Ethical Implications of User Perceptions of Wearable Devices

  • L. H. Segura Anaya
  • Abeer Alsadoon
  • N. Costadopoulos
  • P. W. C. Prasad
Review Paper

Abstract

Health Wearable Devices enhance the quality of life, promote positive lifestyle changes and save time and money in medical appointments. However, Wearable Devices store large amounts of personal information that is accessed by third parties without user consent. This creates ethical issues regarding privacy, security and informed consent. This paper aims to demonstrate users’ ethical perceptions of the use of Wearable Devices in the health sector. The impact of ethics is determined by an online survey which was conducted from patients and users with random female and male division. Results from this survey demonstrate that Wearable Device users are highly concerned regarding privacy issues and consider informed consent as “very important” when sharing information with third parties. However, users do not appear to relate privacy issues with informed consent. Additionally, users expressed the need for having shorter privacy policies that are easier to read, a more understandable informed consent form that involves regulatory authorities and there should be legal consequences the violation or misuse of health information provided to Wearable Devices. The survey results present an ethical framework that will enhance the ethical development of Wearable Technology.

Keywords

Wearable devices Privacy Informed consent Users Patients Security Health 

References

  1. Bjorn, H. (2013). Ethical challenges with welfare technology: A review of the literature. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Camaraa, C. L. (2015). Security and privacy issues in implanfigure wearable device: A comprehensive survey. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 271–289.Google Scholar
  3. Carmichael, C. (2014). BNCI systems as a potential assistive technology: Ethical issues and participatory research in the BrainAble project. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 9, 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chana, M. (2012). Current status and future challenges. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 56, 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colclasure, S. (2014). Bid data requires a renewal of policies. Privacy Journal, 2–5.Google Scholar
  6. Itani, W., Kayssi, A. (2012). Security and privacy in body sensor networks: Challenges, solutions and research directions. In E-Healthcare Systems and Wireless Communications: Current and Future Challenges (pp. 100–127). Information Science References.Google Scholar
  7. Jacquemard, T. (2014). Challenges and opportunities of lifelof tecnologies: A literature review and critical analysis. Science and Engineering, 20, 379–409.Google Scholar
  8. Kanjo, E., & Al-Husain, L. (2015). Emotions in context: Examining pervasive affective sensing systems, applications, and analyses. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 19, 1197–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kapadial, A. (2014). Virtual walls: Protecting digital privacy in pervasive enviroments. Computer Science Journal, 234–256.Google Scholar
  10. Kotsios, A. (2015). Privacy in an augmented reality. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 23, 157–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Novitzky, P. (2014). Challenges and opportunities of lifelog technologies: A literature review and critical analysis. Science and Engineering, 20, 379–409.Google Scholar
  12. Page, T. (2015a). Privacy issues surrounding wearable technology. I-Manager’s Journal on Information Technology, 4, 1–16.Google Scholar
  13. Page, T. (2015b). A Forecast of the Adoption of Wearable technology. International Journal of Technology Diffusion, 6, 12–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Safavi, S. (2014). Conecptual privacy framework for health information on wearable devices. Plus One, 9, 9–12.Google Scholar
  15. Spring, H. R. (2009). Improving caregivers’ well-being by using technology to manage nighttime activity in persons with dementia. Research in Gerontological Nursing, 2, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wagemakers, S., & Van Zoonen, L. (2014). Giving meaning to RFID and cochlear implants. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 33, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Williams, L. (2010). Wireless mobile medical devices. In Electrical and Computer Engineering Design Handbook (pp. 1–20).Google Scholar
  18. Wu, F. (2013). Security analysis and improvement of a privacy authentication scheme for telecare medical information systems. Journal of Medical Systems, 4, 56–67.Google Scholar
  19. Yeslam, A.-S. (2015). The use of data mining by private health insurance copmanies and customer’s privacy. Bioethics and Information technology, 24, 281–292.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. H. Segura Anaya
    • 1
  • Abeer Alsadoon
    • 2
  • N. Costadopoulos
    • 2
  • P. W. C. Prasad
    • 2
  1. 1.Charles Sturt UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Studygroup AustraliaSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations