Privacy and Security in Augmentation Technologies

Khamis, Mohamed; Alt, Florian

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30457-7_8

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The implications of AR-driven privacy risks, for users and bystanders alike, represent pertinent issues beyond face-value concerns regarding recording activities [5,114]. AR devices' capability for "persistent, ubiquitous recording" [21] and veilance of others [86] has the potential to erode a bystander's "reasonable expectation of privacy" [45], supporting "cyborg stalkers" [68], and facilitating a "global panopticon society of constant surveillance", where "the possibility of being recorded looms over every walk in the park, every conversation in a bar, and indeed, everything you do near other people" [124]. As a result, the anticipated adoption of AR headsets may put AR users in opposition to bystanders-with users wanting to leverage the full potential of these devices, at the cost of infringements to bystanders' privacy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Privacy-Enhancing Technology and Everyday Augmented Reality

O’Hagan

Saeghe

Gugenheimer

et al. 2022

Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fundamental to Augmented Reality (AR) headsets is their capacity to visually and aurally sense the world around them, necessary to drive the positional tracking that makes rendering 3D spatial content possible. This requisite sensing also opens the door for more advanced AR-driven activities, such as augmented perception, volumetric capture and biometric identification - activities with the potential to expose bystanders to significant privacy risks. Existing Privacy-Enhancing Technologies (PETs) often safeguard against these risks at a low level e.g., instituting camera access controls. However, we argue that such PETs are incompatible with the need for always-on sensing given AR headsets' intended everyday use. Through an online survey (N=102), we examine bystanders' awareness of, and concerns regarding, potentially privacy infringing AR activities; the extent to which bystanders' consent should be sought; and the level of granularity of information necessary to provide awareness of AR activities to bystanders. Our findings suggest that PETs should take into account the AR activity type, and relationship to bystanders, selectively facilitating awareness and consent. In this way, we can ensure bystanders feel their privacy is respected by everyday AR headsets, and avoid unnecessary rejection of these powerful devices by society.

show abstract