Abstract
Mobile crowd sensing (MCS) assumes a collaborative effort from mobile smartphone users to sense and share their data needed to fulfill a given MCS objective (e.g., modeling of urban traffic or wellness index of a community). In this paper, we investigate the user’s perception of anonymity in MCS and factors influencing it. We conducted a 4-week extensive smartphone user study to fulfill three main objectives. (1) Understand if users prefer to share data anonymously or not anonymously. (2) Investigate the possible factors influencing the difference between these two modalities, considering: (a) users’ sharing attitude, (b) shared data kind and (c) users’ intimacy when data are shared (we defined intimacy as the users’ perception of their context with respect to place, number and kind of people around them). (3) Identify further users’ personal factors influencing their perception of anonymity via multiple interviews along the user study. In the results, we show that data are shared significantly more when anonymously collected. We found that the shared data kind is the factor significantly contributing to this difference. Additionally, users have a common way to perceive anonymity and its effectiveness. To ensure the success of anonymization algorithms in the context of MCS systems, we highlight which issues the researchers developing these algorithms should carefully consider. Finally, we argue about new research paths to better investigate the user perception of anonymity and develop anonymous MCS systems that users are more likely to trust based on our findings.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Lin J, Amini S, Hong J (2012) Expectation and purpose: understanding users’ mental models of mobile app privacy through crowdsourcing. In: Ubicomp. pp 501–510
Kelley PG, Consolvo S, Cranor LF, Jung J, Sadeh N, Wetherall D (2012) A conundrum of permissions: installing applications on an android smartphone. In: Financial cryptography and data security. Springer, pp 1–12
Christin D, Reinhardt A (2011) A survey on privacy in mobile participatory sensing applications. J Syst Softw 84:1928–1946. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2011.06.073
Pfitzmann A, Köhntopp M (2001) Anonymity, unobservability, and pseudonymity—a proposal for terminology. In: Designing privacy enhancing technologies, vol 2009, pp 1–9
Westin AF (1970) Privacy and freedom. Bodley Head, London
Leon P, Ur B, Wang Y (2013) What matters to users?: factors that affect users’ willingness to share information with online advertisers. In: SOUPS
Ganti R, Ye F, Lei H (2011) Mobile crowdsensing: current state and future challenges. Commun Mag IEEE 49:32–39
Oswald M (2013) Something bad might happen: lawyers, anonymization, and risk. XRDS Crossroads ACM Mag Stud. doi:10.1145/2508970
Shilton K (2009) Four billion little brothers? Privacy, mobile phones, and ubiquitous data collection. Queue 7(7):40
Hara T, Arase Y, Yamamoto A et al (2014) Location anonymization using real car trace data for location based services. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on ubiquitous information management and communication—ICUIMC’14. pp 1–8. doi:10.1145/2557977.2558044
Shi J, Zhang R, Liu Y, Zhang Y (2010) PriSense: privacy-preserving data aggregation in people-centric urban sensing systems. In: 2010 proceedings IEEE INFOCOM. IEEE, pp 1–9
Mun M, Hao S, Mishra N, Shilton K (2010) Personal data vaults: a locus of control for personal data streams. In: CoNEXT
Prager K (1997) The psychology of intimacy. Guilford Press, New York City
Oxford Dictionary (2014) Intimacy definition. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intimacy
Oxford Dictionary (2014) Intimate definition. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intimate
Manzo LC (2003) Beyond house and haven: toward a revisioning of emotional relationships with places. J Environ Psychol 23:47–61. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00074-9
Seamon D, Sowers J (2008) Place and placelessness, Edward Relph. Key Texts Hum Geogr. doi:10.2307/213523
Saegert S (1973) Crowding: cognitive overload and behavioral constraint. Environ Des Res 2:254–260
Diener E, Seligman MEP (2002) Very happy people. Psychol Sci 13:81–84. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00415
Miller RS, Lefcourt HM (1982) The assessment of social intimacy. J Pers Assess 46:514–518. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4605_12
Gove WR, Altman I (1978) The environment and social behavior: privacy, personal space, territory, and crowding. Contemporary Sociology, vol 7. ERIC, p 638
Gerstein RS (1978) Intimacy and privacy. Ethics 89:76–81
Hektner JM, Schmidt JA, Csikszentmihalyi M (2007) Experience sampling method: measuring the quality of everyday life. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Larson R, Delespaul P (1992) Analyzing experience sampling data: a guidebook for the perplexed. In: The experience of psychopathology investigating mental disorders in their natural settings, pp 58–78
Jensen C, Potts C, Jensen C (2005) Privacy practices of Internet users: self-reports versus observed behavior. Int J Hum Comput Stud 63:203–227. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.019
Braunstein A, Granka L, Staddon J (2011) Indirect content privacy surveys: measuring privacy without asking about it. In: Symposium on usable privacy and security
Kahneman D, Krueger AB, Schkade DA et al (2004) A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method. Science (NY) 306:1776–1780. doi:10.1126/science.1103572
Lathia N, Rachuri KK, Mascolo C et al (2013) Contextual dissonance: design bias in sensor-based experience sampling methods. In: UbiComp. pp 183–192
Wac K (2013) mQoL living lab: experience of running longitudinal studies for mobile internet measurements. In: ACM internet measurement conference
Wac K, Gustarini M, Marchanoff J et al (2015) mQoL: experiences of the “mobile communications and computing for quality of life” living lab. In: International workshop on the living lab approach for successful design of services and systems in eHealth (LivingLab’15), co-located with the IEEE HealthCom
Jenks GF (1967) The data model concept in statistical mapping. Int Yearb Cartogr 7:186–190
Khalil A, Connelly K (2006) Context-aware telephony: privacy preferences and sharing patterns. In: CSCW. pp 469–478
Shih F, Boortz J (2013) Understanding people’s preferences for disclosing contextual information to smartphone apps. In: HAS/HCII. pp 186–196
Gedik B, Liu L (2005) Location privacy in mobile systems: a personalized anonymization model. Comput Syst ICDCS. doi:10.1109/ICDCS.2005.48
Felt A, Egelman S, Wagner D (2012) I’ve got 99 problems, but vibration ain’t one: a survey of smartphone users’ concerns. In: SPSM’12. pp 33–43
Olson JS, Grudin J, Horvitz E (2005) A study of preferences for sharing and privacy. In: CHI. pp 1985–1988
Knijnenburg B, Kobsa A (2013) Making decisions about privacy: information disclosure in context-aware recommender systems. ACM Trans Interact Intell Syst 1–33
Hawkey K, Inkpen K (2006) Keeping up appearances: understanding the dimensions of incidental information privacy. In: CHI
Lederer S, Mankoff J, Dey AK (2003) Who wants to know what when? Privacy preference determinants in ubiquitous computing. In: CHI’03. doi: 10.1145/765891.765952
Acknowledgments
Our research has been supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation PCS-OBEY and MIQModel projects, and the European Ambient Assisted Living MyGuardian, ANIMATE and CoME Projects.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gustarini, M., Wac, K. & Dey, A.K. Anonymous smartphone data collection: factors influencing the users’ acceptance in mobile crowd sensing. Pers Ubiquit Comput 20, 65–82 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-015-0898-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-015-0898-0