‘Internet of Things’: How Abuse is Getting Smarter

López-Neira, Isabel; Patel, Trupti; Parkin, Simon; Danezis, George; Tanczer, Leonie Maria

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3350615

Cited by 42 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While smart speakers can be useful tools for parental oversight of young children, for instance, ensuring that they are not accessing age-inappropriate material, the surveillance affordances can also reinforce domestic power imbalances in the form of technological intimate partner violence (Geeng and Roesner 2019). For example, domestic abusers can monitor the movements, search activity, and conversations of their victims through smart speakers (Lopez-Neira et al 2019). This issue is compounded in cases of unilateral control over connected smart-home systems, such as door locks, lights, or heating systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Privacy and smart speakers: A multi-dimensional approach

Lutz

Newlands

2021

The Information Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last few years, smart speakers such as Amazon Echo and Google Home have become increasingly present within British households. Yet, privacy remains a prominent concern in the public discourse about smart speakers, as well as in the nascent academic literature. We argue that privacy in the context of smart speakers is more complex than in other settings due to smart speakers' specific technological affordances and also the axial relationships between users, the device, device manufacturers, application developers, and other third parties such as moderation contractors and data brokers. With survey data from Amazon Echo and Google Home users in the UK, we explore users' privacy concerns and privacy protection behaviors related to smart speakers. We rely on a contextual understanding of privacy, assessing the prevalence of seven distinct privacy concern types as well as three privacy protection behaviors. The results indicate that concerns about third parties, such as contractors listening to smart speaker recordings, are most pronounced. Privacy protection behaviors are uncommon but partly affected by privacy concerns and motives such as social presence and utilitarian benefits. Taken together, our research paints a picture of privacy pragmatism or privacy cynicism among smart speaker users.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Privacy and smart speakers: A multi-dimensional approach

Lutz

Newlands

2021

The Information Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, while this dominant imaginary promises to put user needs at the center, it also downplays its risks (cf. Lopez-Neira et al, 2019). In response, Dowse offers a curious twist on the notion of magic: rather than the obscuring “magic” of seamless technological utility, the Dowse developers invoke the language of magic to encourage users to get involved in a playful manner, with the goal of “open[ing] up the black box, dig deeper, look in the processes” (Interview #179).…”

Section: Dowse: Counter-infrastructuring the Datafied Consumermentioning

confidence: 99%

“Bodies not templates”: Contesting dominant algorithmic imaginaries

Kazansky¹,

Milan

2021

New Media & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Through an array of technological solutions and awareness-raising initiatives, civil society mobilizes against an onslaught of surveillance threats. What alternative values, practices, and tactics emerge from the grassroots which point toward other ways of being in the datafied society? Conversing with critical data studies, science and technology studies, and surveillance studies, this article looks at how dominant imaginaries of datafication are reconfigured and responded to by groups of people dealing directly with their harms and risks. Building on practitioner interviews and participant observation in digital rights events and surveying projects intervening in three critical technological issues of our time—the challenges of digitally secure computing, the Internet of Things, and the threat of widespread facial recognition—this article investigates social justice activists, human rights defenders, and progressive technologists as they try to flip dominant algorithmic imaginaries. In so doing, the article contributes to our understanding of how individuals and social groups make sense of the challenges of datafication from the bottom-up.

show abstract

“…Such 'hidden' actions can also include proactive, well-meaning activities by multiple stakeholders (e.g. [19], [20]). For instance, evidence-gathering by law enforcement may be disrupted if the observed asset is impacted by a well-meaning system owner who acts upon the asset (such as disrupting a website, as in Figure 1).…”

Section: B Unintended Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bob and Charlie live together. Charlie is controlling and monitors Bob's behaviour using IoT devices [20]. This includes Bob's smartphone [24].…”

Section: A Intimate Partner Abusementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identifying Unintended Harms of Cybersecurity Countermeasures

Chua

Parkin

Edwards

et al. 2019

2019 APWG Symposium on Electronic Crime Research (eCrime)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Well-meaning cybersecurity risk owners will deploy countermeasures (technologies or procedures) to manage risks to their services or systems. In some cases, those countermeasures will produce unintended consequences, which must then be addressed. Unintended consequences can potentially induce harm, adversely affecting user behaviour, user inclusion, or the infrastructure itself (including other services or countermeasures). Here we propose a framework for preemptively identifying unintended harms of risk countermeasures in cybersecurity. The framework identifies a series of unintended harms which go beyond technology alone, to consider the cyberphysical and sociotechnical space: displacement, insecure norms, additional costs, misuse, misclassification, amplification, and disruption. We demonstrate our framework through application to the complex, multi-stakeholder challenges associated with the prevention of cyberbullying as an applied example. Our framework aims to illuminate harmful consequences, not to paralyze decisionmaking, but so that potential unintended harms can be more thoroughly considered in risk management strategies. The framework can support identification and preemptive planning to identify vulnerable populations and preemptively insulate them from harm. There are opportunities to use the framework in coordinating risk management strategy across stakeholders in complex cyberphysical environments.

show abstract

‘Internet of Things’: How Abuse is Getting Smarter

Cited by 42 publications

References 10 publications

Privacy and smart speakers: A multi-dimensional approach

Privacy and smart speakers: A multi-dimensional approach

“Bodies not templates”: Contesting dominant algorithmic imaginaries

Identifying Unintended Harms of Cybersecurity Countermeasures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About