Successfully reported this slideshow.

Privacy and social intelligibility

1,263 views

Published on

What would happen if your phone would explain your friends why you cannot answer their call?

Presenting 'Privacy and social intelligibility' in the Pervasive Intelligibility workshop at Pervasive 2012.

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Privacy and social intelligibility

  1. 1. Second Workshop on Intelligibility and Control in Contemporary Research Pervasive ComputingHuman Computer in Interaction June 2012 Winter 2010 Privacy and Social IntelligibilityDr. Eran Toch
  2. 2. Social IntelligibilityIn social intelligibility, theapplication provides intelligiblecontext to the user‟s socialrelations.
  3. 3. ‣ Let‟s introduce Careless Contexts.‣ A hypothetical social contexts applications. ‣ It is intelligible, ‣ But somewhat careless.
  4. 4. Careless Contexts Einat Meirav Not available ‣ Clicking on “Why?”, explains the availability with:WHERE IS SHE? ‣ Location She has been here 4 times ‣ Sound activityWHAT IS SHE DOING? Talking ‣ Sharing rules Volume 72 Periods of Silence 12%HER RULES Pitch Range 1420 Hz ‣ Motion People at work get only the availability. Friends can get full ex planations. ‣ Schedule 4
  5. 5. Agenda1. Properties of social intelligibility2. Privacy tensions3. Conclusions 5
  6. 6. (1) Properties of social intelligibility 6
  7. 7. Intelligibility in Social Context‣ Many situations in social applications are uncertain: ‣ Is it a good time to call someone? To email? ‣ Did a friend received my message? ‣ Does a Facebook friend sees my status in her feed?‣ Technically, social intelligibility can reduce this uncertainty in these situations. 7
  8. 8. Social Intelligibility Inferred information fl ow Inference IntelligiblePrimary User Ex planations Secondary Users Sensors Explanations about the primary user are provided to the secondary users, regarding: ‣ Sensor information (e.g., context, messages) ‣ Inference processes (e.g., certainty, algorithms) 8
  9. 9. Unrestricted DrivingJanne Lindqvist and Jason Hong. Undistracted Driving: AMobile Phone that Doesn‟t Distract, in HotMobile 2011 9
  10. 10. (2) Privacy tensions in Social Intelligibility 10
  11. 11. Theoretical Framework Utility Privacy • Uncertainty • Boundary regulation reduction • Contextual integrity • Signaling theoryInsights from a qualitative study (n=10)B. Lim, E. Toch, O. Rave, and A. Anind. Intelligibility vs. privacy:Investigating attitudes towards sharing intelligible contexts in a context-aware application (2012), Unpublished 11
  12. 12. P9: If everybody had this application, it would be great. I would not need to put my phone on silent and miss important calls.Reducing uncertainty will change the way applications are used. 12
  13. 13. P1: In a meeting without the [intelligibility] technology, I would not answer a call. But if my mother would call, and the technology is on, then surly there is a good reason, and I would answer. The process is dialectic. People‟sexpectations of other people will change 13
  14. 14. P2: I have a boyfriend, for many years, andthere is a lot of openness between us, I donthave anything to hide from him, and he doesnot have anything to hide from me, that‟swhy I want to share [these contexts]… I wantto show him that.Intelligibility can be used as an honest signal to note and to establish trust 14
  15. 15. Boundary RegulationAltman (1975): “privacy is a boundaryregulation process whereby peopleoptimize their accessibility along aspectrum of „openness‟ and „closeness‟depending on context” I. Altman, The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding. Brooks/Cole, 1975. 15
  16. 16. P9: Its too much information to be shared.Its impossible to lie with that muchinformation. Can intelligibility provide effectivecontrol to users? Would it enable them to lie? 16
  17. 17. P10: I do not want other people to know howI filter the information. If I have twocolleagues: one knows only that I am in ameeting, and the other knows in whichmeeting I was… I do not want thisinformation to be transparent. Can intelligibility maintain users‟ contextual integrity? 17
  18. 18. (3) Conclusions 18
  19. 19. Trust and Privacy‣ Establishing trust is one of the unique qualities of intelligibility. ‣ Because intelligibility is automated, it is uniquely posed to establish trust between users. ‣ But as a by product of the automation, it is much more difficult for users to manage their boundary regulation. 19
  20. 20. What do we need?‣ User studies: to understand people‟s concerns, approaches, and behaviors.‣ New systems: to introduce new ideas and new challenges.‣ Control mechanisms: to help users balance privacy and utility. 20
  21. 21. Thank you!More info at: http://www.eng.tau.ac.il/~eran/ Dr. Eran Toch 21
  22. 22. Signaling TheoryZahavi proposed the “HandicapPrinciple”: ...[F]or every messagethere is an optimal signal, which bestamplifies the asymmetry between anhonest signaller and a cheater. Forexample, wasting money is a reliablesignal for wealth because a cheater, apoor individual claiming to be rich,does not have money to throw away; Zahavi, A. 1993b.The fallacy of conventional signalling. The Royal Society Philosophical Transaction B. 340. 227-230. 22
  23. 23. Implementations‣ Signaling in virtual communities ‣ JS Donath, Identity and deception in the virtual community, Communities in cyberspace, 1999‣ Signaling in Online Social Networks ‣ Cliff A.C. Lampe, Nicole Ellison, and Charles Steinfield. 2007. A familiar face(book): profile elements as signals in an online social network, CHI‟07 23
  24. 24. P6: and I would be very happy if my little brother, who is texting all the time while driving, can use something that show other people that he is unavailable.Automating human-to-human interaction 24
  25. 25. Insights‣ Taken from semi-structured interviews about privacy approaches and expected utility (n=11).‣ The qualitative part of a combined quantitative/qualitative survey: Careless Contexts Einat Meirav Not available WHERE IS SHE?B. Lim, E. Toch, O. Rave, and A. Anind.Intelligibility vs. privacy: Investigating attitudes She has been here 4 timestowards sharing intelligible contexts in a context- WHAT IS SHE DOING? Talkingaware application (2012), Unpublished Volume 72 Periods of Silence 12% Pitch Range 1420 Hz HER RULES People at work get only the availability. Friends can get full ex planations. 25

×