while preserving the privacy of individuals – has a venerable history, with an extensive literature spanning statistics, theoretical computer science, security, databases, and cryptography (see, for example, the excellent survey [1], the discussion of related work in [2] and the Journal of Official Statistics 9 (2), dedicated to confidentiality and disclosure control). This long history is a testament the importance of the problem. Statistical databases can be of enormous social value; they are used for apportioning resources, evaluating medical therapies, understanding the spread of disease, improving economic utility, and informing us about ourselves as a species. The data may be obtained in diverse ways. Some data, such as census, tax, and other sorts of official data, are compelled; others are collected opportunistically, for example, from traffic on the internet, transactions on Amazon, and search engine query logs; other data are provided altruistically, by respondents who hope that sharing their information will help others to avoid a specific misfortune, or more generally, to increase the public good. Altruistic data donors are typically promised their individual data will be kept confidential – in short, they are promised “privacy.” Similarly, medical data and legally compelled data, such as census data, tax return data, have legal privacy mandates. In our view, ethics demand that opportunistically obtained data should be treated no differently, especially when there is no reasonable alternative to engaging in the actions that generate the data in question. The problems remain: even if data encryption, key management, access control, and the motives of the data curator In today's data-rich networked world, people express many aspects of their lives online. It is common to segregate different aspects in different places: you might write opinionated rants about movies in your blog under a pseudonym while participating in a forum or web site for scholarly discussion of medical ethics under your real name. However, it may be possible to link these separate identities, because the movies, journal articles, or authors you mention are from a sparse relation space whose properties (e.g., many items related to by only a few users) allow re-identification. This re-identification violates people's intentions to separate aspects of their life and can have negative consequences; it also may allow other privacy violations, such as obtaining a stronger identifier like name and address.This paper examines this general problem in a specific setting: re-identification of users from a public web movie forum in a private movie ratings dataset. We present three major results. First, we develop algorithms that can re-identify a large proportion of public users in a sparse relation space. Second, we evaluate whether private dataset owners can protect user privacy by hiding data; we show that this requires extensive and undesirable changes to the dataset, making it impractical. Third, we evaluate two methods for users in a public forum to protect their own privacy, suppression and misdirection. Suppression doesn't work here either. However, we show that a simple misdirection strategy works well: mention a few popular items that you haven't rated.