In this study, we explore the effectiveness of persuasive messages endorsing the adoption of a privacy protection technology (IoT Inspector) tailored to individuals' regulatory focus (promotion or prevention). We explore if and how regulatory fit (i.e., tuning the goal-pursuit mechanism to individuals' internal regulatory focus) can increase persuasion and adoption. We conducted a between-subject experiment (N = 236) presenting participants with the IoT Inspector in gain ("Privacy Enhancing Technology"---PET) or loss ("Privacy Preserving Technology"---PPT) framing. Results show that the effect of regulatory fit on adoption is mediated by trust and privacy calculus processes: prevention-focused users who read the PPT message trust the tool more. Furthermore, privacy calculus favors using the tool when promotion-focused individuals read the PET message. We discuss the contribution of understanding the cognitive mechanisms behind regulatory fit in privacy decision-making to support privacy protection.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642640
Policymakers and researchers have emphasized the crucial role of parent-child conversations in shaping children's digital privacy and security literacy. Despite this emphasis, little is known about the current nature of these parent-child conversations, including their content, structure, and children's engagement during these conversations. This paper presents the findings of an interview study involving 13 parents of children ages under 13 reflecting on their privacy literacy practices at home. Through qualitative thematic analysis, we identify five categories of parent-child privacy and security conversations and examine parents' perceptions of their children's engagement during these discussions. Our findings show that although parents used different conversation approaches, rule-based conversations were one of the most common approaches taken by our participants, with example-based conversations perceived to be effective by parents. We propose important design implications for developing effective privacy educational technologies for families to support parent-child conversations.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3641962
This paper explores how personal attributes, such as age, gender, technological expertise, or "need for touch", correlate with people's preferences for properties of tangible privacy protection mechanisms, for example, physically covering a camera. For this, we conducted an online survey (N = 444) where we captured participants' preferences of eight established tangible privacy mechanisms well-known in daily life, their perceptions of effective privacy protection, and personal attributes. We found that the attributes that correlated most strongly with participants' perceptions of the established tangible privacy mechanisms were their "need for touch" and previous experiences with the mechanisms. We use our findings to identify desirable characteristics of tangible mechanisms to better inform future tangible, digital, and mixed privacy protections. We also show which individuals benefit most from tangibles, ultimately motivating a more individual and effective approach to privacy protection in the future.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642863
Sensing technologies in smart campuses help make them sustainable and well-connected environments. However, as with other smart environments, smart campuses can cause privacy concerns during and after deployment. We present the results of a 14-day in-situ study designed to understand peoples’ sentiments about sensing capabilities in smart campuses and how they would specify privacy preferences. In contrast to prior work, which reported the importance of sensing modality and purpose, our findings indicate that indoor location type and recipient are primary determinants for comfort, surprise, notification preferences, and allowance of data collection. Further, we observed that indoor location type influences privacy control willingness and how users specify sensor controlling rule. For example, our participants allowed policy-controlled data collection in group areas while denying it in learning areas. Finally, we suggest that academic environments are unique, possibly due to the complex relationships between students, staff, and faculty.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642174
Data collection purposes and their descriptions are presented on almost all privacy notices under the GDPR, yet there is a lack of research focusing on how effective they are at informing users about data practices. We fill this gap by investigating users’ perceptions of data collection purposes and their descriptions, a crucial aspect of informed consent. We conducted 23 semi-structured interviews with European users to investigate user perceptions of six common purposes (Strictly Necessary, Statistics and Analytics, Performance and Functionality, Marketing and Advertising, Personalized Advertising, and Personalized Content) and identified elements of an effective purpose name and description. We found that most purpose descriptions do not contain the information users wish to know, and that participants preferred some purpose names over others due to their perceived transparency or ease of understanding. Based on these findings, we suggest how the framing of purposes can be improved toward meaningful informed consent.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642260