research-article

Shared Privacy Concerns of the Visually Impaired and Sighted Bystanders with Camera-Based Assistive Technologies

Authors:

Manohar SwaminathanAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS), Volume 15, Issue 2

Article No.: 11, Pages 1 - 33

https://doi.org/10.1145/3506857

Published: 19 May 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Camera-based assistive technologies can provide people with visual impairments (PVIs) visually derived information about people in their vicinity. Furthermore, the advent of smart glasses offers the possibility of not only analyzing visual information in front of the wearers but also behind them through an extended field of view. Although such ‘visually available’ information can enhance one’s social interactions, the privacy and ethical implications for automated judgments about bystanders, especially from the perspective of PVIs, remains underexplored. To study the concerns of both bystanders and PVIs with such technologies, we conducted two online surveys with visually impaired participants as wearers (N = 128) and sighted participants as bystanders (N = 136). Although PVIs found some types of information to be improper or impolite (such as someone’s weight), our overarching finding is the shared ethical concern between PVIs and bystanders related to the fallibility of AI, in which bystanders can be misrepresented (algorithmically) by the devices. These mischaracterizations can range from occasional unexpected algorithmic errors (e.g., errors in facial recognition) to the questionable use of AI for determining subjective social constructs (such as gender). Based on our findings, we discuss the design implications and directions for future work in the development of camera-based assistive technologies while mitigating the ethical concerns of PVIs and bystanders.

References

[1]

2014. KNFB reader. Retrieved March 6, 2022 from https://knfbreader.com. (2014).

[2]

2015. Aira. Retrieved March 6, 2022 from https://aira.io. (2015).

[3]

2015. Be My Eyes. Retrieved March 6, 2022 from www.bemyeyes.com. (2015).

[4]

2015. Orcam. Retrieved March 6, 2022 from www.orcam.com. (2015).

[5]

2015. ‘Racist’ tap will only give out soap to people with white skin thanks to ‘discriminative’ sensor. Retrieved March 6, 2022 from https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/racist-tap-only-give-out-6375873. (2015).

[6]

2016. Blind Square. Retrieved March 6, 2022 from https://www.blindsquare.com. (2016).

[7]

2017. Color Teller. Retrieved March 6, 2022 from www.brytech.com/colorteller. (2017).

[8]

2017. eSight. Retrieved March 6, 2022 from https://esighteyewear.com. (2017).

[9]

2017. Seeing AI. Retrieved March 6, 2022 from www.microsoft.com/en-us/ai/seeing-ai. (2017).

[10]

2019. American Council of the Blind. Retrieved March 6, 2022 from www.acb.org. (2019).

[11]

2019. National Federation of the Blind. Retrieved March 6, 2022 from www.nfb.org. (2019).

[12]

2019. Natural field of view. Retrieved March 6, 2022 from https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/28138/what-is-the-field-of-view-for-the-human-eyes. (2019).

[13]

2019. One Month, 500,000 Face Scans: How China Is Using A.I. to Profile a Minority. Retrieved March 6, 2022 from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/technology/china-surveillance-artificial-intelligence-racial-profiling.html. (2019).

[14]

2020. ‘The Computer Got It Wrong’: How Facial Recognition Led to False Arrest of Black Man. Retrieved March 6, 2022 from https://www.npr.org/2020/06/24/882683463/. (2020).

[15]

2021. Automatic gender recognition tech is dangerous, say campaigners: it’s time to ban it. Retrieved March 6, 2022 from https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/14/22381370/. (2021).

[16]

2021. Ban Automated Recognition of Gender and Sexual Orientation. Retrieved March 6, 2022 from https://campaigns.allout.org/ban-AGSR. (2021).

[17]

2021. reCAPTCHA. Retrieved March 6, 2022 from https://developers.google.com/recaptcha/docs/v3. (2021).

[18]

Subeida Ahmed, Harshadha Balasubramanian, Simone Stumpf, Cecily Morrison, Abigail Sellen, and Martin Grayson. 2020. Investigating the intelligibility of a computer vision system for blind users. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM New York, NY, USA 419–429.

Digital Library

[19]

Tousif Ahmed, Roberto Hoyle, Kay Connelly, David Crandall, and Apu Kapadia. 2015. Privacy concerns and behaviors of people with visual impairments. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3523–3532.

Digital Library

[20]

Tousif Ahmed, Roberto Hoyle, Patrick Shaffer, Kay Connelly, David Crandall, and Apu Kapadia. 2017. Understanding physical safety, security, and privacy concerns of people with visual impairments. IEEE Internet Computing 21, 3 (2017), 56–63.

[21]

Tousif Ahmed, Apu Kapadia, Venkatesh Potluri, and Manohar Swaminathan. 2018. Up to a limit?: Privacy concerns of bystanders and their willingness to share additional information with visually impaired users of assistive technologies. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 2, 3 (2018), 89.

Digital Library

[22]

Tousif Ahmed, Patrick Shaffer, Kay Connelly, David Crandall, and Apu Kapadia. 2016. Addressing physical safety, security, and privacy for people with visual impairments. In 12th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. USENIX 341–354.

[23]

Taslima Akter. 2020. Privacy considerations of the visually impaired with camera based assistive tools. In Conference Companion Publication of the 2020 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 69–74.

Digital Library

[24]

Taslima Akter, Tousif Ahmed, Apu Kapadia, and Swami Manohar Swaminathan. 2020. Privacy considerations of the visually impaired with camera based assistive technologies: Misrepresentation, impropriety, and fairness. In The 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–14.

Digital Library

[25]

Taslima Akter, Bryan Dosono, Tousif Ahmed, Apu Kapadia, and Bryan Semaan. 2020. “I am uncomfortable sharing what I can’t see”: Privacy concerns of the visually impaired with camera based assistive applications. In 29th USENIX Security Symposium (2020), 1929–1948.

[26]

Asm Iftekhar Anam, Shahinur Alam, and Mohammed Yeasin. 2014. Expression: A dyadic conversation aid using Google Glass for people who are blind or visually impaired. In 6th International Conference on Mobile Computing, Applications and Services. IEEE, 57–64.

[27]

Mike Ananny and Kate Crawford. 2018. Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society 20, 3 (2018), 973–989.

[28]

Nazanin Andalibi and Justin Buss. 2020. The human in emotion recognition on social media: Attitudes, outcomes, risks. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16.

Digital Library

[29]

Denise Anthony, Celeste Campos-Castillo, and Christine Horne. 2017. Toward a sociology of privacy. Annual Review of Sociology 43, 1 (2017), 249–269.

[30]

Florian Arendt, Mario Haim, and Sebastian Scherr. 2020. Investigating Google’s suicide-prevention efforts in celebrity suicides using agent-based testing: A cross-national study in four European countries. Social Science & Medicine 262 (2020), 112692.

[31]

Alejandro Barredo Arrieta, Natalia Díaz-Rodríguez, Javier Del Ser, Adrien Bennetot, Siham Tabik, Alberto Barbado, Salvador García, Sergio Gil-López, Daniel Molina, Richard Benjamins, et al. 2020. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information Fusion 58 (2020), 82–115.

Digital Library

[32]

Ian Barnett and John Torous. 2019. Ethics, transparency, and public health at the intersection of innovation and Facebook’s suicide prevention efforts. 170, 8 (2019), 565–566.

[33]

Steven Bellman, Eric J. Johnson, Stephen J. Kobrin, and Gerald L. Lohse. 2004. International differences in information privacy concerns: A global survey of consumers. The Information Society 20, 5 (2004), 313–324.

[34]

Cynthia L. Bennett, Cole Gleason, Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, Jeffrey P. Bigham, Anhong Guo, and Alexandra To. 2021. “It’s Complicated”: Negotiating accessibility and (mis) representation in image descriptions of race, gender, and disability. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19.

Digital Library

[35]

Alan L. Berman and Gregory Carter. 2020. Technological advances and the future of suicide prevention: Ethical, legal, and empirical challenges. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 50, 3 (2020), 643–651.

[36]

Jeffrey P. Bigham, Anna C. Cavender, Jeremy T. Brudvik, Jacob O. Wobbrock, and Richard E. Ladner. 2007. WebinSitu: A comparative analysis of blind and sighted browsing behavior. In Proceedings of the 9th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 51–58.

Digital Library

[37]

Jeffrey P. Bigham, Irene Lin, and Saiph Savage. 2017. The effects of “not knowing what you don’t know” on web accessibility for blind web users. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 101–109.

Digital Library

[38]

Jacob Bor, Atheendar S. Venkataramani, David R. Williams, and Alexander C. Tsai. 2018. Police killings and their spillover effects on the mental health of black Americans: A population-based, quasi-experimental study. The Lancet 392, 10144 (2018), 302–310.

[39]

Michael Bosnjak and Tracy L. Tuten. 2003. Prepaid and promised incentives in web surveys: An experiment. Social Science Computer Review 21, 2 (2003), 208–217.

Digital Library

[40]

Stacy M. Branham, Ali Abdolrahmani, William Easley, Morgan Scheuerman, Erick Ronquillo, and Amy Hurst. 2017. “Is someone there? Do they have a gun”: How visual information about others can improve personal safety management for blind individuals. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 260–269.

Digital Library

[41]

Erin Buehler, Stacy Branham, Abdullah Ali, Jeremy J. Chang, Megan Kelly Hofmann, Amy Hurst, and Shaun K. Kane. 2015. Sharing is caring: Assistive technology designs on Thingiverse. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 525–534.

Digital Library

[42]

Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. PMLR, 77–91.

[43]

Robyn Caplan, Joan Donovan, Lauren Hanson, and Jeanna Matthews. 2018. Algorithmic accountability: A primer. Data & Society (2018).

[44]

Stevie Chancellor, Michael L. Birnbaum, Eric D. Caine, Vincent M. B. Silenzio, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2019. A taxonomy of ethical tensions in inferring mental health states from social media. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 79–88.

Digital Library

[45]

Gary Charness, Uri Gneezy, and Michael A. Kuhn. 2012. Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 81, 1 (2012), 1–8.

[46]

Shonal Chaudhry and Rohitash Chandra. 2015. Design of a mobile face recognition system for visually impaired persons. arXiv:1502.00756.

[47]

Eun Kyoung Choe, Jaeyeon Jung, Bongshin Lee, and Kristie Fisher. 2013. Nudging people away from privacy-invasive mobile apps through visual framing. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 74–91.

[48]

Douglas P. Crowne and David Marlowe. 1960. A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.Journal of Consulting Psychology 24, 4 (1960), 349.

[49]

Zhengyan Dai and Erin Brady. 2019. Exploring invisible disability disclosure in the sharing economy. In The 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 624–626.

Digital Library

[50]

Tamara Denning, Zakariya Dehlawi, and Tadayoshi Kohno. 2014. In situ with bystanders of augmented reality glasses: Perspectives on recording and privacy-mediating technologies. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2377–2386.

Digital Library

[51]

Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2016. Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Communications of the ACM 59, 2 (2016), 56–62.

Digital Library

[52]

Berkeley J. Dietvorst, Joseph P. Simmons, and Cade Massey. 2015. Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144, 1 (2015), 114.

[53]

Christel Dijkstra, Emiel Krahmer, and Marc Swerts. 2006. Manipulating uncertainty: The contribution of different audiovisual prosodic cues to the perception of confidence. In Proceedings of the Speech Prosody Conference.

[54]

Alexander Fiannaca, Ilias Apostolopoulous, and Eelke Folmer. 2014. Headlock: A wearable navigation aid that helps blind cane users traverse large open spaces. In Proceedings of the 16th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility. 19–26.

Digital Library

[55]

Leah Findlater, Steven Goodman, Yuhang Zhao, Shiri Azenkot, and Margot Hanley. 2019. Fairness issues in AI systems that augment sensory abilities. arXiv:1908.07333.

[56]

Robert J. Fisher. 1993. Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research 20, 2 (1993), 303–315.

[57]

Lakshmi Gade, Sreekar Krishna, and Sethuraman Panchanathan. 2009. Person localization using a wearable camera towards enhancing social interactions for individuals with visual impairment. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGMM International Workshop on Media Studies and Implementations that Help Improving Access to Disabled Users. ACM, 53–62.

Digital Library

[58]

Vaibhav Garg, L. Jean Camp, Lesa Lorenzen-Huber, Kalpana Shankar, and Kay Connelly. 2014. Privacy concerns in assisted living technologies. Annals of Telecommunications 69, 1–2 (2014), 75–88.

[59]

Jun Ge. 2016. Observers’ privacy concerns about wearable cameras. Electronic Theses and Dissertations for Graduate School, Penn State.

[60]

Tarleton Gillespie. 2014. The relevance of algorithms. Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society 167, 2014 (2014), 167.

[61]

Leilani H. Gilpin, David Bau, Ben Z. Yuan, Ayesha Bajwa, Michael Specter, and Lalana Kagal. 2018. Explaining explanations: An overview of interpretability of machine learning. In IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA’18). IEEE, 80–89.

[62]

Erving Goffman. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books, New York.

[63]

Jorge Goncalves, Vassilis Kostakos, Simo Hosio, Evangelos Karapanos, and Olga Lyra. 2013. IncluCity: Using contextual cues to raise awareness on environmental accessibility. In Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–8.

Digital Library

[64]

Martin Grayson, Anja Thieme, Rita Marques, Daniela Massiceti, Ed Cutrell, and Cecily Morrison. 2020. A dynamic AI system for extending the capabilities of blind people. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–4.

Digital Library

[65]

David Gunning. 2017. Explainable artificial intelligence (xai). Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), nd Web 2, 2 (2017).

[66]

Mario Haim, Florian Arendt, and Sebastian Scherr. 2017. Abyss or shelter? On the relevance of web search engines’ search results when people google for suicide. Health Communication 32, 2 (2017), 253–258.

[67]

Foad Hamidi, Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, and Stacy M. Branham. 2018. Gender recognition or gender reductionism? The social implications of embedded gender recognition systems. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.

Digital Library

[68]

David Hankerson, Andrea R. Marshall, Jennifer Booker, Houda El Mimouni, Imani Walker, and Jennifer A. Rode. 2016. Does technology have race?. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 473–486.

Digital Library

[69]

Rakibul Hasan, Yifang Li, Eman Hassan, Kelly Caine, David J. Crandall, Roberto Hoyle, and Apu Kapadia. 2019. Can privacy be satisfying? On improving viewer satisfaction for privacy-enhanced photos using aesthetic transforms. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.

Digital Library

[70]

Jordan Hayes, Smirity Kaushik, Charlotte Emily Price, and Yang Wang. 2019. Cooperative privacy and security: Learning from people with visual impairments and their allies. In 15th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. USENIX.

[71]

Stefan Hirschauer. 2005. On doing being a stranger: The practical constitution of civil inattention. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 35, 1 (2005), 41–67.

[72]

Mariea Grubbs Hoy and George Milne. 2010. Gender differences in privacy-related measures for young adult Facebook users. Journal of Interactive Advertising 10, 2 (2010), 28–45.

[73]

Roberto Hoyle, Srijita Das, Apu Kapadia, Adam J. Lee, and Kami Vaniea. 2017. Viewing the viewers: Publishers’ desires and viewers’ privacy concerns in social networks. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 555–566.

Digital Library

[74]

Roberto Hoyle, Robert Templeman, Steven Armes, Denise Anthony, David Crandall, and Apu Kapadia. 2014. Privacy behaviors of lifeloggers using wearable cameras. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. ACM, 571–582.

Digital Library

[75]

Amy Hurst, Jennifer Mankoff, and Scott E. Hudson. 2008. Understanding pointing problems in real world computing environments. In Proceedings of the 10th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 43–50.

Digital Library

[76]

Ruogu Kang, Stephanie Brown, Laura Dabbish, and Sara Kiesler. 2014. Privacy attitudes of Mechanical Turk workers and the US public. In 10th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security ( \(\lbrace\) SOUPS \(\rbrace\) 2014). 37–49.

[77]

Os Keyes. 2018. The misgendering machines: Trans/HCI implications of automatic gender recognition. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1–22.

Digital Library

[78]

R. M. Khan and M. A. Khan. 2007. Academic sojourners, culture shock and intercultural adaptation: A trend analysis. Studies About Languages 10 (2007), 38–46.

[79]

Mohammad Kianpisheh, Franklin Mingzhe Li, and Khai N. Truong. 2019. Face recognition assistant for people with visual impairments. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 3, 3 (2019), 90.

Digital Library

[80]

Mark L. Knapp, Judith A. Hall, and Terrence G. Horgan. 2013. Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction. Cengage Learning.

[81]

Marion Koelle, Matthias Kranz, and Andreas Möller. 2015. Don’t look at me that way!: Understanding user attitudes towards data glasses usage. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. ACM, 362–372.

Digital Library

[82]

K. M. Kramer, D. S. Hedin, and D. J. Rolkosky. 2010. Smartphone based face recognition tool for the blind. In 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology. IEEE, 4538–4541.

[83]

Sreekar Krishna, Dirk Colbry, John Black, Vineeth Balasubramanian, and Sethuraman Panchanathan. 2008. A systematic requirements analysis and development of an assistive device to enhance the social interaction of people who are blind or visually impaired. In Workshop on Computer Vision Applications for the Visually Impaired. James Coughlan and Roberto Manduchi, eds. Marseille, France. Springer, inria-00325432.

[84]

Sreekar Krishna, Greg Little, John Black, and Sethuraman Panchanathan. 2005. A wearable face recognition system for individuals with visual impairments. In Proceedings of the 7th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, 106–113.

Digital Library

[85]

Ivar Krumpal. 2013. Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality & Quantity 47, 4 (2013), 2025–2047.

[86]

Kyungjun Lee, Daisuke Sato, Saki Asakawa, Hernisa Kacorri, and Chieko Asakawa. 2020. Pedestrian detection with wearable cameras for the blind: A two-way perspective. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.

Digital Library

[87]

Linda Lee, J. Lee, Serge Egelman, and David Wagner. 2016. Information disclosure concerns in the age of wearable computing. In NDSS Workshop on Usable Security (USEC), Vol. 1. The Internet Society, 1–10.

[88]

Min Kyung Lee. 2018. Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data & Society 5, 1 (2018), 2053951718756684.

[89]

Tae Ho Lee and Lois A. Boynton. 2017. Conceptualizing transparency: Propositions for the integration of situational factors and stakeholders’ perspectives. Public Relations Inquiry 6, 3 (2017), 233–251.

[90]

Zoe Lee and Lucy Woodliffe. 2010. Donor misreporting: Conceptualizing social desirability bias in giving surveys. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 21, 4 (2010), 569–587.

[91]

Yao Li, Alfred Kobsa, Bart P. Knijnenburg, M.-H. Carolyn Nguyen, et al. 2017. Cross-cultural privacy prediction.Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technology 2017, 2 (2017), 113–132.

[92]

Lesa Lorenzen-Huber, Mary Boutain, L. Jean Camp, Kalpana Shankar, and Kay H. Connelly. 2011. Privacy, technology, and aging: A proposed framework. Ageing International 36, 2 (2011), 232–252.

[93]

Haley MacLeod, Cynthia L. Bennett, Meredith Ringel Morris, and Edward Cutrell. 2017. Understanding blind people’s experiences with computer-generated captions of social media images. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 5988–5999.

Digital Library

[94]

Reeti Mathur and Erin Brady. 2018. Mixed-ability collaboration for accessible photo sharing. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 370–372.

Digital Library

[95]

Róisín McNaney, John Vines, Daniel Roggen, Madeline Balaam, Pengfei Zhang, Ivan Poliakov, and Patrick Olivier. 2014. Exploring the acceptability of Google Glass as an everyday assistive device for people with Parkinson’s. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2551–2554.

Digital Library

[96]

Judith Droitcour Miller. 1985. The nominative technique: A new method of estimating heroin prevalence.NIDA Research Monograph (1985), 104.

[97]

Meredith Whittaker, Meryl Alper, Cynthia L. Bennett, Sara Hendren, Liz Kaziunas, Mara Mills, Meredith Ringel Morris, Joy Rankin, Emily Rogers, Marcel Salas, and others. 2019. Disability, bias, and AI. AI Now Institute.

[98]

Meredith Ringel Morris, Jazette Johnson, Cynthia L. Bennett, and Edward Cutrell. 2018. Rich representations of visual content for screen reader users. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–11.

Digital Library

[99]

Anton J. Nederhof. 1985. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology 15, 3 (1985), 263–280.

[100]

David H. Nguyen, Aurora Bedford, Alexander Gerard Bretana, and Gillian R. Hayes. 2011. Situating the concern for information privacy through an empirical study of responses to video recording. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3207–3216.

Digital Library

[101]

David H. Nguyen, Gabriela Marcu, Gillian R. Hayes, Khai N. Truong, James Scott, Marc Langheinrich, and Christof Roduner. 2009. Encountering SenseCam: Personal recording technologies in everyday life. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. ACM, 165–174.

Digital Library

[102]

Cathy O’Neil. 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Crown. Broadway Books.

[103]

Sethuraman Panchanathan, John Black, Mike Rush, and Vivek Iyer. 2003. iCare—A user centric approach to the development of assistive devices for the blind and visually impaired. In Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence. IEEE, 641–648.

[104]

Rohan Patel, Pedro Breton, Catherine M. Baker, Yasmine N. El-Glaly, and Kristen Shinohara. 2020. Why software is not accessible: Technology professionals’ perspectives and challenges. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–9.

Digital Library

[105]

Sidney Perkowitz. 2021. The bias in the machine: Facial recognition technology and racial disparities. MIT Case Studies in Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing (2021).

[106]

Helen Petrie, Fraser Hamilton, Neil King, and Pete Pavan. 2006. Remote usability evaluations with disabled people. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1133–1141.

Digital Library

[107]

Halley Profita, Reem Albaghli, Leah Findlater, Paul Jaeger, and Shaun K. Kane. 2016. The AT effect: How disability affects the perceived social acceptability of head-mounted display use. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 4884–4895.

Digital Library

[108]

Shi Qiu, Siti Aisyah Anas, Hirotaka Osawa, Matthias Rauterberg, and Jun Hu. 2016. E-Gaze glasses: Simulating natural gazes for blind people. In Proceedings of the TEI: 10th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM, 563–569.

Digital Library

[109]

Shi Qiu, Jun Hu, and Matthias Rauterberg. 2015. Nonverbal signals for face-to-face communication between the blind and the sighted. In Proceedings of International Conference on Enabling Access for Persons with Visual Impairment. 157–165.

[110]

Elissa M. Redmiles, Sean Kross, and Michelle L. Mazurek. 2019. How well do my results generalize? Comparing security and privacy survey results from MTurk, web, and telephone samples. In 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 1326–1343.

[111]

Derek Reilly, David Dearman, Vicki Ha, Ian Smith, and Kori Inkpen. 2006. “Need to know”: Examining information need in location discourse. In International Conference on Pervasive Computing. Springer, 33–49.

Digital Library

[112]

Kat Roemmich and Nazanin Andalibi. 2021. Data subjects’ conceptualizations of and attitudes toward automatic emotion recognition-enabled wellbeing interventions on social media. In Proceedings of ACM in Human Computer Interaction (PACM). ACM New York, NY, USA, 1–34.

Digital Library

[113]

Joel Ross, Lilly Irani, M. Six Silberman, Andrew Zaldivar, and Bill Tomlinson. 2010. Who are the crowdworkers? Shifting demographics in Mechanical Turk. In CHI’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2863–2872.

Digital Library

[114]

María Ruz, Anna Moser, and Kristin Webster. 2011. Social expectations bias decision-making in uncertain inter-personal situations. PLoS One 6, 2 (2011), e15762.

[115]

M. Saquib Sarfraz, Angela Constantinescu, Melanie Zuzej, and Rainer Stiefelhagen. 2017. A multimodal assistive system for helping visually impaired in social interactions. Informatik-Spektrum 40, 6 (2017), 540–545.

[116]

Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, Jacob M. Paul, and Jed R Brubaker. 2019. How computers see gender: An evaluation of gender classification in commercial facial analysis services. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–33.

Digital Library

[117]

Kim Bartel Sheehan. 1999. An investigation of gender differences in on-line privacy concerns and resultant behaviors. Journal of Interactive Marketing 13, 4 (1999), 24–38.

[118]

Donghee Shin and Yong Jin Park. 2019. Role of fairness, accountability, and transparency in algorithmic affordance. Computers in Human Behavior 98 (2019), 277–284.

Digital Library

[119]

Kristen Shinohara and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2011. In the shadow of misperception: Assistive technology use and social interactions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 705–714.

Digital Library

[120]

Samarth Singhal, Carman Neustaedter, Thecla Schiphorst, Anthony Tang, Abhisekh Patra, and Rui Pan. 2016. You are being watched: Bystanders’ perspective on the use of camera devices in public spaces. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3197–3203.

Digital Library

[121]

Lee Stearns and Anja Thieme. 2018. Automated person detection in dynamic scenes to assist people with vision impairments: An initial investigation. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 391–394.

Digital Library

[122]

Mohammad Iftekhar Tanveer and Mohammed Ehsan Hoque. 2014. A Google Glass app to help the blind in small talk. In Proceedings of the 16th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility. ACM, 297–298.

Digital Library

[123]

Marilyn D. Thomas, Nicholas P. Jewell, and Amani M. Allen. 2021. Black and unarmed: Statistical interaction between age, perceived mental illness, and geographic region among males fatally shot by police using case-only design. Annals of Epidemiology 53 (2021), 42–49.

[124]

Roger Tourangeau and Ting Yan. 2007. Sensitive questions in surveys.Psychological Bulletin 133, 5 (2007), 859.

[125]

Shari Trewin. 2018. AI fairness for people with disabilities: Point of view. arXiv:1811.10670.

[126]

Yang Wang, Gregory Norice, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2011. Who is concerned about what? A study of American, Chinese and Indian users’ privacy concerns on social network sites. In International Conference on Trust and Trustworthy Computing. Springer, 146–153.

Digital Library

[127]

W. R. Wiener and G. Lawson. 1997. Audition for the traveler who is visually impaired. Foundations of Orientation and Mobility 2 (1997), 104–169.

[128]

Qianli Xu, Michal Mukawa, Liyuan Li, Joo Hwee Lim, Cheston Tan, Shue Ching Chia, Tian Gan, and Bappaditya Mandal. 2015. Exploring users’ attitudes towards social interaction assistance on Google Glass. In Proceedings of the 6th Augmented Human International Conference. 9–12.

Digital Library

[129]

Chris Yoon, Ryan Louie, Jeremy Ryan, MinhKhang Vu, Hyegi Bang, William Derksen, and Paul Ruvolo. 2019. Leveraging augmented reality to create apps for people with visual disabilities: A case study in indoor navigation. In The 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 210–221.

Digital Library

[130]

Abbas Zabihzadeh, Mohammad Ali Mazaheri, Javad Hatami, Mohammad Reza Nikfarjam, Leili Panaghi, and Telli Davoodi. 2019. Cultural differences in conceptual representation of “Privacy”: A comparison between Iran and the United States. The Journal of Social Psychology 159, 4 (2019), 357–370.

[131]

Ning Zhang, Manohar Paluri, Yaniv Taigman, Rob Fergus, and Lubomir Bourdev. 2015. Beyond frontal faces: Improving person recognition using multiple cues. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 4804–4813.

[132]

Yuhang Zhao, Shaomei Wu, Lindsay Reynolds, and Shiri Azenkot. 2018. A face recognition application for people with visual impairments: Understanding use beyond the lab. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 215.

Digital Library

Cited By

Gao DHaverly AMittal SWu JChen J(2024)AI EthicsInternational Journal of Business Analytics10.4018/IJBAN.33836711:1(1-19)Online publication date: 20-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.4018/IJBAN.338367
Yu RLee SXie JBillah SCarroll J(2024)Human–AI Collaboration for Remote Sighted Assistance: Perspectives from the LLM EraFuture Internet10.3390/fi1607025416:7(254)Online publication date: 18-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/fi16070254
Chemnad KOthman A(2024)Digital accessibility in the era of artificial intelligence—Bibliometric analysis and systematic reviewFrontiers in Artificial Intelligence10.3389/frai.2024.13496687Online publication date: 16-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1349668
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Shared Privacy Concerns of the Visually Impaired and Sighted Bystanders with Camera-Based Assistive Technologies
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Accessibility
    1. Empirical studies in accessibility
2. Security and privacy
  1. Human and societal aspects of security and privacy
    1. Usability in security and privacy

Recommendations

Privacy Considerations of the Visually Impaired with Camera Based Assistive Technologies: Misrepresentation, Impropriety, and Fairness
ASSETS '20: Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility

Camera based assistive technologies such as smart glasses can provide people with visual impairments (PVIs) information about people in their vicinity. Although such ‘visually available’ information can enhance one’s social interactions, the privacy ...
Privacy Considerations of the Visually Impaired with Camera Based Assistive Tools
CSCW '20 Companion: Companion Publication of the 2020 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing

People with visual impairments (PVIs) are adopting artificial intelligence (AI) and human intelligence (HI) based technologies in their daily lives to overcome their accessibility barriers. Such systems pose privacy and security risks for PVIs (as well ...
Skim-reading Strategies in Sighted and Visually-Impaired Individuals: A Comparative Study
PETRA '18: Proceedings of the 11th PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments Conference

As the amount of readily available reading material increases, the ability to read selectively, or to skim-read, is becoming an important skill. In this paper, we report a comparative study of existing skim-reading strategies in sighted and visually ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing

ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing Volume 15, Issue 2

June 2022

288 pages

ISSN:1936-7228

EISSN:1936-7236

DOI:10.1145/3530301

Editors:
Tiago Guerreiro
Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
,
Stephanie Ludi
University of North Texas, USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 19 May 2022

Online AM: 23 February 2022

Accepted: 01 December 2021

Revised: 01 October 2021

Received: 01 June 2021

Published in TACCESS Volume 15, Issue 2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Refereed

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation
Google Faculty Research Award

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

12
Total Citations
View Citations
897
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)333
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)27

Reflects downloads up to 26 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Gao DHaverly AMittal SWu JChen J(2024)AI EthicsInternational Journal of Business Analytics10.4018/IJBAN.33836711:1(1-19)Online publication date: 20-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.4018/IJBAN.338367
Yu RLee SXie JBillah SCarroll J(2024)Human–AI Collaboration for Remote Sighted Assistance: Perspectives from the LLM EraFuture Internet10.3390/fi1607025416:7(254)Online publication date: 18-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/fi16070254
Chemnad KOthman A(2024)Digital accessibility in the era of artificial intelligence—Bibliometric analysis and systematic reviewFrontiers in Artificial Intelligence10.3389/frai.2024.13496687Online publication date: 16-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1349668
Xu AZhou ZMiyazaki KYoshikawa RHosio SYatani K(2024)DIPA2Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/36314397:4(1-30)Online publication date: 12-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3631439
Zhang LStangl ASharma TTseng YXu IGurari DWang YFindlater L(2024)Designing Accessible Obfuscation Support for Blind Individuals’ Visual Privacy ManagementProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642713(1-19)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642713
Kapadia AWang Y(2024)Inclusive Privacy and SecurityIEEE Security and Privacy10.1109/MSEC.2024.343370822:5(10-12)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/MSEC.2024.3433708
Shahraki ZNafchi M(2024)The Social and Ethical Challenges of the MetaverseThe Metaverse for the Healthcare Industry10.1007/978-3-031-60073-9_4(59-75)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60073-9_4
Sim MHugenberg KKohno TRoesner F(2023)A Scalable Inclusive Security Intervention to Center Marginalized & Vulnerable Populations in Security & Privacy DesignProceedings of the 2023 New Security Paradigms Workshop10.1145/3633500.3633508(102-115)Online publication date: 18-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3633500.3633508
Stangl ASadjo EEmami-Naeini PWang YGurari DFindlater L(2023)“Dump it, Destroy it, Send it to Data Heaven”: Blind People’s Expectations for Visual Privacy in Visual Assistance TechnologiesProceedings of the 20th International Web for All Conference10.1145/3587281.3587296(134-147)Online publication date: 30-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3587281.3587296
Corbett MDavid-John BShang JHu YJi BHui PAmiri Sani ANurmi PLiu Y(2023)BystandAR: Protecting Bystander Visual Data in Augmented Reality SystemsProceedings of the 21st Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications and Services10.1145/3581791.3596830(370-382)Online publication date: 18-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3581791.3596830
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Full Text

View this article in Full Text.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View full text|Download PDF

View Issue’s Table of Contents