Advertisement

Privacy Pirates - The Key Role of User Diversity in V2X-Technology

  • Teresa Brell
  • Ralf Philipsen
  • Martina Ziefle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10917)

Abstract

Success of novel products and services depends on a profound understanding and integration of the consumers wants and needs. Privacy is one major contributor that influences the acceptance, use, and efficiency of novel technologies. To understand, if the usage-context of technologies shapes the privacy perception, we conducted an empirical user study with n = 157 participants and two different considered domains: First, internet usage as a generalized topic. Second, autonomous driving as a more specialized field of interest. One key finding of the presented study is that privacy perception depends on the specific usage-context of a technology. Furthermore, several user diversity factors, such as technical self-efficacy and gender were identified as significant and profound levers on privacy perception.

Keywords

Autonomous driving Privacy User-Diversity 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Many thanks go to Sarah Völkel, Florian Groh and Philipp Brauner for research assistance. This project was supported by the Center of European Research on Mobility (CERM) – funded by both strategy funds at RWTH Aachen University, Germany and the Excellence Initiative of German State and Federal Government. Further, thanks go to the project I2EASE, funded by the German Federal ministry of Research and Education [under the reference number 16EMO0142K].

References

  1. 1.
    Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., Loewenstein, G.: Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science 347(6221), 509–514 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akhter, S.H.: Privacy concern and online transactions: the impact of internet self-efficacy and internet involvement. J. Consum. Mark. 31, 118–125 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arning, K., Kowalewski, S., Ziefle, M.: Health concerns vs. mobile data needs: conjoint measurement of preferences for mobile communication network scenarios. Int. J. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 20(5), 1359–1384 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blank, G., Dutton, W.H.: Age and trust in the Internet: the centrality of experience and attitudes toward technology in Britain. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 30(2), 135–151 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boyd, D., Hargiattai, E.: Facebook privacy settings: who cares? First Monday 15(8), 1–14 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cambridge Centre for Smart Infrastructure and Construction. University of Cambridge (2017). http://www-smartinfrastructure.eng.cam.ac.uk. Accessed 16 Jan 2017
  7. 7.
    Goel, S., Yuan, Y.: Emerging research in connected vehicles (guest editorial). Intell. Transp. Syst. Mag. IEEE 7(2), 6–9 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karrer, K., Glaser, C., Clemens, C., Bruder, C.: Technikaffinität erfassen – der Fragebogen TA-EG. Online: Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V (2015). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carmen_Bruder/publication/266876811_Technikaffinitat_erfassen_-_der_Fragebogen_TAEG/links/563c526708ae45b5d286f7d0.pdf?inViewer=0&pdfJsDownload=0&origin=publication_detail. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  9. 9.
    Li, Y.: The impact of disposition to privacy, website reputation and website familiarity on information privacy concerns. Decis. Support Syst. 57, 343–354 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.09.018. Accessed Dec 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morton, A.: Measuring inherent privacy concern and desire for privacy-A pilot survey study of an instrument to measure dispositional privacy concern. In: 2013 International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom), pp. 468–477. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nissenbaum, H.: A contextual approach to privacy online. Daedalus 140(4), 32–48 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Othmane, L.B., Weffers, H., Mohamad, M.M., Wolf, M.: A survey of security and privacy in connected vehicles. In: Benhaddou, D., Al-Fuqaha, A. (eds.) Wireless Sensor and Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks, pp. 217–247. Springer, New York (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2468-4_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Renn, O.: Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges. J. Risk Res. 1, 49–71 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schmidt, T., Philipsen, R., Ziefle, M.: User diverse privacy requirements for V2X-technology - quantitative research on context-based privacy aspects. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems (VEHITS 2016), pp. 60–67 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schwaig, K.S., Segars, A.H., Grover, V., Fiedler, K.D.: A model of consumer’s perception of the invasion of information privacy. Inf. Manag. 50(1), 1–12 (2013). Accessed 15 Jan 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Cousin, M.-E.: Implicit attitudes toward nuclear power and mobile phone base stations: support for the affect heuristic. Risk Anal. 26, 1021–1029 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thelwall, M., Wilkinson, D., Uppal, S.: Data mining emotion in social network communication: gender differences in MySpace. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61(1), 190–199 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trivisonno, R., Guerzoni, R., Vaishnavi, I., Soldani, D.: SDN-based 5G mobile networks: architecture, functions, procedures and backward compatibility. Emerg. Telecommun. Technol. 26(1), 82–92 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vance, A., Elie-Dit-Cosaque, C., Straub, D.W.: Examining trust in information technology artifacts: the effects of system quality and culture. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(4), 73–100 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Volvo Group.: Vision 2020 (2016). http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-stories/made-by-sweden/vision-2020#. Accessed 15 Jan 2017
  21. 21.
    Klappstein, J., Vaudrey, T., Rabe, C., Wedel, A., Klette, R.: Moving object segmentation using optical flow and depth information. In: Wada, T., Huang, F., Lin, S. (eds.) PSIVT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5414, pp. 611–623. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92957-4_53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M.: Privacy and data security in E-health: requirements from the user’s perspective. Health Inform. J. 18, 191–201 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xu, H., Teo, H.H., Tan, B.C.Y., Agarwal, R.: Effects of Individual Self-Protection, Industry Self-Regulation, and Government Regulations on Privacy Concerns: A Study of a Location-Based Services, Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences. https://faculty.ist.psu.edu/xu/papers/isrxu2012.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2017
  24. 24.
    Zaunbrecher, B., Ziefle, M.: Social acceptance and its role for planning technology infrastructure. A position paper, taking wind power plants as an example. In: 4th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems (SMARTGREENS 2015), pp. 60–65 (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ziefle, M., Himmel, S., Wilkowska, W.: When your living space knows what you do: acceptance of medical home monitoring by different technologies. In: Holzinger, A., Simonic, K.-M. (eds.) USAB 2011. LNCS, vol. 7058, pp. 607–624. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25364-5_43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Federation Internationale de l’Automobile.: What Europeans Think About Connected Cars. http://www.mycarmydata.eu/wp-content/themes/shalashaska/assets/docs/FIA_survey_2016.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human Computer Interaction CenterRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations