Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recommendations for a smart toy parental control tool

  • Published:
The Journal of Supercomputing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Current smart toy parental control tools offered by toy companies do not adequately support parents in protecting their children. Moreover, there is no reference solution in the literature to be used by toymakers. Most studies are limited to mentioning the importance and purpose of these tools or some specific requirements. This article proposes a reference solution for smart toy parental control tools, with which parents can take control and adequately manage their children’s data according to their preferences. This reference solution comprises a recommended list of requirements, a conceptual model, and a prototype developed as a proof of concept for the solution. An analysis highlights that current legal standards for privacy protection do not satisfy the requirements raised in this study. Furthermore, the results of an evaluation conducted with experts show that the proposed solution is adequate to be used as a reference by academia and industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A benchmark proposed by the European Commission Safer Internet Programme (EU-SIP).

  2. The Parental Control prototype tool application can be downloaded at https://github.com/OtavioAlb/ParentalControlPrototype

  3. The Parental Control prototype tool source code can be downloaded at https://github.com/OtavioAlb/ParentalControlApp

  4. The prototype was implemented for the purpose of feasibility analysis and demonstration of the proposed features, and Android was chosen for this purpose. However, each commercial tool can be developed following the specific technological preferences of each toymaker, which can develop their own tool using platforms other than Android, such as iOS.

  5. The prototype uses a privacy policy adapted from https://www.toymail.co/pages/privacy.

  6. Other mobile services can be added, such as text.

  7. Game: gameplay performance; personal: the user’s use of the toy; marketing: commerce and business strategy; administrative: the internal administrative processes of the toy company; research: scientific research; any: any of the purposes listed above.

  8. Individual: the users themselves or a linked mobile service; group: a group of users, e.g., for multiplayer toys; third-party: an external entity, restricted by the person responsible to the holder of the object to which access has been requested; any: any internal or external entity.

  9. Others besides COPPA and PIPEDA can be added.

  10. No retention: retained for only a brief moment and then destroyed without storage; stated purpose: retained only for the time needed to fulfill the stated purpose and is discarded as soon as the purpose is completed; legal requirement: retained only for a stated purpose as required by law or liability under applicable law; business practices: retained in accordance with the business practices stated in the app’s service terms; indefinitely: retained for an indefinite period of time, as intended by the data consumer; custom: retained for the time determined by the user.

  11. The screens proposed in the prototype for these features are not presented here.

  12. The screens proposed in the prototype for these features are not presented here.

  13. The screens proposed in the prototype for these features are not presented here.

References

  1. Rivera D, Garcia A, Martin-Ruiz ML, Alarcos B, Velasco JR, Gomez Oliva A (2019) Secure communications and protected data for a internet of things smart toy platform. IEEE Internet Things J 6(2):3785–3795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Yankson B (2021) Continuous improvement process (CIP)-based privacy-preserving framework for smart connected toys. Int J Inf Secur 20(6):849–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hung PCK, Iqbal F, Huang SC, Melaisi M, Pang K (2016) A glance of child’s play privacy in smart toys. In: 2nd International Conference on Cloud Computing and Security pp. 217–231

  4. Collingwood L (2021) Villain or guardian? ‘The smart toy is watching you now....’. Inf Commun Technol Law 30(1):75–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chu G, Apthorpe N, Feamster N (2019) Security and privacy analyses of internet of things children’s toys. IEEE Internet Things J 6(1):978–985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Shasha S, Mahmoud M, Mannan M, Youssef A (2019) Playing With danger: a taxonomy and evaluation of threats to smart toys. IEEE Internet Things J 6(2):2986–3002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. USA.: COPPA – Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. Federal Trade Commission and US Congress, USA. Available from: https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule

  8. Rafferty L, Kroese B, Hung PCK (2015) Toy computing background. In: Hung P (ed) Mobile services for toy computing. Springer, NY, pp 9–38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Rafferty L, Hung P, Fantinato M, Peres SM, Iqbal F, Kuo S, et al (2017) Towards a privacy rule conceptual model for smart toys. In: 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences pp. 1–10

  10. European Commission.: Benchmarking of parental control tools for the online protection of children. Available from: https://sipbench.eu

  11. Albuquerque OP, Fantinato M, Kelner J, Albuquerque AP (2020) Privacy in smart toys: risks and proposed solutions. Electron Commer Res Appl 39:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rafferty L, Fantinato M, Hung PCK (2015) Privacy requirements in toy computing. In: Hung PCK (ed) Mobile services for toy computing. Springer, NY, pp 141–173

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Hung PCK, Fantinato M, Rafferty L (2016) A study of privacy requirements for smart toys. In: 20th Pacif Asia Conference on Information Systems pp. 1–7

  14. McReynolds E, Hubbard S, Lau T, Saraf A, Cakmak M, Roesner F (2017) Toys that listen: A study of parents, children, and internet-connected toys. In: 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems pp. 5197–5207

  15. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q Manag Inf Syst 28(1):75–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Albuquerque OP, Fantinato M, Eler MM, Peres S, M, Hung PCK (2020) A study of parental control requirements for smart toys. In: IEEE International conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics pp. 1–6

  17. Albuquerque OP, Fantinato M, Peres SM, Iqbal F, Hung PCK (2021) A conceptual model for a parental control tool for smart toys. In: 23rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence pp. 1–10

  18. Hung PCK (ed) (2015) Mobile services for toy computing. Springer, NY

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ling L, Yelland N, Hatzigianni M, Dickson-Deane C (2021) Toward a conceptualization of the internet of toys. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood. 46(3):249–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Allana S, Chawla S (2021) ChildShield: a rating system for assessing privacy and security of internet of toys. Telemat Inf 56:101477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. CogniToys.: CogniToys: Internet-connected Smart Toys that Learn and Grow. Available from: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cognitoys/cognitoys-internet-connected-smart-toys-that-learn

  22. Hung PCK, Rafferty L, Fantinato M (2019) Toy Computing. In: Lee N, editor. Encyclopedia of Computer Graphics and Games. Springer

  23. Disterer G, Kleiner C (2013) BYOD—Bring your own device. Proced Technol. 9:43–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stallings W, Brown L (2008) Computer security: principles and practice, global edition, 4th edn. Pearson, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  25. Liu L, Özsu MT (eds) (2009) Encyclopedia of database systems, vol 6. Springer, Boston, MA

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Hertzel DA (2000) Don’t talk to strangers: an analysis of government and industry efforts to protect a child’s privacy online. Fed Commun Law J 52(2):429–451

    Google Scholar 

  27. Martín-Ruíz ML, Fernández-Aller C, Portillo E, Malagón J, del Barrio C (2018) Developing a system for processing health data of children using digitalized toys: ethical and privacy concerns for the internet of things paradigm. Sci Eng Ethics 24(4):1057–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hung PCK, Fantinato M, Roa J (2019) Children privacy protection. In: Lee N (ed) Encyclopedia of computer graphics and games. Springer

  29. Boyd D, Hargittai E, Schultz J, Palfrey J (2011) Why parents help their children lie to Facebook about age: unintended consequences of the ‘Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act’. First Monday, Chicago, IL

  30. Liccardi I, Bulger M, Abelson H, Weitzner DJ, Mackay WE (2014) Can apps play by the COPPA Rules? In: 12th Annual International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust pp. 1–9

  31. Fuertes W, Quimbiulco K, Galarraga F, Garcia-Dorado JL (2015) On the development of advanced parental control tools. In: 1st International Conference on Software Security and Assurance pp. 1–6

  32. Bertino E, Ferrari E, Perego A (2010) A gramework for web content filtering. World Wide Web 13(3):215–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. More SV, Chatterjee M (2017) Improved multiparty access control mechanism for OSN. In: International Conference on Computing, Communication, Control and Automation pp. 1–6

  34. Tennakoon H, Saridakis G, Mohammed A (2018) Child online safety and parental intervention: a study of Sri Lankan internet users. IT People 31(3):770–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Salgado AL, Dias FS, Mattos JPR, De Mattos Fortes RP, Hung PCK (2019) Smart toys and children’s privacy: usable privacy policy insights from a card sorting experiment. In: 37th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication

  36. Salgado AL, de Mattos Fortes RP, de Oliveira RR, Freire AP (2020) Usability heuristics on parental privacy controls for smart toys: from an exploratory map to a confirmatory research. Electron Commer Res Appl 42:100984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Moini C (2017) Protecting privacy in the era of smart toys: does Hello Barbie have a duty to report. Cathol Univ J Law Technol 25(2):281–318

    Google Scholar 

  38. Carvalho LG, Eler MM (2017) Security requirements for smart toys. In: 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems pp. 144–154

  39. Carvalho LG, Eler MM (2018) Security requirements and tests for smart toys. In: 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems pp. 291–312

  40. Carvalho LG, Eler MM (2018) Security tests for smart toys. In: 20th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems pp. 111–120

  41. Carvalho LG, Fantinato M, Eler MM (2020) Security requirements identification and prioritization for smart toys. Electron Commer Res Appl 41:100972.1-100972.13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Canada.: PIPEDA— Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Minister of Justice, Canada. Available from: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/P-8.6.pdf

  43. EU.: GDPR – General Data Protection Regulation. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Available from: https://eugdpr.org

  44. Fantinato M, Hung PCK, Jiang Y, Roa J, Villarreal P, Melaisi M et al (2017) NYA survey on purchase intention of Hello Barbie in Brazil and Argentina. In: Tang JKT, Hung PCK (eds) Comput smart toys. Springer, NY, pp 21–34

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Fantinato M, Hung PCK, Jiang Y, Roa J, Villarreal P, Melaisi M et al (2018) A preliminary study of Hello Barbie in Brazil and Argentina. Sustain Cities Soc 40:83–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Holloway D, Green L (2016) The internet of toys. Commun Res Practice 2(4):506–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Chang V, Li Z, Ramachandran M (2019) A review on ethical issues for smart connected toys in the context of big data. In: 4th International Conference on Complexity, Future Information Systems and Risk pp. 149–156

  48. Fantinato M, Albuquerque OP, Kelner J, Albuquerque AP, Yankson B (2020) A literature survey on smart toy-related children’s privacy risks. In: 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences pp. 1479–1488

  49. Krasner GE, Pope ST (1988) A cookbook for using the model-view controller user interface paradigm in smalltalk-80. J Object Oriented Program 1(3):26–49

    Google Scholar 

  50. Pressman R, Maxim B (2014) Software engineering: a practitioner’s approach, 8th edn. McGraw-Hill Science, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  51. statcounter Globalstats.: Mobile operating system market share Worldwide. Acesso em: 02/04/2020. Available from: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide

  52. Vollmer N.: Article 12 EU general data protection regulation (EU-GDPR). Privacy/Privazy according to plan. Available from: http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-12-transparent-information-communic_ation-and-modalities-for-the-exercise-of-the-rights-of-the-data-subject-_GDPR.htm

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001. The authors of this work would like to thank the Center for Artificial Intelligence (C4AI-USP) and the support from the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP grant \#2019/07665-4) and from the IBM Corporation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, 03828-000, Brazil

    Otavio de Paula Albuquerque, Marcelo Fantinato & Sarajane Marques Peres

  2. Faculty of Business and IT, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Ontario, L1G 0C5, Canada

    Patrick C. K. Hung

  3. College of Technological Innovation, Zayed University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

    Farkhund Iqbal

  4. User Experience Design, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3C5, Canada

    Umair Rehman

  5. Department of Management Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada

    Muhammad Umair Shah

Authors
  1. Otavio de Paula Albuquerque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcelo Fantinato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrick C. K. Hung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sarajane Marques Peres
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Farkhund Iqbal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Umair Rehman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Muhammad Umair Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Otavio de Paula Albuquerque or Marcelo Fantinato.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Paula Albuquerque, O., Fantinato, M., Hung, P.C.K. et al. Recommendations for a smart toy parental control tool. J Supercomput 78, 11156–11194 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-022-04319-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-022-04319-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation