Advertisement

Two Faces of Privacy: Legal and Human-Centered Perspectives of Lifelogging Applications in Home Environments

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12208)

Abstract

In view of the consequences resulting from the demographic change, using assisting lifelogging technologies in domestic environments represents one potential approach to support elderly and people in need of care to stay longer within their own home. Yet, the handling of personal data poses a considerable challenge to the perceptions of privacy and data security, and therefore for an accepted use in this regard. The present study focuses on aspects of data management in the context of two different lifelogging applications, considering a legal and a human-centered perspective. In a two-step empirical process, consisting of qualitative interviews and an online survey, these aspects were explored and evaluated by a representative German sample of adult participants (N = 209). Findings show positive attitudes towards using lifelogging, but there are also high requirements on privacy and data security as well as anonymization of the data. In addition, the study allows deep insights into preferred duration and location of the data storage, and permissions to access the personal information from third parties. Knowledge of preferences and requirements in the area of data management from the legal and human-centered perspectives is crucial for lifelogging and must be considered in applications that support people in their daily living at home. Outcomes of the present study considerably contribute to the understanding of an optimal infrastructure of the accepted and willingly utilized lifelogging applications.

Keywords

Lifelogging technology Privacy Data security Anonymization Data management 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all participants for kindly sharing their opinions on assisting lifelogging technologies. We also thank Linda Engelmann for the research support. This work resulted from the project PAAL – “Privacy Aware and Acceptable Lifelogging services for older and frail people” and was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (16SV7955). In addition, the support of the JPI More Years, Better Lives and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare (2017-02302) is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Rashidi, P., Mihailidis, A.: A survey on ambient-assisted living tools for older adults. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 17, 579–590 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peek, S.T., Wouters, E.J., Van Hoof, J., Luijkx, K.G., Boeije, H.R., Vrijhoef, H.J.: Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 83, 235–248 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    General Data Protection Regulation: Regulation (EU) 2016/679 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), O.J. (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Allen, A.L.: Dredging up the past: lifelogging, memory, and surveillance. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 75(1), 47–74 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colonna, L.: Legal and regulatory challenges to utilizing lifelogging technologies for the frail and sick. Int. J. Law Inf. Technol. 27(1), 50–74 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Agrawal, R., Kiernan, J., Srikant, R., Xu, Y.: Hippocratic databases. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, VLDB 2002, Hong Kong, China, pp. 143–154 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grandison, T., Johnson, C., Kiernan, J.: Hippocratic databases: current capabilities and future trends. In: Gertz, M., Jajodia, S. (eds.) Handbook of Database Security, pp. 409–429. Springer, Boston (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-48533-1_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Makker, S.R.: Overcoming “Foggy” notions of privacy: how data minimization will enable privacy in the internet of things. Univ. Missouri-Kansas Law Rev. 85, 895 (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Data Protection Working Party: Opinion of the Article 29. Data Protection Working Party on Anonymisation Techniques, 0829/14/EN WP 216, 10 April 2014Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kotschy, W.: The New General – Is There Sufficient Pay-off for Taking the Trouble to Anonymize or Pseudonymize Data? Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Human Rights, Vienna (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flórez-Revuelta, F., Mihailidis, A., Ziefle, M., Colonna, L., Spinsante, S.: Privacy-aware and acceptable lifelogging services for older and frail people: the PAAL project. Presentation at the IEEE 8th International Conference on Consumer Electronics, Berlin (ICCE-Berlin) (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ohm, P.: Broken promises of privacy: responding to the surprising failure of anonymization. UCLA Law Rev. 57, 1701 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yakowitz, J.: Tragedy of the data commons. Harvard J. Law Technol. 25, 1 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schwartz, P.M., Solove, D.J.: The PII problem: privacy and a new concept of personally identifiable information. New York Univ. Law Rev. 86, 1814 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rubinstein, I., Hartzog, W.: Anonymization and risk. Wash. Law Rev. 91, 703 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Colonna, L., Mihailidis, A.: A methodological approach to privacy by design within the context of lifelogging technologies. Rutgers Comput. Technol. Law J. (Rutgers Newark) (2020, forthcoming)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gövercin, M., Meyer, S., Schellenbach, M., Steinhagen-Thiessen, E., Weiss, B., Haesner, M.: SmartSenior@home: acceptance of an integrated ambient assisted living system. Results of a clinical field trial in 35 households. Inform. Health Soc. Care 41, 430–447 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.3109/17538157. 2015.1064425
  18. 18.
    Wild, K., Boise, L., Lundell, J., Foucek, A.: Unobtrusive in-home monitoring of cognitive and physical health: reactions and perceptions of older adults. J. Appl. Gerontol. 27(2), 181–200 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lorenzen-Huber, L., Boutain, M., Camp, L.J., Shankar, K., Connelly, K.H.: Privacy, technology, and aging: a proposed framework. Ageing Int. 36(2), 232–252 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12126-010-9083-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Padilla-Lopez, J., Chaaraoui, A., Gu, F., Florez-Revuelta, F.: Visual privacy by context: proposal and evaluation of a level-based visualisation scheme. Sensors 15, 12959–12982 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ferdous, M.S., Chowdhury, S., Jose, J.M.: Analysing privacy in visual lifelogging. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 40, 430–449 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gelonch, O., et al.: Acceptability of a lifelogging wearable camera in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a mixed-method study. BMC Geriatr. 19(1), 110 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Steggell, C.D., Hooker, K., Bowman, S., Choun, S., Kim, S.J.: The role of technology for healthy aging among Korean and Hispanic women in the United States: a pilot study. Gerontechnology 9, 433–449 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2010.09.04.007.00CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Joe, J., Chaudhuri, S., Chung, J., Thompson, H., Demiris, G.: Older adults’ attitudes and preferences regarding a multifunctional wellness tool: a pilot study. Inform Health Soc Care 41, 143–158 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.3109/17538157.2014.965305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Selke, S.: Lifelogging: Digital Self-Tracking and Lifelogging-Between Disruptive Technology and Cultural Transformation. Springer, Wiesbaden (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13137-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gurrin, C., Smeaton, A.F., Doherty, A.R.: Lifelogging: personal big data. Found. Trends® Inf. Retrieval 8, 1–125 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mayring, P.: Qualitative content analysis: theoretical background and procedures. In: Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., Knipping, C., Presmeg, N. (eds.) Approaches to Qualitative Research in Mathematics Education. AME, pp. 365–380. Springer, Dordrecht (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Osgood, C.E.: Semantic differential technique in the comparative study of cultures. Am. Anthropol. 66(3), 171–200 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Abouelmehdi, K., Beni-Hssane, A., Khaloufi, H., Saadi, M.: Big data security and privacy in healthcare: a review. Proc. Comput. Sci. 113, 73–80 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M.: Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, 1st edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1980)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction CenterRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.Department of LawStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations