Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
102 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Understanding How to Inform Blind and Low-Vision Users about Data Privacy through Privacy Question Answering Assistants (2310.08687v1)

Published 12 Oct 2023 in cs.HC and cs.CR

Abstract: Understanding and managing data privacy in the digital world can be challenging for sighted users, let alone blind and low-vision (BLV) users. There is limited research on how BLV users, who have special accessibility needs, navigate data privacy, and how potential privacy tools could assist them. We conducted an in-depth qualitative study with 21 US BLV participants to understand their data privacy risk perception and mitigation, as well as their information behaviors related to data privacy. We also explored BLV users' attitudes towards potential privacy question answering (Q&A) assistants that enable them to better navigate data privacy information. We found that BLV users face heightened security and privacy risks, but their risk mitigation is often insufficient. They do not necessarily seek data privacy information but clearly recognize the benefits of a potential privacy Q&A assistant. They also expect privacy Q&A assistants to possess cross-platform compatibility, support multi-modality, and demonstrate robust functionality. Our study sheds light on BLV users' expectations when it comes to usability, accessibility, trust and equity issues regarding digital data privacy.

PDF HTML Abstract
Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Bookmark Chat Bubble Oval Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Chat (Pro)
Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (84)
  1. Should I trust it when I cannot see it? credibility assessment for blind web users. In Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS ’16, pages 191–199, 2016.
  2. Accessibility in native mobile applications for users with disabilities: A scoping review. Applied Sciences, 11(12):5707, 2021.
  3. Accessibility assessment in mobile applications for Android. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, AHFE ’19, pages 279–288, 2019.
  4. Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE security & privacy, 3(1):26–33, 2005.
  5. PolicyQA: A reading comprehension dataset for privacy policies. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 743–749, Online, nov 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  6. Privacy concerns and behaviors of people with visual impairments. In Proceedings of the 2015 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’15, pages 3523–3532, 2015.
  7. “i am uncomfortable sharing what i can’t see”: Privacy concerns of the visually impaired with camera based assistive applications. In Proceedings of the 29th USENIX Security Symposium, SEC ’20, pages 1929–1948, 2020.
  8. Automatic categorization of privacy policies: A pilot study. Technical Report CMU-LTI-12-019, Carnegie Mellon University, 12 2012.
  9. Marcia J. Bates. Information behavior. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, pages 2074–2085. Taylor & Francis, 4th edition, 2017.
  10. Glynis M. Breakwell. Interviewing methods. In Research methods in psychology, pages 232–253. SAGE, 3rd edition, 2006.
  11. Thematic analysis. In Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods, page 248. SAGE, 3rd edition, 2015.
  12. Informing the design of a personalized privacy assistant for the internet of things. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’20, pages 1–13, 2020.
  13. What websites know about you. In Data Privacy Management and Autonomous Spontaneous Security, pages 146–159. Springer, 2012.
  14. A machine learning solution to assess privacy policy completeness: (short paper). In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, WPES ’12, page 91–96, New York, NY, USA, 2012. Association for Computing Machinery.
  15. Council of European Union. General data protection regulation. https://gdpr-infor.eu, 2016.
  16. Personalized privacy assistants for the internet of things: Providing users with notice and choice. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 17(3):35–46, 2018.
  17. “I’m stuck!”: A contextual inquiry of people with visual impairments in authentication. In 11th USENIX Conference on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS ’15, pages 151–168, 2015.
  18. Toward accessible authentication: Learning from people with visual impairments. IEEE Internet Computing, 22(2):62–70, 2018.
  19. Nora A. Draper. From privacy pragmatist to privacy resigned: Challenging narratives of rational choice in digital privacy debates. Policy & Internet, 9(2):232–251, 2017.
  20. Exploring how privacy and security factor into IoT device purchase behavior. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’19, pages 1–12, 2019.
  21. SD-QA: Spoken dialectal question answering for the real world. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP ’21, pages 3296–3315, 2021.
  22. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1):80–92, 2006.
  23. John C. Flanagan. The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4):327, 1954.
  24. Are we there yet? data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9):1408–1416, 2015.
  25. Explaining the privacy paradox: A systematic review of literature investigating privacy attitude and behavior. Computers & security, 77:226–261, 2018.
  26. How short is too short? implications of length and framing on the effectiveness of privacy notices. In 12th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS ’16, pages 321–340, 2016.
  27. Vizwiz grand challenge: Answering visual questions from blind people. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR ’18, pages 3608–3617, 2018.
  28. “it’s a scavenger hunt”: Usability of websites’ opt-out and data deletion choices. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’20, pages 1–12, 2020.
  29. Accessibility of Internet websites through time. In Proceedings of the 6th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS ’03, pages 32–39, 2003.
  30. A call for revisiting the boundary between asr and nlu in the age of conversational dialog systems. Computational Linguistics, 48(1):221–232, 2022.
  31. Who should have access to my pointing data? privacy tradeoffs of adaptive assistive technologies. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS ’18, pages 203–216, 2018.
  32. Polisis: Automated analysis and presentation of privacy policies using deep learning. In 27th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 18), pages 531–548, 2018.
  33. PriBots: Conversational privacy with chatbots. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Future of Privacy Indicators, at the 12th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, pages 1–6, 2016.
  34. Cooperative privacy and security: Learning from people with visual impairments and their allies. In 15th USENIX Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS ’19, pages 1–20, 2019.
  35. Shawn Lawton Henry. WCAG 2 overview. Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/, 2005.
  36. Enabling accessibility through multimodality? interaction modality choices of older adults. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, MUM ’15, pages 195–199, 2015.
  37. Requirements gathering: the human factor. Communications of the ACM, 38(5):31–32, 1995.
  38. Privacy attitudes of mechanical turk workers and the US. public. In 10th Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS ’14, pages 37–49, 2014.
  39. Toward domain-guided controllable summarization of privacy policies. In Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop. KDD, 2020.
  40. The interaction experiences of visually impaired people with assistive technology: A case study of smartphones. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 55:22–33, 2016.
  41. Spyros Kokolakis. Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & security, 64:122–134, 2017.
  42. Readability of privacy policies. In Proceedings of the 34th IFIP Annual Conference on Data and Applications Security and Privacy, DBSec ’20, pages 388–399, 2020.
  43. Finding a choice in a haystack: Automatic extraction of opt-out statements from privacy policy text. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020, WWW ’20, pages 1943–1954, 2020.
  44. A research framework and initial study of browser security for the visually impaired. In 11th USENIX Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS ’15, pages 1–18, 2015.
  45. Follow my recommendations: A personalized privacy assistant for mobile app permissions. In 12th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS ’16, pages 27–41, 2016.
  46. A step towards usable privacy policy: Automatic alignment of privacy statements. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 884–894, Dublin, Ireland, August 2014. Dublin City University and Association for Computational Linguistics.
  47. Have you been properly notified? automatic compliance analysis of privacy policy text with gdpr article 13. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pages 2154–2164, 2021.
  48. The cost of reading privacy policies. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 4:543–568, 2008.
  49. Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for cscw and hci practice. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW):1–23, 2019.
  50. Gabriele Meiselwitz. Readability assessment of policies and procedures of social networking sites. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Online Communities and Social Computing, OCSC ’13, pages 67–75, 2013.
  51. Information behaviour of students living with visual impairments in university libraries: A review of related literature. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(5):522–528, 2016.
  52. “i’m literally just hoping this will work”: Obstacles blocking the online security and privacy of users with visual disabilities. In 17th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS ’21, pages 263–280, 2021.
  53. National Federation of the Blind. Blindness statistics. https://nfb.org/resources/blindness-statistics, 2019.
  54. The biggest lie on the internet: Ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Information, Communication & Society, 23(1):128–147, 2020.
  55. Overwhelming, important, irrelevant: Terms of service and privacy policy reading among older adults. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Social Media and Society, SMSociety ’19, pages 166–173, 2019.
  56. “accessibility came by accident”: Use of voice-controlled intelligent personal assistants by people with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’18, pages 1–13, 2018.
  57. Unsupervised alignment of privacy policies using hidden markov models. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 605–610, Baltimore, Maryland, June 2014. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  58. Expecting the unexpected: Understanding mismatched privacy expectations online. In 12th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS ’16, pages 77–96, 2016.
  59. Breaking down walls of text: How can NLP benefit consumer privacy? In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL-IJCNLP ’21, pages 4125–4140, 2021.
  60. Question answering for privacy policies: Combining computational and legal perspectives. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4947–4958, Hong Kong, China, nov 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  61. Question answering for privacy policies: Combining computational and legal perspectives. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP ’19, pages 4947–4958, 2019.
  62. NoiseQA: Challenge set evaluation for user-centric question answering. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL ’21, pages 2976–2992, 2021.
  63. Disagreeable privacy policies: Mismatches between meaning and users’ understanding. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 30:39–68, 2015.
  64. Evaluation of prototypes and the problem of possible futures. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 2064–2077, 2017.
  65. Informing the design of privacy-empowering tools for the connected home. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’20, pages 1–14, 2020.
  66. What ChatGPT and generative AI mean for science. Nature, 614(7947):214–216, 2023.
  67. Awareness, adoption, and misconceptions of web privacy tools. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium 2021, pages 1–26, 2021.
  68. Investigating how users imagine their personal privacy assistant. In Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium 2023, PETS ’23, pages 384–402, 2023.
  69. Privacy not found: a study of the availability of privacy policies on the web. In 16th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS ’20, pages 1–5, 2020.
  70. Shannon M. Tomlinson. Perceptions of accessibility and usability by blind or visually impaired persons: a pilot study. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 53(1):1–4, 2016.
  71. Automatic summarization of privacy policies using ensemble learning. In Proceedings of the Sixth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy, CODASPY ’16, page 133–135, New York, NY, USA, 2016. Association for Computing Machinery.
  72. An empirical study of consumer perceptions and comprehension of web site privacy policies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(3):442–454, 2008.
  73. An introduction to grounded theory with a special focus on axial coding and the coding paradigm. Compendium for early career researchers in mathematics education, 13(1):81–100, 2019.
  74. Enabling live video analytics with a scalable and privacy-aware framework. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications, 14(3s):1–24, 2018.
  75. The creation and analysis of a website privacy policy corpus. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, volume 1, pages 1330–1340, 2016.
  76. Studies on blind and visually impaired users in LIS literature: A review of research methods. Library & Information Science Research, 43(3):101109, 2021.
  77. Folk models of online behavioral advertising. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, pages 1957–1969, 2017.
  78. Privacycheck v2: A tool that recaps privacy policies for you. In 29th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM). ACM. To appear, 2020.
  79. Privacycheck: Automatic summarization of privacy policies using data mining. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT), 18(4):1–18, 2018.
  80. How usable are iOS app privacy labels? Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium 2022, pages 204–228, 2022.
  81. SeeingVR: A set of tools to make virtual reality more accessible to people with low vision. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’19, pages 1–14, 2019.
  82. CueSee: exploring visual cues for people with low vision to facilitate a visual search task. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, UbiComp ’16, pages 73–84, 2016.
  83. “if sighted people know, i should be able to know:” privacy perceptions of bystanders with visual impairments around camera-based technology. In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23), pages 4661–4678, 2023.
  84. Maps: Scaling privacy compliance analysis to a million apps. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2019:66 – 86, 2019.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (7)
  1. Yuanyuan Feng (23 papers)
  2. Abhilasha Ravichander (33 papers)
  3. Yaxing Yao (16 papers)
  4. Shikun Zhang (82 papers)
  5. Rex Chen (9 papers)
  6. Shomir Wilson (20 papers)
  7. Norman Sadeh (19 papers)