Privacy Concerns in Robot Teleoperation: Does Personality Influence What Should Be Hidden?

  • Sogol Balali
  • Ross T. SowellEmail author
  • William D. Smart
  • Cindy M. Grimm
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11876)


Advances in robotics technology will bring more teleoperated robots into homes to perform a variety of household tasks. This raises new privacy concerns as the remote operator can control the robot and its camera, and record its sensor data. One way to provide some privacy protection is through on-board processing of the data to filter out sensitive visual information. But what do people want hidden, and how should we hide it? Do the personality traits of a particular user influence that choice?

We designed an 85-question survey to help answer these questions and analyzed the data from 81 respondents. We found that people are most concerned about hiding identifiable personal or financial information and valuables from a household robot, and we found that they prefer stronger filters to hide such items. We also found some evidence of the existence of correlations between a person’s familiarity with technology, sociability, and trust and their privacy concerns.


Teleoperation Privacy GenderMag Remote viewing 



We would like to thank Abrar Fallatah for her insights and supports.


  1. 1.
    Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Merriam-Webster’s Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary: Merriam-Webster. Inc (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Acquisti, A., John, L., Loewenstein, G.: What is privacy worth? In: Future of Privacy Forum’s Best “Privacy Papers for Policy Makers" Competition (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Altman, I.: Privacy regulation: culturally universal or culturally specific? J. Soc. Issues 33(3), 66–84 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burnett, M., et al.: GenderMag: a method for evaluating software’s gender inclusiveness. Interact. Comput. 28(6), 760–787 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Butler, D., Huang, J., Roesner, F., Cakmak, M.: The privacy-utility tradeoff for remotely teleoperated robots. In: Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, Portland, OR (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caine, K., Sabanovic, S., Carter, M.: The effect of monitoring by cameras and robots on the privacy enhancing behaviors of older adults. In: Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 343–350. ACM, March 2012Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Denning, T., Matuszek, C., Koscher, K., Smith, J.R., Kohno, T.: A spotlight on security and privacy risks with future household robots: attacks and lessons. In: Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 105–114. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hubers, A., et al.: Using video manipulation to protect privacy in remote presence systems. Social Robotics. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9388, pp. 245–254. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  10. 10.
    John, L.K., Acquisti, A., Loewenstein, G.: The best of strangers: Context dependent willingness to divulge personal information (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klow, J., Proby, J., Rueben, M., Sowell, R.T., Grimm, C.M., Smart, W.D.: Privacy, utility, and cognitive load in remote presence systems. In: Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 167–168. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krupp, M.M., Rueben, M., Grimm, C.M., Smart, W.D.: A focus group study of privacy concerns about telepresence robots. In: Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 1451–1458, August 2017Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee, M.K., Takayama, L.: “Now, i have a body”: uses and social norms for mobile remote presence in the workplace. In: SIGCHI, pp. 33–42. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Margulis, S.T.: On the status and contributions of Westin’s and Altman’s theories of privacy. J. Soc. Issues 59(2), 411–429 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marshall, N.J.: Dimensions of privacy preferences. Multivariate Behav. Res. 9(3), 255–272 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rueben, M., Bernieri, F.J., Grimm, C.M., Smart, W.D.: Framing effects on privacy concerns about a home telepresence robot. In: Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 435–444. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rueben, M., Grimm, C.M., Bernieri, F.J., Smart, W.D.: A taxonomy of privacy constructs for privacy-sensitive robotics. CoRR abs/1701.00841 (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Showkat, D., Grimm, C.: Identifying gender differences in information processing style, self-efficacy, and tinkering for robot tele-operation. In: Ubiquitous Robots, pp. 443–448, June 2018Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Syrdal, D.S., Walters, M.L., Otero, N., Koay, K.L., Dautenhahn, K.: “He knows when you are sleeping" : Privacy and the personal robot companion (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Westin, A.F.: Privacy and Freedom. Athenaeum, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wong, R.Y., Mulligan, D.K.: These aren’t the autonomous drones you’re looking for: investigating privacy concerns through concept videos. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 5(3), 26–54 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Rhodes CollegeMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations