Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When privacy and utility are in harmony: towards better design of presence technologies

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Presence systems are valuable in supporting workplace communication and collaboration. These systems are effective, however, only if they are widely adopted and candidly used. User perceptions of the utility of the information being shared and their comfort in sharing such information strongly impact both adoption and use. This paper describes the results of a survey of user preferences regarding comfort with and utility of sharing presence data in the workplace; the effects of sampling frequency, fidelity, and aggregation; and design implications of these results. We present new results that extend some past findings and challenge others. We contribute new insights that inform the design of workplace presence technologies to increase both the utility and adoption of these systems.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Acquisti A, John L, Loewenstein G (2009) What is privacy worth? In: Proceedings of WISE’09

  2. Barkhuus L (2004) Privacy in location‐based services, concern vs. coolness, in workshop on location system privacy and control. In: Mobile HCI’04

  3. Begole J, Tang JC, Smith R, Yankelovich N (2002) Work rhythms: analyzing visualizations of awareness histories of distributed groups. CSCW 334–343

  4. Biehl J et al (2010) MyUnity: building awareness and fostering community in the workplace. FXPAL-TR-09-21 and arXiv:1006.5024

  5. Brush AJB, Krumm J, Scott J (2010) Exploring end user preferences for location obfuscation, location-based services, and the value of location. In: Ubicomp’10, pp 95–104

  6. Chansanchai A (2011) Many sharing more on Facebook than they know. NBC Today: 11 April 2011. http://bit.ly/dPYACP. Accessed 13 Apr 2011

  7. Chawla S et al (2005) Toward privacy in public databases. Theory Cryptogr 363–385

  8. Consolvo S et al (2005) Location disclosure to social relations: why, when, & what people want to share. In: CHI’05, pp 81–90

  9. Cvrcek D, Kumpost M, Matyas V, Danezis G (2006) A study on the value of location privacy. In: WPES’06, pp 109–118

  10. Danezis G, Lewis S, Anderson R (2005) How much is location privacy worth? In: WEIS 2005

  11. Davis S, Gutwin C (2005) Using relationship to control disclosure in awareness servers. In: Proceedings of graphics interface 2005 (GI’05), pp 145–152

  12. Google Buzz settlement would give Google new privacy rules. The Los Angeles Times: 2 April 2011. http://lat.ms/exOfGn. Accessed 13 Apr 2011

  13. Iachello G, Hong J (2007) End-user privacy in human computer interaction. Found Trends Hum Comput Interact 1(1):1–137

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Irwin K, Yu T, Winsborough WH (2006) On the modeling and analysis of obligations. In: CCS’06

  15. Kaasinen E (2003) User needs for location-aware mobile services. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 7(1):70–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Khalil A, Connelly K (2006) Context-aware telephony: privacy preferences and sharing patterns. In: CSCW’06, pp 469–478

  17. Lederer S, Mankoff J, Dey AK (2003) Who wants to know what when? privacy preference determinants in ubiquitous computing. In: CHI’03, pp 724–725

  18. Lin J, Xiang G, Hong JI, Sadeh N (2010) Modeling people’s place naming preferences in location sharing. In: Ubicomp’10, pp 75–84

  19. Patil S, Kobsa A (2009) Privacy considerations in awareness systems: designing with privacy in mind. Aware Syst Human Comput Interact Ser Part 2:187–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Patil S, Kobsa A (2010) Enhancing privacy management support in instant messaging. Interact Comput 22(3):206–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Park J, Sandhu RS (2004) The UCONABC usage control model. ACM Trans Inf Syst Secur 7(1):128–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ravichandran R, Benisch M, Kelley PG, Sadeh NM (2009) Capturing social networking privacy preferences. In: PETS’09, pp 1–18

  23. Rieffel EG, Biehl J, van Melle W, Lee AJ (2011) Secured histories for presence systems. SECOTS 2011

  24. Romero N, McEwan G, Greenberg S (2007) A field study of community bar: (Mis)-matches between theory and practice. In: GROUP’07, pp 89–98

  25. Sadeh N et al (2009) Understanding and capturing people’s privacy policies in a mobile social networking application. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 13(6):401–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schlegel R, Kapadia A, Lee AJ (2011) Eyeing your exposure: quantifying and controlling information sharing for improved privacy. In: SOUPS’11

  27. Shi E et al. (2011) Privacy-preserving aggregation of time-series data. NDSS 2011

  28. Szostek AM, Karapanos E, Eggen B, Holenderski M (2008) Understanding the implications of social translucence for systems supporting communication at work. In: CSCW’08, pp 649–658

  29. Tang KP et al. (2010) Rethinking location sharing: exploring the implications of social-driven vs. purpose-driven location sharing. In: Ubicomp’10, pp 85–94

  30. Toch E et al. (2010) Empirical models of privacy in location sharing. In: Ubicomp’10, pp 129–138

  31. Wiese J, Biehl J, Turner T, van Melle W, Girgensohn A (2011) Beyond ‘yesterday’s tomorrow’: towards the design of awareness technologies for the contemporary worker. In: MobileHCI’11, pp 455–464

  32. Wobbrock JO, Findlater L, Gergle D, Higgins JJ (2011) The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only ANOVA procedures. CHI 2011:143–146

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FX Palo Alto Laboratory, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA

    Jacob T. Biehl & Eleanor G. Rieffel

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Adam J. Lee

Authors
  1. Jacob T. Biehl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eleanor G. Rieffel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adam J. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacob T. Biehl.

Additional information

Adam J. Lee was supported in part by National Science Foundation award no. CNS-1017229.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 72 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Biehl, J.T., Rieffel, E.G. & Lee, A.J. When privacy and utility are in harmony: towards better design of presence technologies. Pers Ubiquit Comput 17, 503–518 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-012-0504-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-012-0504-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation