Losing a Private Sphere? A Glance on the User Perspective on Privacy in Connected Cars

  • Jonas WalterEmail author
  • Bettina Abendroth
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mobility book series (LNMOB)


Connectivity is one of the major prerequisites of automated driving. Enabled by numerous connected sensors, new cars offer new functionalities, provide higher security levels and promise to enhance the comfort of travelling. However, by connecting a vehicle with its environment, the car becomes more transparent. The integration of the car into a smart grid seems to conflict with the users’ expectation of their car as a private retreat, thus reducing the acceptance and usage adoption of connected cars. This article aims at helping developers and engineers to consider the user’s expectations when designing a connected car. Furthermore, this article reviews and compares recent international surveys on user’s privacy with our own results on the user’s attitude towards connected vehicular services.


Connected car Privacy User Acceptance 


  1. Benedettini O et al (2009) State-of-the-art in integrated vehicle health management. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G J Aerosp Eng 223(2):157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen L, Englund C (2016) Cooperative intersection management: a survey. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 17(2):570–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chui KT et al (2016) An accurate ECG-based transportation safety drowsiness detection scheme. IEEE Trans Ind Inf 12(4):1438–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Winter JC et al (2014) Effects of adaptive cruise control and highly automated driving on workload and situation awareness: a review of the empirical evidence. Trans Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 27:196–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dokic J et al (2015) European roadmap smart systems for automated driving. European Technology Platform on Smart Systems Integration, EPoSS.
  6. Dotzauer M et al (2015) Behavioral adaptation of young and older drivers to an intersection crossing advisory system. Accid Anal Prev 74:24–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Derikx S et al (2016) Can privacy concerns for insurance of connected cars be compensated? Electr Mark 26(1):73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dinev T, Hart P (2006) An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Inf Syst Res 17(1):61–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elia J (2009) Transparency rights, technology, and trust. Ethics Inf Technol 11(2):145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Endo T et al (2016) Study on privacy setting acceptance of drivers for data utilization on connected cars. In: 14th Annual conference on privacy, security and trust (PST), pp 82–87Google Scholar
  11. Eriksson L, Bjørnskau T (2012) Acceptability of traffic safety measures with personal privacy implications. Trans Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 15(3):333–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eyssartier C (2015) Acceptability of driving an equipped vehicle with drive recorder: the impact of the context. IET Intel Trans Syst 9(7):710–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gardner B, Abraham C (2007) What drives car use? A grounded theory analysis of commuters’ reasons for driving. Trans Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 10(3):187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huang SC et al (2016) Smart Car. IEEE Comput Intell Mag 11(4):46–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jensen M et al (2016) Datenschutz im Fahrzeug der Zukunft: vernetzt, autonom, elektrisch, In: Lecture Notes in Informatics, p 441Google Scholar
  16. Kang J, Hustvedt G (2014) Building trust between consumers and corporations: the role of consumer perceptions of transparency and social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 125(2):253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li S et al (2011) Model predictive multi-objective vehicular adaptive cruise control. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 19(3):556–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Müller A et al (2017) Einflussfaktoren auf die Akzeptanz des automatisierten Fahrens aus der Sicht von Fahrerinnen und Fahrern, In: 8. Darmstädter Kolloquium 7/8. März 2017 Technische Universität Darmstadt, 1Google Scholar
  19. Papadimitratos P et al (2009) Vehicular communication systems: enabling technologies, applications, and future outlook on intelligent transportation. IEEE Commun Mag 47(11):84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Petter S et al (2012) The past, present, and future of IS success. J Assoc Inf Syst 13(5):341Google Scholar
  21. Pohl J et al (2007) A driver-distraction-based lane-keeping assistance system. Proc Insti Mech Eng Part I J Syst Control Eng 221(4):541–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rebolledo-Mendez G et al (2014) Developing a body sensor network to detect emotions during driving. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 15(4):1850–1854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schmidt A et al (2010) Driving automotive user interface research. IEEE Pervas Comput 9(1):85–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schoettle B, Sivak M (2014) A survey of public opinion about connected vehicles in the US, the UK, and Australia. ICCVE 687–692:2014Google Scholar
  25. Sheller M (2004) Automotive emotions feeling the car. Theory Culture Soc 21(4–5):221–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steg L (2009) Car use: lust and must Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Trans Res Part A Policy and Pract 39(2):147–162Google Scholar
  27. Tene O, Polonetsky J (2013) Big data for all: Privacy and user control in the age of analytics. Nw J Tech Intell Prop 11(5):239–273Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Ergonomics and Human FactorsTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations