Pets without PETs: on pet owners’ under-estimation of privacy concerns in pet wearables

Open access

Abstract

We report on a mixed-method, comparative study investigating whether there is a difference between privacy concerns expressed about pet wearables as opposed to human wearables – and more importantly, why. We extracted the privacy concerns found in product reviews (N=8,038) of pet wearables (activity, location, and dual-function trackers), contrasting the (lack of) concerns and misuse to a curated set of reviews for similar human-oriented wearables (N=20,431). Our findings indicate that, while overall very few privacy concerns are expressed in product reviews, for pet wearables they are expressed even less, even though consumers use these devices in a manner which impacts both personal and bystander privacy. An additional survey of pet owners (N=201) eliciting what factors would cause them to not purchase (or stop using) pet wearables indicated comparably few privacy concerns, strengthening the representativeness of our findings. A thematic analysis reveals that the lack of privacy concerns may be explained by, among other factors, emotional drivers to purchase the device, and prioritization of (desired) functionality to support those emotional drivers over privacy requirements. Moreover, we found that pet wearables are used in different ways than originally intended, which raise novel privacy implications to be dealt with. We propose that in order to move towards more privacy-conscious use of pet wearables, a combination of understanding consumer rationale and behavior as well as ensuring data protection legislation is adequate to real-world use is needed.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Prolific. https://www.prolific.ac 2019. Online; last accessed 8 May 2019.

  • [2] A. Acquisti and R. Gross. Imagined communities: Awareness information sharing and privacy on the facebook. In International workshop on privacy enhancing technologies pages 36–58. Springer 2006.

  • [3] A. Acquisti L. K. John and G. Loewenstein. What is privacy worth? The Journal of Legal Studies 42(2): 249–274 2013. ISSN 00472530 15375366. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/671754.

  • [4] J. A. L. Adrian A. N. Deliramich and B. C. Frueh. Complicated grief and posttraumatic stress disorder in humans’ response to the death of pets/animals. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic 73(3):176–187 2009.

  • [5] B. Ağır K. Huguenin U. Hengartner and J.-P. Hubaux. On the privacy implications of location semantics. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2016(4):165–183 2016.

  • [6] H. Almuhimedi F. Schaub N. Sadeh I. Adjerid A. Acquisti J. Gluck L. F. Cranor and Y. Agarwal. Your location has been shared 5398 times!: A field study on mobile app privacy nudging. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems pages 787–796. ACM 2015.

  • [7] American Kennel Club. Protect Your Pet from Theft. https://www.akc.org/press-center/articles/pet-theft/ 2019. Online; accessed 30 January 2019.

  • [8] S. Banerjee and T. Pedersen. An adapted lesk algorithm for word sense disambiguation using wordnet. In International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics pages 136–145. Springer 2002.

  • [9] M. B. Barcena C. Wueest and H. Lau. How safe is your quantified self. Symantech: Mountain View CA USA 2014.

  • [10] M. Becker. Understanding users’ health information privacy concerns for health wearables. In Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. AIS.

  • [11] M. Becker C. Matt T. Widjaja and T. Hess. Understanding privacy risk perceptions of consumer health wearables – an empirical taxonomy. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Information Systems. AIS.

  • [12] G. Bleaney M. Kuzyk J. Man H. Mayanloo and H. R. Tizhoosh. Auto-detection of safety issues in baby products. In International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems pages 505–516. Springer 2018.

  • [13] Blue Cross. Dog theft on rise as charity reveals shock figures of pets taken from their homes. https://www.bluecross.org.uk/dog-theft-rise-charity-reveals-shock-figures-pets-taken-their-homes 2019. Online; accessed 30 January 2019.

  • [14] C. F. Bond Jr and B. M. DePaulo. Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and social psychology Review 10(3): 214–234 2006.

  • [15] V. Braun and V. Clarke. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3(2):77–101 2006.

  • [16] M. S. Chaves R. Gomes and C. Pedron. Analysing reviews in the web 2.0: Small and medium hotels in portugal. Tourism Management 33(5):1286–1287 2012.

  • [17] S. Chowdhury M. S. Ferdous and J. M. Jose. Bystander privacy in lifelogging. In Proceedings of the 30th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference: Companion Volume page 15. BCS Learning & Development Ltd. 2016.

  • [18] L. Chung and J. C. S. do Prado Leite. On non-functional requirements in software engineering. In Conceptual modeling: Foundations and applications pages 363–379. Springer 2009.

  • [19] K. P. Coopamootoo and T. Groß. Why privacy is all but forgotten. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2017(4):97–118 2017.

  • [20] C. L. Corritore B. Kracher and S. Wiedenbeck. On-line trust: concepts evolving themes a model. International journal of human-computer studies 58(6):737–758 2003.

  • [21] E. Courcier R. Thomson D. Mellor and P. Yam. An epidemiological study of environmental factors associated with canine obesity. Journal of Small Animal Practice 51(7): 362–367 2010.

  • [22] Credence Research. Pet Wearables Market By Technology (GPS RFID Sensors) By Product (Smart Tags Smart Collars Smart Vests) - Growth Future Prospects And Competitive Analysis 2017–2025. http://www.credenceresearch.com/report/pet-wearables-market 2017. Online; accessed 11 December 2018.

  • [23] T. Denning Z. Dehlawi and T. Kohno. In situ with bystanders of augmented reality glasses: Perspectives on recording and privacy-mediating technologies. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems pages 2377–2386. ACM 2014.

  • [24] L. Festinger. A theory of cognitive dissonance volume 2. Stanford university press 1957.

  • [25] C. Gabrielatos. Keyness analysis: nature metrics and techniques. Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review pages 225–258 2018.

  • [26] Get Wüf. Get Wüf. http://www.getwuf.com 2019. Online; expired domain; accessed 11 June 2019.

  • [27] M. Gruteser and X. Liu. Protecting privacy in continuous location-tracking applications. IEEE Security & Privacy (2): 28–34 2004.

  • [28] J. M. Haney and W. G. Lutters. “it’s scary. . . it’s confusing. . . it’s dull”: How cybersecurity advocates overcome negative perceptions of security. In Fourteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security ({SOUPS} 2018) pages 411–425 2018.

  • [29] A. Hardie. Log ratio–an informal introduction. Retrieved from http://cass.lancs.ac.uk 2014.

  • [30] L. M. Hines. Historical perspectives on the human-animal bond. American Behavioral Scientist 47(1):7–15 2003.

  • [31] R. Hoyle R. Templeman S. Armes D. Anthony D. Crandall and A. Kapadia. Privacy behaviors of lifeloggers using wearable cameras. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing pages 571–582. ACM 2014.

  • [32] S. Hughes and D. Cohen. Can online consumers contribute to drug knowledge? a mixed-methods comparison of consumer-generated and professionally controlled psychotropic medication information on the internet. Journal of medical Internet research 13(3) 2011.

  • [33] C. J. Hutto and E. Gilbert. Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In Eighth International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM-14) 2014.

  • [34] L. Jack and Y. Tsai. Using text mining of amazon reviews to explore user-defined product highlights and issues. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Mining (DMIN) page 92. The Steering Committee of The World Congress in Computer Science Computer . . . 2015.

  • [35] Juarawee Kittisilpa / Reuters. ‘Smart vest’ turns stray dogs into Thailand’s street guardians. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-watchdogs/smart-vest-turns-stray-dogs-into-thailands-street-guardians-idUSKCN1BC58J 2019. Online; accessed 11 June 2019.

  • [36] R. Kang L. Dabbish N. Fruchter and S. Kiesler. “my data just goes everywhere:” user mental models of the internet and implications for privacy and security. In Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS) pages 39–52. USENIX Association Berkeley CA 2015.

  • [37] H. Krasnova T. Hildebrand and O. Guenther. Investigating the value of privacy on online social networks: conjoint analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2009.

  • [38] L. Lee J. Lee S. Egelman and D. Wagner. Information disclosure concerns in the age of wearable computing. In Proceedings of the 2016 Workshop on Usable Security 2016.

  • [39] M. Lee and M. R. Lee. Beyond the wearable hype. IT Professional (5):59–61 2015.

  • [40] D. Leibenger F. Möllers A. Petrlic R. Petrlic and C. Sorge. Privacy challenges in the quantified self movement–an eu perspective. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2016(4):315–334 2016.

  • [41] A. Melander-Wikman Y. Fältholm and G. Gard. Safety vs. privacy: elderly persons’ experiences of a mobile safety alarm. Health & social care in the community 16(4):337–346 2008.

  • [42] R. Moll S. Pieschl and R. Bromme. Trust into collective privacy? the role of subjective theories for self-disclosure in online communication. Societies 4(4):770–784 2014.

  • [43] A. D. Moore. Privacy: Its meaning and value. American Philosophical Quarterly 40(3):215–227 2003.

  • [44] C. Morley and J. Fook. The importance of pet loss and some implications for services. Mortality 10(2):127–143 2005.

  • [45] V. G. Motti and K. Caine. Users’ privacy concerns about wearables. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security pages 231–244. Springer 2015.

  • [46] Mozilla Foundation. *privacy not included. https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/categories/Pets/ 2019. Online; accessed 11 June 2019.

  • [47] S. M. Mudambi and D. Schuff. Research note: What makes a helpful online review? a study of customer reviews on amazon. com. MIS quarterly pages 185–200 2010.

  • [48] A. Mukherjee V. Venkataraman B. Liu and N. Glance. Fake review detection: Classification and analysis of real and pseudo reviews. UIC-CS-03-2013. Technical Report 2013.

  • [49] P. E. Naeini S. Bhagavatula H. Habib M. Degeling L. Bauer L. Cranor and N. Sadeh. Privacy expectations and preferences in an iot world. In Proceedings of the 13th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS) 2017.

  • [50] M. K. Nelson. Watching children: Describing the use of baby monitors on epinions. com. Journal of Family Issues 29(4):516–538 2008.

  • [51] M. L. Nijland F. Stam and J. C. Seidell. Overweight in dogs but not in cats is related to overweight in their owners. Public health nutrition 13(1):102–106 2010.

  • [52] PetCommunity. petcommunity. https://petcommunity.com/ 2019. Online; accessed 11 June 2019.

  • [53] M. F. Porter. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program 14(3):130–137 1980.

  • [54] Y. Pu and J. Grossklags. Towards a model on the factors influencing social app users’ valuation of interdependent privacy. Proceedings on privacy enhancing technologies 2016(2):61–81 2016.

  • [55] E. Rader and J. Slaker. The importance of visibility for folk theories of sensor data. In Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS) 2017.

  • [56] Y. Rashidi T. Ahmed F. Patel E. Fath A. Kapadia C. Nippert-Eng and N. M. Su. “ you don’t want to be the next meme”: College students’ workarounds to manage privacy in the era of pervasive photography. In Fourteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security ({SOUPS} 2018) pages 143–157 2018.

  • [57] P. Rayson and R. Garside. Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora Volume 9 pages 1–6. Association for Computational Linguistics 2000.

  • [58] P. M. Regan G. FitzGerald and P. Balint. Generational views of information privacy? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 26(1-2):81–99 2013.

  • [59] B. Schneier. The eternal value of privacy 2016. URL https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/05/the_eternal_value_of.html.

  • [60] S. Seneviratne Y. Hu T. Nguyen G. Lan S. Khalifa K. Thilakarathna M. Hassan and A. Seneviratne. A survey of wearable devices and challenges. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 19(4):2573–2620 2017.

  • [61] D. J. Solove. I’ve got nothing to hide and other misunderstandings of privacy. San Diego L. Rev. 44:745 2007.

  • [62] C. Spensky J. Stewart A. Yerukhimovich R. Shay A. Trachtenberg R. Housley and R. K. Cunningham. Sok: Privacy on mobile devices–it’s complicated. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2016(3):96–116 2016.

  • [63] K. Spiller K. Ball A. Bandara M. Meadows C. McCormick B. Nuseibeh and B. A. Price. Data privacy: Users’ thoughts on quantified self personal data. In Self-Tracking pages 111–124. Springer 2018.

  • [64] H. J. Spiro. Privacy in comparative perspective. In Privacy and Personality pages 121–148. Routledge 2017.

  • [65] M. Trenz and B. Berger. Analyzing online customer reviews-an interdisciplinary literature review and research agenda. In ECIS page 83 2013.

  • [66] L. Tzivian M. Friger and T. Kushnir. Associations between stress and quality of life: Differences between owners keeping a living dog or losing a dog by euthanasia. PloS One 10(3): e0121081 2015.

  • [67] R. Unuchek and R. Sako. I know where your pet is. Blog May 22 2018.

  • [68] D. van der Linden et al. Buddy’s wearable is not your buddy: privacy implications of pet wearables. IEEE Security and Privacy 17(3) 2018.

  • [69] J. van Heek K. Aming and M. Ziefle. “how fear of crime affects needs for privacy & safety”: Acceptance of surveillance technologies in smart cities. In 2016 5th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems (SMARTGREENS) pages 1–12. IEEE 2016.

  • [70] Y. Wang H. Xia Y. Yao and Y. Huang. Flying eyes and hidden controllers: A qualitative study of people’s privacy perceptions of civilian drones in the us. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2016(3):172–190 2016.

  • [71] Y. D. Wang and H. H. Emurian. An overview of online trust: Concepts elements and implications. Computers in human behavior 21(1):105–125 2005.

  • [72] M. Winkler A. S. Abrahams R. Gruss and J. P. Ehsani. Toy safety surveillance from online reviews. Decision support systems 90:23–32 2016.

  • [73] Z. Yang and X. Fang. Online service quality dimensions and their relationships with satisfaction: A content analysis of customer reviews of securities brokerage services. Int. J. Service Industry Management 15(3):302–326 2004.

  • [74] Z. Yang M. Jun and R. T. Peterson. Measuring customer perceived online service quality: scale development and managerial implications. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 24(11):1149–1174 2004.

  • [75] Zamansky et al. Log my dog – perceived impact of canine activity tracking. IEEE Computer 2018. major revisions.

  • [76] A. Zamansky and D. van der Linden. Activity trackers for raising guide dogs: Challenges and opportunities. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 37(4):62–69 2018.

  • [77] S. D. Zansberg and J. K. Fischer. Privacy expectations in online social media-an emerging generational divide. Comm. Law. 28:1 2011.

  • [78] E. Zeng S. Mare and F. Roesner. End user security & privacy concerns with smart homes. In Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS) 2017.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 13 13 13
PDF Downloads 15 15 15