Advertisement

Towards a Privacy Rule Conceptual Model for Smart Toys

  • Laura RaffertyEmail author
  • Patrick C. K. Hung
  • Marcelo Fantinato
  • Sarajane Marques Peres
  • Farkhund Iqbal
  • Sy-Yen Kuo
  • Shih-Chia Huang
Chapter
Part of the International Series on Computer Entertainment and Media Technology book series (ISCEMT)

Abstract

A smart toy is defined as a device consisting of a physical toy component that connects to one or more toy computing services to facilitate gameplay in the cloud through networking and sensory technologies to enhance the functionality of a traditional toy. A smart toy in this context can be effectively considered an Internet of Things (IoT) with Artificial Intelligence (AI) which can provide Augmented Reality (AR) experiences to users. In this paper, the first assumption is that children do not understand the concept of privacy and the children do not know how to protect themselves online, especially in a social media and cloud environment. The second assumption is that children may disclose private information to smart toys and not be aware of the possible consequences and liabilities. This paper presents a privacy rule conceptual model with the concepts of smart toy, mobile service, device, location, and guidance with related privacy entities: purpose, recipient, obligation, and retention for smart toys. Further the paper also discusses an implementation of the prototype interface with sample scenarios for future research works.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (Fapesp) under Grants 2015/16615-0 and 2016/00014-0. This work was also supported by the Research Office - Zayed University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, under Research Projects: R15048 & R16083; by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan, under MOST Grants: 105-2923-E-002 -014 -MY3, 105-2923-E-027 -001 -MY3, 105-2221-E-027 -113, & 105-2811-E-027 -001; and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), under Discovery Grants Program: RGPIN-2016-05023.

References

  1. AlHarthy KA (2013) Implement network security control solutions in BYOD environment. The 2013 IEEE International Conference on Control System, Computing and Engineering (ICCSCE). IEEE, Batu Ferringhi, pp 7–11Google Scholar
  2. Alqassem IA (2014) A taxonomy of security and privacy requirements for the Internet of Things (IoT). The IEEE International Conference on Industrial Eng. and Engineering Management. IEEE, Malaysia, pp 1244–1248Google Scholar
  3. Android (2015). Location strategies, Android Developer. http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/location/strategies.html.
  4. Armando AC (2014) Securing the bring your own device paradigm. Computer 47(6):48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atamli AA (2014) Threat-based security analysis for the internet of things. The 2014 International Workshop on Secure Internet of Things. IEEE, Oslo, pp 35–43Google Scholar
  6. Baber CA (2004) Social networks and mobile games: the use of bluetooth for a multiplayer card game. The 6th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. Glasgow.Google Scholar
  7. Barnes RL (2011) An architecture for location and location Privacy in internet applications. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6280
  8. Booyah (2015) iTunes – MyTown2. https://itunes.apple.com/app/mytown-2/id442345455
  9. Chakraborty SR (2013) A framework for context-aware privacy of sensor data on mobile systems. In: The fourteenth workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications (ACM HotMobile2013). ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Cherubini MD (2011) Barriers and bridges in the adoption of today's mobile phone contextual services. In: MobileHCI '11. ACM, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  11. Duri SC (2001) An approach to providing a seamless end-user experience for location-aware applications. The 1st International Workshop on Mobile Commerce 86(4):20Google Scholar
  12. Fu ZR (2015) Enabling personalized search over encrypted outsourced data with efficiency improvement. IEEE Trans Parallel Distri SystGoogle Scholar
  13. Futuresight (2011) User Perspectives on Mobile Privacy – Summary of Research Findings. GSMA 27(9):2546–2559Google Scholar
  14. He Q (2003) Privacy enforcement with an extended role-based access control model. NCSU Computer Science Technical Report TR-2003-09. ACM, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  15. Heurix JZ (2015) A taxonomy for privacy enhancing technologies. Comput Secur 53:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hung PC (2015) Mobile services for toy computing, the Springer International Series on Applications and Trends in Computer Science. Springer International Publishing, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaasinen E (2003) User needs for location-aware mobile services. Pers Ubiquit Comput 7(1):70–79Google Scholar
  18. MEF (2013) MEF global privacy report 2013. MEF, http://www.mefmobile.org/
  19. Niantic I (2016) Pokemon Go. http://www.pokemongo.com/
  20. Peng WL (2013) T-dominance: prioritized defense deployment for BYOD security. The 2013 IEEE Conference on Communications and Network Security (CNS), USA. pp 37–45Google Scholar
  21. Plowman LA (2004) Interactivity, interfaces, and smart toys. Computer 37(2):98–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pura M (2005) Linking perceived value and loyalty in location-based mobile services. Manag Serv Qual 15(6):509–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ren YS (2015) Mutual verifiable provable data auditing in public cloud storage. J Internet Tech 16(2):317–323Google Scholar
  24. Schell BH (2007) Cyber child pornography: a review paper of the sand legal issues and remedies, aggression and violent behavior. Elsevier 12(1):45–63Google Scholar
  25. Shen JM (2015) Enhanced secure sensor association and key management in wireless body area networks. J Commun Netw 17(5):453–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sphero (2014) Sphero. http://www.gosphero.com
  27. Sun GH (2014) A privacy protection policy combined with privacy homomorphism in the internet of things. The 23rd International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN), Shanghai, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  28. Tanaka FA (2009) The use of robots in early education: a scenario based on ethical consideration. The 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Toyama, pp 558–560Google Scholar
  29. Tath EI (2006) Context data model for privacy. PRIME Standardization Workshop IBM Zurich, Zurich, 6 PagesGoogle Scholar
  30. Tech4Kids (2013) Tek Recon-Tech4Kids. http://www.tekrecon.com/
  31. Wenning R (2007) Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P) project: enabling smarter privacy tools for the web. http://www.w3.org/P3P
  32. Xia ZW (2015) A secure and dynamic multi-keyword ranked search scheme over encrypted cloud data. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 27(2):340–352Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Rafferty
    • 1
    Email author
  • Patrick C. K. Hung
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marcelo Fantinato
    • 3
  • Sarajane Marques Peres
    • 3
  • Farkhund Iqbal
    • 4
  • Sy-Yen Kuo
    • 5
  • Shih-Chia Huang
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Business and ITUniversity of Ontario Institute of TechnologyOshawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Electronic EngineeringNational Taipei University of TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.School of Arts, Sciences and HumanitiesUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  4. 4.College of Technological Innovation, Zayed UniversityDubaiUAE
  5. 5.Department of Electrical EngineeringNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations