Advertisement

Ageing International

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 232–252 | Cite as

Privacy, Technology, and Aging: A Proposed Framework

  • Lesa Lorenzen-HuberEmail author
  • Mary Boutain
  • L. Jean Camp
  • Kalpana Shankar
  • Kay H. Connelly
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop a privacy framework that could inform the development, adoption, and use of home-based ubiquitous technologies for older adults. We began with a five-part privacy framework, derived from the literature, and tested it through a qualitative exploration of older adults’ perceptions. Focus-group sessions were conducted with 64 community-dwelling older adults. Transcriptions were analyzed using a grounded-theory approach. Major and minor coding themes were identified, refined, and expanded upon, and transcripts were then coded using these themes. Participants’ concerns about privacy were more contextualized than our previously defined framework. Factors that influenced perceptions of privacy were identified as perceived usefulness, the importance of social relationships, data granularity, and the sensitivity of activities. Elders’ perceptions of privacy relative to the development, adoption, and use of home-based ubiquitous technologies are highly contextual, individualized, and influenced by psychosocial motivations of later life. Data analysis and gerontological theory informed the expansion of our initial framework into a new framework that considers perceived usefulness, key social relationships, data granularity, and sensitivity of activities as factors relevant to the use of in-home technologies. As elders’ naïve mental models lead to a perception of risk that may be less than actual risk, technologies should enable user-centered transparent data control. Transdisciplinary theories of privacy and aging can inform the development of a privacy framework for home-based technologies that can contribute to an optimal life in old age.

Keywords

Aging Technology Adoption Privacy Autonomy Social motivation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under award number 0705676. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this presentation are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Conflict of Interest Notification Page

There are no potential conflicts of interest that might bias this work. None of the authors have financial or personal relationships that might influence the findings in this study.

No other individuals besides the authors provided writing assistance.

All of the authors completed a Conflict of Interest disclosure statement, in accordance with IRB protocols, for this study.

References

  1. Achenbaum, A. (2010). 2008 Kent award lecture: an historian interprets the future of gerontology. The Gerontologist, 50(2), 142–148. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnp142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beach, S., Schulz, R., De Bruine W., Downs J., Musa D., & Matthews J. (2008). Privacy attitudes and quality of life technology in disabled and non-disabled baby boomers and older adults. Presented at the 2008 Gerontological Society of America (GSA 2008). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Bloustein, E. (1968). Privacy as an aspect of human dignity: an answer to Dean Prosser. New York University Law Review, 39, 962–970.Google Scholar
  4. Boyle, M. (2003). A shared vocabulary for privacy. Presented at the 4th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. (UbiComp 2002), Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  5. Cantor, M. (2006). No information about me without me: technology, privacy, and home monitoring. Generations, 30(2), 49–53.Google Scholar
  6. Carstensen, L., Isaacowitz, D., & Charles, S. (1999). Taking time seriously: a theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54(3), 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2010). National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Available via the Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/brfss. Cited 16 August 2010.
  8. Courtney, K., Demeris, G., Rantz, M., & Skubic, M. (2008). Needing smart home technologies: the perspectives of older adults in continuing care retirement communities. Informatics in Primary Care, 16, 195–201.Google Scholar
  9. Czaja, S., Fisk, D., Hertzog, C., Rogers, W., Charness, N., Nair, S., et al. (2006). Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging, 21(2), 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart, 13, 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Geraci, J. (2004). Community and boundary in the age of mobile computing. Presented at the Workshop on Ubicomp in the Urban Frontier (UbiComp 2004), Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
  12. Introna, L. (2003). Privacy and the computer: why we need privacy in the information society. Metaphilosophy, 28, 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jiang, X. (2002). Safeguard privacy in ubiquitous computing with decentralized information spaces. Presented at the 4th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (Ubicomp 2002), Gotenborg, Sweden.Google Scholar
  14. Keyes, C. (2002). The exchange of emotional support with age and its relationship with emotional well-being by age. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 57B, 518–525.Google Scholar
  15. Kwasyn, M., Caine, K., Rogers, W., & Fisk, A. (2008). Privacy and technology: Folk definitions and perspectives. Proceedings from CHI 2008, April, 2008. Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
  16. Langheinrich, M. (2002). Privacy invasions in ubiquitous computing. Presented at the 4th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp 2002), Gotenborg, Sweden.Google Scholar
  17. Melenhorst, A., Rogers, W., & Bouwhis, D. (2006). Older adults’ motivated choice for technological innovation: evidence for benefit-driven selectivity. Psychology and aging, 21(1), 190–195.Google Scholar
  18. Mell, P. (1996). Seeking shade in a land of perpetual sunlight: privacy as property in the electronic wilderness. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 11, 1–92.Google Scholar
  19. Miles, M. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 101–158.Google Scholar
  21. Odlyzko, A. (2004). Privacy, economics, and price discrimination on the Internet. In L. J. Camp & S. Lewis (Eds.), Economics of information security (pp. 187–213). Waltham: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sixsmith, A. (1986). Independence and home in later life. In C. Phillipson, M. Bernard, & P. Strang (Eds.), Dependency and interdependence in old age: Theoretical perspectives and policy alternatives. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  23. Tomita, M., Mann, W., Stanton, K., Tomita, A., & Sundar, V. (2007). Use of currently available smart home technology by frail elders. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 23(1), 24–34.Google Scholar
  24. van Bronswijk, J., Bouwhuis, D., Fozard, J., & Bouma, H. (2008). Gerontechnology’s basics. Gerontechnology, 7(2), 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Warren, S., & Brandeis, L. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4, 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Westin A. (2001). Opinion surveys: What consumers have to say about information privacy. Prepared Witness Testimony, The House Committee on Energy and Commerce.Google Scholar
  27. Wild, K., Boise, L., Lundell, J., & Foucek, A. (2008). Unobtrusive in-home monitoring of cognitive and physical health: reactions and perceptions of older adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 27, 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lesa Lorenzen-Huber
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mary Boutain
    • 1
  • L. Jean Camp
    • 2
  • Kalpana Shankar
    • 2
  • Kay H. Connelly
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Health, Physical Education, and RecreationIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.School of Informatics and ComputingIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations