Cited By
View all- Shaheen TBrščić DKanda T(2024)Investigation of Low-Moral Actions by Malicious Anonymous Operators of Avatar RobotsACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/369646614:1(1-34)Online publication date: 21-Sep-2024
Evaluation of physical marker interfaces for protecting visual privacy from mobile robots
Pages 787 - 794
Abstract
We present a study that examines the efficiency and usability of three different interfaces for specifying which objects should be kept private (i.e., not visible) in an office environment. Our study context is a robot “janitor” system that has the ability to blur out specified objects from its video feed. One interface is a traditional point-and-click GUI on a computer monitor, while the other two operate in the real, physical space: users either place markers on the objects to indicate privacy or use a wand tool to point at them. We compare the interfaces using both self-report (e.g., surveys) and behavioral measures. Our results showed that (1) the graphical interface performed better both in terms of time and usability, and (2) using persistent markers increased the participants' ability to recall what they tagged. Choosing the right interface appears to depend on the application scenario. We also summarize feedback from the participants for improving interfaces that specify visual privacy preferences.
References
[1]
C. Nass, J. Steuer, and E. R. Tauber, “Computers Are Social Actors”, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI'94. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 1994, pp. 72–78.
[2]
R. Calo, “Robots and privacy”, Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics, Patrick Lin, George Bekey, and Keith Abney, eds., Cambridge: MIT Press, 2010.
[3]
I. Altman, “Privacy Regulation: Culturally Universal or Culturally Specific?” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 66–84, 1977.
[4]
H. H. J. Kim, C. Gutwin, and S. Subramanian, “The magic window: lessons from a year in the life of a co-present media space”, in Proceedings of the 2007 internationalACM conference on Supporting group work. ACM, 2007, pp. 107–116.
[5]
M. Boyle, C. Neustaedter, and S. Greenberg, “Privacy factors in video-based media spaces”, in Media Space 20+ Years of Mediated Life. Springer 2009, pp. 97–122.
[6]
Q. A. Zhao and J. T. Stasko, “Evaluating image filtering based techniques in media space applications”, in Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on Computersupported cooperative work. ACM, 1998, pp. 11–18.
[7]
M. Boyle, C. Edwards, and S. Greenberg, “The effects of filtered video on awareness and privacy”, in Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computersupported cooperative work. ACM, 2000, pp. 1–10.
[8]
T. Gerstner, D. DeCarlo, M. Alexa, A. Finkelstein, Y. Gingold, and A. Nealen, “Pixelated image abstraction”, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Non-Photorealistic Animation and Rendering. Euro-graphics Association 2012, pp. 29–36.
[9]
S. Jana, A. Narayanan, and V. Shmatikov, “A Scanner Darkly: Protecting user privacy from perceptual applications”, in Security and Privacy (SP), 2013 IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 2013, pp. 349–363.
[10]
N. Raval, A. Srivastava, K. Lebeck, L. P. Cox, and A. Machanava-jjhala, “MarkIt: Privacy Markers for Protecting Visual Secrets”, In Proceedings of the Workshop on Usable Privacy and Security for Wearable and Domestic ubIquitous DEvices (UPSIDE), 2014.
[11]
P. Boissy, H. Corriveau, F. Michaud, D. Labont, and M.-P. Royer, “A qualitative study of in-home robotic telepresence for home care of community-living elderly subjects”, Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 79–84, 2007.
[12]
J. M. Beer and L. Takayama, “Mobile Remote Presence Systems for Older Adults: Acceptance, Benefits, and Concerns”, in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-robot Interaction, ser. HRI' 11. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2011, pp. 19–26.
[13]
T. Denning, C. Matuszek, K. Koscher, J. R. Smith, and T. Kohno, “A spotlight on security and privacy risks with future household robots: attacks and lessons”, in Proceedings of the 11th internationalconference on Ubiquitous computing. ACM, 2009, pp. 105–114.
[14]
D. Butler, J. Huang, F. Roesner, and M. Cakmak, “The Privacy-Utility Tradeoff for Remotely Teleoperated Robots”, in Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE InternationalConference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Portland, OR, 2015.
[15]
A. Hubers, E. Andrulis, T. Stirrat, D. Tran, R. Zhang, R. Sowell, C. M. Grimm, and W. D. Smart, “Video Manipulation Techniques for the Protection of Privacy in Remote Presence Systems”, in HRI 2015 Extended Abstracts, Portland, OR, Mar. 2015.
[16]
T. Buchanan, C. Paine, A. N. Joinson, and U.-D. Reips, “Development of measures of online privacy concern and protection for use on the Internet”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 157–165, 2007.
[17]
R. E. Nisbett and T. D. Wilson, “Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes”, Psychological Review, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 231–259, 1977.
[18]
M. Rueben, F. J. Bemieri, C. M. Grimm, and W. D. Smart, “User feed-back on physical marker interfaces for protecting visual privacy from mobile robots”, in The Eleventh ACM/IEEE InternationalConference on Human Robot Interation, 2016, pp. 507–508.
[19]
M. Quigley, K. Conley, B. Gerkey, J. Faust, T. Foote, J. Leibs, R. Wheeler, and A. Y. Ng, “ROS: an open-source Robot Operating System”, in ICRA workshop on open source software, vol. 3, 2009, p. 5.
[20]
T. Nomura, T. Kanda, and T. Suzuki, “Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human-robot interaction” AI & Society, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 138–150, 2006.
[21]
A. Acquisti, L. K. John, and G. Loewenstein, “What is privacy worth?” The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 249–274, 2013.
Index Terms
- Evaluation of physical marker interfaces for protecting visual privacy from mobile robots
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
User Feedback on Physical Marker Interfaces for Protecting Visual Privacy from Mobile Robots
HRI '16: The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot InteractionWe present a study that examines the efficiency and usability of three different interfaces for specifying which objects should be kept private (i.e., not visible) in an office environment. Our study context is a robot "janitor" system that has the ...
Usability for Data Sovereignty - Evaluation of Privacy Risk Quantification Interfaces
PETRA '23: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive EnvironmentsDigital medical data is becoming widely available through the ongoing digitization efforts in the medical sector. This also leads to more personal health data available for secondary usage like medical research.
A common way to collect medical data in ...
Text vs visual metaphor in mobile interfaces for novice user interaction
16th International Conference on Electronic Publishing --ELPUB 2012 --Social Shaping of Digital Publishing: Exploring the Interplay between Culture and TechnologyThis paper explores the effectiveness, efficiency and ease of use of two alternative interface interactions in a mobile tablet application. More specifically, the study employs a navigation task which novice users were required to complete by means of ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
1025 pages
Copyright © 2016.
Publisher
IEEE Press
Publication History
Published: 01 August 2016
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 29 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Shaheen TBrščić DKanda T(2024)Investigation of Low-Moral Actions by Malicious Anonymous Operators of Avatar RobotsACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/369646614:1(1-34)Online publication date: 21-Sep-2024