Skip to main content

User Experience, Knowledge, Perceptions, and Behaviors Associated with Internet of Things (IoT) Device Information Privacy

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
HCI for Cybersecurity, Privacy and Trust (HCII 2022)

Abstract

Internet of Things (IoT) devices are becoming ubiquitous in the 21st-century world. Most individuals have interacted with at least one device such as an Alexa, Ring doorbell, or Nest thermostat. Many of these devices have access to personal information; however, the information security of these devices and the privacy of the personal information stored on these devices is not well understood by users. A survey was conducted to examine users’ experience, knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors associated with those devices’ privacy and security. The survey results revealed that participants perceive there is a risk with their IoT devices, however, there are two key issues that prevent them protecting themselves. First, they appear to have limited cybersecurity knowledge, including limited knowledge of who is accessing their data and for what purpose. Second, they do not always take the necessary precautions due to the inconvenience of such actions. These findings demonstrate that the privacy paradox is prevalent among users of IoT devices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Suresh, P., Daniel, J.V., Parthasarathy, V., Aswathy, R.H., Bajaj, K.: Cyberspace: Post-Snowden. Strategic Analysis, 4, 582 A state of the art review on the Internet of Things (IoT) history, technology and fields of deployment. In: 2014 International Conference on Science Engineering and Management Research (ICSEMR), pp. 1–8 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSEMR.2014.7043637

  2. Sattarova Feruza, Y., Kim, T.H.: IT security review: privacy, protection, access control, assurance and system security. Int. J. Multimedia Ubiquitous Eng. 2(2), 17–32 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., Loewenstein, G.: Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science 347(6221), 509–514 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zheng, S., Apthorpe, N., Chetty, M., Feamster, N.: User Perceptions of Smart Home IoT Privacy (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3274469

  5. Olmstead, K., Smith, A.: What the Public Knows About Cybersecurity. The Pew Research Center (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Williams, M., Nurse, J.R.C., Creese, S.: Privacy is the Boring Bit: user perceptions and behaviour in the Internet-of-Things. In: 15th Annual Conference on Privacy, Security, and Trust (PST), pp. 181–18109 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/PST.2017.00029

  7. Wu, P.F.: The privacy paradox in the context of online social networking: a self-identity perspective. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 70(3), 207–217 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gerber, N., Gerber, P., Volkamer, M.: Explaining the privacy paradox: a systematic review of literature investigating privacy attitude and behavior. Comput. Secur. 77, 226–261 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rittenberg, L., Tregarthen, T.: Principles of Microeconomics. Saylor (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Taddicken, M.: The ‘privacy paradox’ in the social web: the impact of privacy concerns, individual characteristics, and the perceived social relevance on different forms of self-disclosure. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 19(2), 248–273 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Aleisa, N., Renaud, K., Bongiovanni, I.: The privacy paradox applies to IoT devices too: a Saudi Arabian studyComput. Secur. 96 101897 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kokolakis, S.: Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: a review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Comput. Secur. 64, 122–134 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2020.101897

  13. Choi, H., Park, J., Jung, Y.: The role of privacy fatigue in online privacy behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 81, 42–51 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Keith, M.J., Maynes, C., Lowry, P.B., Babb, J.: Privacy fatigue: the effect of privacy control complexity on consumer electronic information disclosure. In: International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2014), Auckland, New Zealand, December, pp. 14–17 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kang, R., Dabbish, L., Fruchter, N., Kiesler, S.: My data just goes everywhere: user mental models of the internet and implications for privacy and security. In: 2015 Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, pp. 39–52 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rebensky, S., Carroll, M., Nakushian, A., Chaparro, M., Prior, T.: Understanding the last line of defense: human response to cybersecurity events. In: Moallem, A. (ed.) HCII 2021. LNCS, vol. 12788, pp. 353–366. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77392-2_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Burns, A., Roberts, T., Posey, C., Bennett, R., Courtney, J.: Assessing the role of security education, training, and awareness on ‘insiders’ security-related behavior: an expectancy theory approach. In: 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 3930–3940 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Tan, K.H., Zhan, Y.: Improving new product development using big data: a case study of an electronics company. RD Manage. 47(4), 570–582 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ribeiro-Navarrete, S., Saura, J.R., Palacios-Marqués, D.: Towards a new era of mass data collection: assessing pandemic surveillance technologies to preserve user privacy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 167, 120681 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fan, C., Liu, Y., Huang, J., Rong, Z., Zhou, T.: Correlation between social proximity and mobility similarity. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 1–8 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sharot, T.: The optimism bias. Curr. Biol. 21(23), R941–R945 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Norberg, P.A., Horne, D.R., Horne, D.A.: The privacy paradox: personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. J. Consum. Aff. 41(1), 100 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Acquisti, A., Taylor, C., Wagman, L.: The economics of privacy. J. Econ. Lit. 54(2), 442–492 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.54.2.442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wizner, B.: What changed after Snowden? A U.S. perspective. Int. J. Commun. [Online], 897+ (2017). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A504267253/LitRC?u=melb26933&sid=LitRC&xid=7bb84a74

  25. Bajaj, K.: Cyberspace: post-Snowden. Strateg. Anal. 4, 582 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Steinfeld, N.: “I agree to the terms and conditions”: (How) do users read privacy policies online? An eye-tracking experiment. Comput. Human Behav. 55 992–1000 (2016). https://doi-org.portal.lib.fit.edu/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.038

  27. Milne, G.R., Culnan, M.J.: Strategies for reducing online privacy risks: why consumers read (Or don’t read) online privacy notices. J. Interact. Mark. 18(3), 15–29 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stossel, L.M., Segar, N., Gliatto, P., Fallar, R., Karani, R.: Readability of patient education materials available at the point of care. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 27(9), 1165–1170 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2046-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Obar, J.A., Oeldorf-Hirsch, A.: The biggest lie on the Internet: ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Inf. Commun. Soc. 23(1), 128–147 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jiménez Iglesias, L., Aguilar Paredes, C., Sánchez Gómez, L., Gutiérrez, M.P.-M.: User experience and media. The three click rule in newspapers’ webs for smartphones. Revista Latina de Comunicacion Social, 73, 595–613 (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2018-1271

Download references

Funding

Disclosure

This study was funded by the United States Office of Naval Research ONR FOA# N00014-19-S-F009. There were no conflicts of interest in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Chaparro Osman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Chaparro Osman, M., Nakushian, A., Rebensky, S., Prior, T., Carroll, M. (2022). User Experience, Knowledge, Perceptions, and Behaviors Associated with Internet of Things (IoT) Device Information Privacy. In: Moallem, A. (eds) HCI for Cybersecurity, Privacy and Trust. HCII 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13333. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05563-8_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05563-8_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-05562-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-05563-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics