Lizzie Coles-Kemp, Royal Holloway University of London: Privacy Awareness: An Inclusive Design Approach
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Lizzie Coles-Kemp, Royal Holloway University of London: Privacy Awareness: An Inclusive Design Approach

on

  • 1,238 views

Network of Excellence Internet Science Summer School. The theme of the summer school is "Internet Privacy and Identity, Trust and Reputation Mechanisms". ...

Network of Excellence Internet Science Summer School. The theme of the summer school is "Internet Privacy and Identity, Trust and Reputation Mechanisms".
More information: http://www.internet-science.eu/

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,238
Views on SlideShare
598
Embed Views
640

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

3 Embeds 640

http://www.internet-science.eu 609
http://internet-science.eu 30
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Lizzie Coles-Kemp, Royal Holloway University of London: Privacy Awareness: An Inclusive Design Approach Lizzie Coles-Kemp, Royal Holloway University of London: Privacy Awareness: An Inclusive Design Approach Presentation Transcript

  • Privacy Awareness: Aninclusive design approach Lizzie Coles-Kemp, Information Security Group, Royal Holloway
  • Outline•  Objectives of the project•  Research design•  Engagement evolution•  Lessons learned
  • VOME •  A five party consortium •  Funded by Technology Strategy Board, EPSRC and ESRC •  Interdisciplinary project
  • Goal•  Designing privacy awareness tools –  Both social and technological tools•  Underpinning the design with explanatory power to enable more efficient and effective tool deployment (prediction)
  • Context•  On-line public service delivery –  Broad set of demographics –  Variable levels of digital and visual literacy –  Communities: service users, families of service users, service providers and third parties
  • Contextualising the Debate•  Situated fieldwork –  Formal and informal education –  Older internet users –  NEETs –  Young parents•  Contextualised in the shifting landscape public service debate –  E.g. NEETs to NEATs
  • Outputs•  Social interventions: –  Music video –  Short stories –  Game•  Technical interventions: –  Design principles for privacy awareness –  Cartographies of information flows –  Communication tools
  • Proposition•  The value of the proposition depends on the ethos of the service –  Descriptive power –  Engagement –  Empowerment
  • Outline•  Objectives of the project•  Research design•  Engagement evolution•  Lessons learned
  • Overall Approach•  Mediated through gatekeepers•  Within the communities themselves•  In consultation with the community•  Mixed methods of engagement•  Across a range of demographics
  • Panorama  of  the  City  of  New  York.  (Robert  Moses/Leeser  Associates  1964)  
  • Conceptual Perspectives•  Three broad categories (Introna, 1997): –  privacy as no access to the person or the personal realm; –  privacy as control over personal information ; and –  privacy as freedom from judgement or scrutiny by others.
  • Concern and Its Expression•  Information privacy concern refers to an individual s subjective views of fairness within the context of information privacy (Campbell 1997)•  Interestingly: no literature refers to how these concerns are expressed - either in the metaphors, images or languages used or in the means of expression
  • Concern Trajectory•  Westin and Harris (1998): –  Privacy Fundamentalists, who view privacy as an especially high value which they feel very strongly about; –  Privacy Pragmatists, who too have strong feelings about privacy but can also see the benefits from surrendering some privacy in situations where they believe care is taken to prevent the misuse of this information; –  Privacy Unconcerned who have no real concerns about privacy or about how other people and organizations are using information about them
  • Uta  Eisenreich,  Network/Teamwork  sociogram  2002  
  • On-­‐line  or  Off-­‐line  •  Privacy  isn’t  either  off-­‐line  or  on-­‐line,  it’s  an   entangled  mesh   –   technology  mediated  privacy  is  situated  in  a   physical  world  (and  vice  versa).    
  • Baseline  Survey  •  The  total  number  of  valid  responses  for  the  survey   was  1048.    •  Of  the  1048  respondents,  49.8%  (523)  were  male   and  50.2%  (525)  were  female    •  The  mean  age  was  41.0  years  (range:  18  –  82  years)  •  Used  quesQons  adapted  from  a  number  of   established  scales  including  Internet  Users   InformaQon  Privacy  Concerns.  
  • IUIPC: Collection of Information ü  34.1% of the respondents strongly agree that they are concerned when online sites collect their personal information. Only about 16.1% of the respondents disagree that the collection of personal information by online sites is a concern.
  • IUIPC: Control of Information ü  46.8% of the respondents strongly agree that online sites should provide them with the right to exercise control and autonomy over decisions about how their information is collected, use and shared. Only 11.6% of the respondents disagree that having control over collected information about themselves is a concern.
  • IUIPC: Awareness of Privacy Practices ü  51.2% of the respondents strongly agree that Internet sites seeking information online should disclose the way the data are collected, processed and used. Only 10.4% feel that having awareness of such privacy practices is not a concern.
  • Influencers•  Age•  Gender•  Internet experience•  Levels of education
  • Practices•  Two categories of privacy practice identified (Buchannan et al 2007): –  common sense steps (general caution) –  technical protection of privacy•  Gender divide: females more likely to undertake general caution and males more likely to undertake technical protection measures
  • Off-line Responses to On-line Problems•  VOME survey agreed with the gender hypothesis•  The VOME fieldwork did not: –  Much broader range of general caution activities undertaken by both men and women –  Use of off-line recommender networks (social) –  The use of technical protection measures depends on who manages the technology
  • Two Dominant Paradoxes•  In VOME research, the following “paradoxes” are dominant: –  Users are concerned about their privacy, but are unwilling to engage with privacy technologies. This is in line with the findings discussed in Buchanan et al.’s work (2007) •  FW: But this doesn’t mean there are no privacy protection practices –  Users want autonomy over on-line privacy but are prepared to trade their privacy in return for some reward. This is in-line with the paradoxes discussed in, for example, Norberg et al.’s work (2007) •  FW: This does not necessarily mean a financial reward.
  • Paradox or Just Different Choices?•  VOME at the point of practice shows that: –  Privacy journey is on-going –  Privacy protection practices are related to the relationship in question and the trust within that relationship –  Different relationships have different concerns related to them and different practices (foregrounding) –  Choice of foregrounding and lack of awareness of privacy risks result in weaker privacy protection choices
  • Question..•  How do we find out more about those choices?•  Interviews and focus groups delivered as expected answers•  Surveys delivered as expected patterns•  Neither approach told us much about practices, their link to concerns and how privacy awareness was built•  Neither approach reached into the liminal communities
  • Outline•  Objectives of the project•  Research design•  Engagement evolution•  Lessons learned
  • Who We Engaged With•  Service providers –  Public service providers (local government) –  Central government –  Application developers –  Third sector –  Commercial service providers•  General public –  Community groups –  Young people –  Vulnerable young adults –  General public
  • Methods•  Traditional social research methods: –  Survey –  Interview –  Focus group•  User-centric design methods: –  Questionnaire –  User evaluation –  Interview•  Participatory methods: –  Artistic engagement –  Co-design
  • Traditional Social Research•  Pros –  Can compare against existing baselines –  Using known and trusted approaches –  Researchers familiar with the role –  Obtain a solid overview of patterns of practice•  Cons –  Difficult to move beyond the known –  Participants unfamiliar with the role and fear failure –  Language barrier –  Lengthy process –  Technology can have a passive role
  • User-Centric Design•  Pros –  Derive requirements from the users of existing and potential systems –  Engages with the owners of the problem space and with the potential users of any outputs; therefore gains a range of perspectives –  Technology has an equal role in the research•  Cons –  Affirmative design –  Language barrier –  Participants are often passive actors
  • Participatory Methods•  Pros –  Participants and researchers are on a more equal footing –  Language barrier reduces –  Participants drive the direction of the research –  Output that can be used in different ways –  Strong explanatory power•  Cons –  A less well-known approach –  Expensive –  Resource intensive for set-up –  Risk of failure
  • Outline•  Objectives of the project•  Research design•  Engagement evolution•  Lessons learned
  • Lessons Learned•  Can be divided into three groups: –  Control Tension –  Situation –  Segmentation
  • Where to Next•  Three case studies for technical interventions: –  Sunderland City Council’s Child Poverty Portal –  Information values map for Safe@Last –  Community support network for community action (Pallion, West Sunderland)•  Evaluation of the game and music video: –  Social marketing methods –  User experience evaluations
  • Thank you•  More details can be found at: http://www.vome.org.uk•  Publications at: http://www.vome.org.uk/publications/•  Video collection at: http://www.vome.org.uk/videos/•  Interventions at: http://www.vome.org.uk/toolkit/