Privacy at Home: An Inquiry into Sensors and Robots for the Stay at Home Elderly

  • Trenton SchulzEmail author
  • Jo Herstad
  • Harald Holone
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10927)


The elderly in the future will use smart house technology, sensors, and robots to stay at home longer. Privacy at home for these elderly is important. In this exploratory paper, we examine different understandings of privacy and use Palen and Dourish’s framework to look at the negotiation of privacy along boundaries between a human at home, the robot, and its sensors. We select three dilemmas: turning sensors on and off, the robot seeing through walls, and machine learning. We discuss these dilemmas and also discuss ways the robot can help make the elderly more aware of privacy issues and to build trust.


Robot Human-robot interaction Privacy Trust Elderly Home 



This work is partly supported by the Research Council of Norway as a part of the Multimodal Elderly Care Systems (MECS) project, under grant agreement 247697. Thanks also to Md Zia Uddin for help in providing pictures from depth and thermal cameras.


  1. 1.
    Altman, I.: The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, and Crowding (1975)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amirabdollahian, F., op den Akker, R., Bedaf, S., Bormann, R., Draper, H., Evers, V., Gelderblom, G., Gutierrez Ruiz, C., Hewson, D., Hu, N., Iacono, I., Koay, K., Krose, B., Marti, P., Michel, H., Prevot-Huille, H., Reiser, U., Saunders, J., Sorell, T., Dautenhahn, K.: Accompany: Acceptable robotiCs COMPanions for AgeiNG Years - Multidimensional Aspects of Human-System Interactions. In: 6th International Conference on Human System Interactions (HSI), pp. 570–577. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ashton, K.: That “Internet of Things” thing. RFID J., May/June (2009). Accessed 9 May 2018
  4. 4.
    Atzori, L., Iera, A., Morabito, G.: The Internet of Things: a survey. Comput. Netw. 54(15), 2787–2805 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bellotti, V., Sellen, A.: Design for privacy in ubiquitous computing environments. In: de Michelis, G., Simone, C., Schmidt, K. (eds.) ECSCW 1993, pp. 77–92. Springer, Dordrecht (1993). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Busch, M., Hochleitner, C., Lorenz, M., Schulz, T., Tscheligi, M., Wittstock, E.: All in: targeting trustworthiness for special needs user groups in the Internet of Things. In: Huth, M., Asokan, N., Čapkun, S., Flechais, I., Coles-Kemp, L. (eds.) Trust 2013. LNCS, vol. 7904, pp. 223–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Busch, M., Lorenz, M., Tscheligi, M., Hochleitner, C., Schulz, T.: Being there for real - presence in real and virtual environments and its relation to usability. In: Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Fun, Fast, Foundational - NordiCHI 2014, pp. 117–126. ACM Press, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Butler, D.J., Huang, J., Roesner, F., Cakmak, M.: The privacy-utility tradeoff for remotely teleoperated robots. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI 2015, pp. 27–34. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caine, K., Šabanović, S., Carter, M.: The effect of monitoring by cameras and robots on the privacy enhancing behaviors of older adults. In: 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 343–350 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calo, R.: Robots and privacy. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1599189, Social Science Research Network, Rochester (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Calo, R.: The drone as privacy catalyst. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2340753, Social Science Research Network, Rochester (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crabtree, A., Tolmie, P., Knight, W.: Repacking ‘Privacy’ for a networked world. Comput. Support. Coop. Work (CSCW) 26, 453–488 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Draper, H., Sorell, T.: Ethical values and social care robots for older people: an international qualitative study. Ethics Inf. Technol. 19(1), 49–68 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ess, C., Fossheim, H.: Personal data: changing selves, changing privacies. In: Digital Enlightenment Yearbook 2013, pp. 40–55. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Estes, A.C.: Don’t Buy Anyone an Echo. Gizmodo (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eyssel, F., Wullenkord, R., Nitsch, V.: The role of self-disclosure in human-robot interaction. In: 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 922–927 (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Feil-Seifer, D., Skinner, K., Matarić, M.J.: Benchmarks for evaluating socially assistive robotics. Interact. Stud. 8(3), 423–439 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fosch Villaronga, E., Roig, A.: European regulatory framework for person carrier robots. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 33(4), 502–520 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fritsch, L., Groven, A.-K., Schulz, T.: On the Internet of Things, trust is relative. In: Wichert, R., Van Laerhoven, K., Gelissen, J. (eds.) AmI 2011. CCIS, vol. 277, pp. 267–273. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goonawardene, N., Toh, X.P., Tan, H.-P.: Sensor-driven detection of social isolation in community-dwelling elderly. In: Zhou, J., Salvendy, G. (eds.) ITAP 2017. LNCS, vol. 10298, pp. 378–392. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holone, H., Herstad, J.: Negotiating privacy boundaries in social applications for accessibility mapping. In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, NordiCHI 2010, pp. 217–225. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hubers, A., et al.: Using video manipulation to protect privacy in remote presence systems. In: Tapus, A., André, E., Martin, J.C., Ferland, F., Ammi, M. (eds.) Social Robotics. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9388, pp. 245–254. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hubers, A., Andrulis, E., Smart, W.D., Scott, L., Stirrat, T., Tran, D., Zhang, R., Sowell, R., Grimm, C.: Video manipulation techniques for the protection of privacy in remote presence systems. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts, HRI 2015 Extended Abstracts, pp. 59–60. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kahn Jr., P.H., Ishiguro, H., Friedman, B., Kanda, T., Freier, N.G., Severson, R.L., Miller, J.: What is a human? Toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human-robot interaction. Interact. Stud. 8(3), 363–390 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H.: Human-Robot Interaction in Social Robotics. CRC Press, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kido, S., Miyasaka, T., Tanaka, T., Shimizu, T., Saga, T.: Fall detection in toilet rooms using thermal imaging sensors. In: IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII), pp. 83–88 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Langheinrich, M.: Privacy by design — principles of privacy-aware ubiquitous systems. In: Abowd, G.D., Brumitt, B., Shafer, S. (eds.) UbiComp 2001. LNCS, vol. 2201, pp. 273–291. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee, M.K., Tang, K.P., Forlizzi, J., Kiesler, S.: Understanding users’ perception of privacy in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI 2011, pp. 181–182. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leister, W., Schulz, T., Lie, A., Grythe, K., Balasingham, I.: Quality of service, adaptation, and security provisioning in wireless patient monitoring systems. In: Laskovski, A.N. (ed.) Biomedical Engineering, Trends in Electronics, Communications and Software, pp. 711–736. InTech (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    National Public Radio, and Edison Research: The Smart Audio Report: Fall-Winter 2017, p. 31. National Public Radio (2017)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nissenbaum, H.: Privacy as contextual integrity. Wash. Law Rev. 79(1), 119–157 (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pagallo, U.: Robots in the cloud with privacy: a new threat to data protection? Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 29(5), 501–508 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Palen, L., Dourish, P.: Unpacking “Privacy” for a networked world. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2003, pp. 129–136. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Percival, C.: Some Thoughts on Spectre and Meltdown (2018). Accessed 31 Jan 2018
  35. 35.
    Petronio, S.S.: Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure. State University of New York Press, Albany (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pyo, Y., Hasegawa, T., Tanaka, M., Tsuji, T., Morooka, K., Kurazume, R.: Measurement and estimation of indoor human behavior of everyday life based on floor sensing with minimal invasion of privacy, pp. 2170–2176. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Robot: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, Boston (2011)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rueben, M., Bernieri, F.J., Grimm, C.M., Smart, W.D.: Evaluation of physical marker interfaces for protecting visual privacy from mobile robots. In: 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 787–794 (2016)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rueben, M., Bernieri, F.J., Grimm, C.M., Smart, W.D.: Framing effects on privacy concerns about a home telepresence robot. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI 2017, pp. 435–444. ACM, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schafer, B., Edwards, L.: “I Spy, with My Little Sensor”: fair data handling practices for robots between privacy, copyright and security. Connect. Sci. 29(3), 200–209 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schulz, T.: Creating universal designed and trustworthy objects for the Internet of Things. In: Zaphiris, P., Ioannou, A. (eds.) LCT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8524, pp. 206–214. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schulz, T., Fuglerud, K.S., Arfwedson, H., Busch, M.: A case study for universal design in the Internet of Things. In: Caltenco, H., Hedvall, P.-O., Larsson, A., Rassmus-Gröhn, K., Rydeman, B. (eds.) Universal Design 2014: Three Days of Creativity and Diversity, pp. 45–54. IOS Press (2014)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schulz, T., Herstad, J.: Walking away from the robot: negotiating privacy with a robot. In: Proceedings of the 31st International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference (HCI 2017), Sunderland, UK (2017). (in publication)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    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. In: Proceedings of Workshop Human Implications of Human-robot Interaction, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2007), pp. 28–33 (2007)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tømmer, M., Kjelgård, K.G., Lande, T.S.: Body coupled wideband monopole antenna. In: Loughborough Antennas Propagation Conference (LAPC), pp. 1–5 (2016)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Warren, S.D., Brandeis, L.D.: The right to privacy. Harv. Law Rev. 4(5), 193–220 (1890)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Westin, A.: Privacy and Freedom. Atheneum, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Young, J.E., Hawkins, R., Sharlin, E., Igarashi, T.: Toward acceptable domestic robots: applying insights from social psychology. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1(1), 95 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Østfold University CollegeHaldenNorway

Personalised recommendations