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 Parents' Perceptions and Practices Toward Children's Security and Privacy in Virtual Reality (2403.06172v3)

Published 10 Mar 2024 in cs.HC

Abstract: Recent years have seen a sharp increase in the number of underage users in virtual reality (VR), where security and privacy (S&P) risks such as data surveillance and self-disclosure in social interaction have been increasingly prominent. Prior work shows children largely rely on parents to mitigate S&P risks in their technology use. Therefore, understanding parents' S&P knowledge, perceptions, and practices is critical for identifying the gaps for parents, technology designers, and policymakers to enhance children's S&P. While such empirical knowledge is substantial in other consumer technologies, it remains largely unknown in the context of VR. To address the gap, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 20 parents of children under the age of 18 who use VR at home. Our findings highlight parents generally lack S&P awareness due to the perception that VR is still in its infancy. To protect their children's interactions with VR, parents currently primarily rely on active strategies such as verbal education about S&P. Passive strategies such as using parental controls in VR are not commonly used among our interviewees, mainly due to their perceived technical constraints. Parents also highlight that a multi-stakeholder ecosystem must be established towards more S&P support for children in VR. Based on the findings, we propose actionable S&P recommendations for critical stakeholders, including parents, educators, VR companies, and governments.

View on arXiv
Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (101)
  1. R. Bagheri, “Virtual reality: The real life consequences,” UC Davis Bus. LJ, vol. 17, p. 101, 2016.
  2. R. Epp, D. Lin, and C.-P. Bezemer, “An empirical study of trends of popular virtual reality games and their complaints,” IEEE Transactions on Games, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 275–286, 2021.
  3. D. Maloney, G. Freeman, and A. Robb, “It is complicated: Interacting with children in social virtual reality,” in 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW).   IEEE, 2020, pp. 343–347.
  4. E. Deldari, D. Freed, J. Poveda, and Y. Yao, “An investigation of teenager experiences in social virtual reality from teenagers’, parents’, and bystanders’ perspectives,” in Nineteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2023), 2023, pp. 1–17.
  5. D. Maloney, G. Freeman, and A. Robb, “A virtual space for all: Exploring children’s experience in social virtual reality,” in Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, 2020, pp. 472–483.
  6. D. Adams, A. Bah, C. Barwulor, N. Musaby, K. Pitkin, and E. M. Redmiles, “Ethics emerging: the story of privacy and security perceptions in virtual reality,” in Fourteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2018), 2018, pp. 427–442.
  7. E. Dick, “Balancing user privacy and innovation in augmented and virtual reality,” Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Tech. Rep., 2021.
  8. P. Caserman, A. Garcia-Agundez, R. Konrad, S. Göbel, and R. Steinmetz, “Real-time body tracking in virtual reality using a vive tracker,” Virtual Reality, vol. 23, pp. 155–168, 2019.
  9. V. Clay, P. König, and S. Koenig, “Eye tracking in virtual reality,” Journal of eye movement research, vol. 12, no. 1, 2019.
  10. G. Kelly, “Kids deserve better privacy in virtual reality,” Nov 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/kids-action/articles/kids-deserve-better-privacy-in-virtual-reality
  11. N. Reed, “What are kids doing in the metaverse?” Mar 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/kids-action/articles/what-are-kids-doing-in-the-metaverse
  12. A. Klein, “Common sense media says school vr tools violate privacy laws,” Nov 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/common-sense-media-says-school-vr-tools-violate-privacy-laws
  13. D. Maloney, S. Zamanifard, and G. Freeman, “Anonymity vs. familiarity: Self-disclosure and privacy in social virtual reality,” in Proceedings of the 26th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 2020, pp. 1–9.
  14. S. Sorensen, “Protecting children’s right to privacy in the digital age: parents as trustees of children’s rights,” Child. Legal Rts. J., vol. 36, p. 156, 2016.
  15. S. Livingstone, M. Stoilova, and R. Nandagiri, “Children’s data and privacy online: growing up in a digital age: an evidence review,” 2019.
  16. P. Kumar, S. M. Naik, U. R. Devkar, M. Chetty, T. L. Clegg, and J. Vitak, “’no telling passcodes out because they’re private’ understanding children’s mental models of privacy and security online,” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 1, no. CSCW, pp. 1–21, 2017.
  17. W. Shin, J. Huh, and R. J. Faber, “Tweens’ online privacy risks and the role of parental mediation,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 632–649, 2012.
  18. S. Chai, S. Bagchi-Sen, C. Morrell, H. R. Rao, and S. J. Upadhyaya, “Internet and online information privacy: An exploratory study of preteens and early teens,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 167–182, 2009.
  19. D. Boyd and A. E. Marwick, “Social privacy in networked publics: Teens’ attitudes, practices, and strategies,” in A decade in internet time: Symposium on the dynamics of the internet and society, 2011.
  20. L. Zhang-Kennedy, C. Mekhail, Y. Abdelaziz, and S. Chiasson, “From nosy little brothers to stranger-danger: Children and parents’ perception of mobile threats,” in Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 2016, pp. 388–399.
  21. P. Wisniewski, H. Jia, H. Xu, M. B. Rosson, and J. M. Carroll, “” preventative” vs.” reactive” how parental mediation influences teens’ social media privacy behaviors,” in Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing, 2015, pp. 302–316.
  22. P. Wisniewski, A. K. Ghosh, H. Xu, M. B. Rosson, and J. M. Carroll, “Parental control vs. teen self-regulation: Is there a middle ground for mobile online safety?” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, 2017, pp. 51–69.
  23. L. F. Cranor, A. L. Durity, A. Marsh, and B. Ur, “{{\{{Parents’}}\}} and {{\{{Teens’}}\}} perspectives on privacy in a {{\{{Technology-Filled}}\}} world,” in 10th Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2014), 2014, pp. 19–35.
  24. P. J. Wisniewski, H. Xu, M. B. Rosson, and J. M. Carroll, “Adolescent online safety: the” moral” of the story,” in Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing, 2014, pp. 1258–1271.
  25. A. Hiniker, S. Y. Schoenebeck, and J. A. Kientz, “Not at the dinner table: Parents’ and children’s perspectives on family technology rules,” in Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing, 2016, pp. 1376–1389.
  26. M. Akter, L. Alghamdi, J. Kropczynski, H. R. Lipford, and P. J. Wisniewski, “It takes a village: A case for including extended family members in the joint oversight of family-based privacy and security for mobile smartphones,” in Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2023, pp. 1–7.
  27. M. Akter, A. J. Godfrey, J. Kropczynski, H. R. Lipford, and P. J. Wisniewski, “From parental control to joint family oversight: Can parents and teens manage mobile online safety and privacy as equals?” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 6, no. CSCW1, pp. 1–28, 2022.
  28. F. O’Brolcháin, T. Jacquemard, D. Monaghan, N. O’Connor, P. Novitzky, and B. Gordijn, “The convergence of virtual reality and social networks: threats to privacy and autonomy,” Science and engineering ethics, vol. 22, pp. 1–29, 2016.
  29. B. Heller, “Reimagining reality: human rights and immersive technology,” Harvard Carr Center Discussion Paper Series, 2020.
  30. A. Bar-Zeev, “The eyes are the prize: Eye-tracking technology is advertising’s holy grail,” Retrieved April, vol. 22, p. 2020, 2019.
  31. J. L. Kröger, O. H.-M. Lutz, and F. Müller, “What does your gaze reveal about you? on the privacy implications of eye tracking,” Privacy and Identity Management. Data for Better Living: AI and Privacy: 14th IFIP WG 9.2, 9.6/11.7, 11.6/SIG 9.2. 2 International Summer School, Windisch, Switzerland, August 19–23, 2019, Revised Selected Papers 14, pp. 226–241, 2020.
  32. N. Acosta, “Are ip addresses ‘personal information’under ccpa?” IAPP Privacy Advisor, April, vol. 28, 2020.
  33. X. S. Initiative, “The xrsi privacy framework,” 2020.
  34. K. Pearlman, X. Initiative, S. Visner, M. Magnano, and R. Cameron, “Securing the metaverse-virtual worlds need real governance,” Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization–SISO, 2021.
  35. A. Gallardo, C. Choy, J. Juneja, E. Bozkir, C. Cobb, L. Bauer, and L. Cranor, “Speculative privacy concerns about ar glasses data collection,” Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, vol. 4, pp. 416–435, 2023.
  36. Q. Zheng, S. Xu, L. Wang, Y. Tang, R. C. Salvi, G. Freeman, and Y. Huang, “Understanding safety risks and safety design in social vr environments,” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 7, no. CSCW1, pp. 1–37, 2023.
  37. P. Sykownik, D. Maloney, G. Freeman, and M. Masuch, “Something personal from the metaverse: goals, topics, and contextual factors of self-disclosure in commercial social vr,” in Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2022, pp. 1–17.
  38. J. McVeigh-Schultz, A. Kolesnichenko, and K. Isbister, “Shaping pro-social interaction in vr: an emerging design framework,” in Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2019, pp. 1–12.
  39. J. McVeigh-Schultz, E. Márquez Segura, N. Merrill, and K. Isbister, “What’s it mean to” be social” in vr? mapping the social vr design ecology,” in Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems, 2018, pp. 289–294.
  40. D. Maloney, G. Freeman, and A. Robb, “Stay connected in an immersive world: Why teenagers engage in social virtual reality,” in Interaction Design and Children, 2021, pp. 69–79.
  41. L. Blackwell, N. Ellison, N. Elliott-Deflo, and R. Schwartz, “Harassment in social vr: Implications for design,” in 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR).   IEEE, 2019, pp. 854–855.
  42. K. Shriram and R. Schwartz, “All are welcome: Using vr ethnography to explore harassment behavior in immersive social virtual reality,” in 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR).   IEEE, 2017, pp. 225–226.
  43. D. Maloney, G. Freeman, and D. Y. Wohn, “” talking without a voice” understanding non-verbal communication in social virtual reality,” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 4, no. CSCW2, pp. 1–25, 2020.
  44. N. Sabri, B. Chen, A. Teoh, S. P. Dow, K. Vaccaro, and M. Elsherief, “Challenges of moderating social virtual reality,” in Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2023, pp. 1–20.
  45. S. Youn, “Parental influence and teens’ attitude toward online privacy protection,” Journal of Consumer Affairs, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 362–388, 2008.
  46. W. Shin and H. Kang, “Adolescents’ privacy concerns and information disclosure online: The role of parents and the internet,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 54, pp. 114–123, 2016.
  47. P. Kumar, J. Vitak, M. Chetty, T. L. Clegg, J. Yang, B. McNally, and E. Bonsignore, “Co-designing online privacy-related games and stories with children,” in Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on interaction design and children, 2018, pp. 67–79.
  48. A. N. Joinson, C. B. Paine et al., “Self-disclosure, privacy and the internet,” The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology, vol. 2374252, pp. 237–252, 2007.
  49. N. C. Krämer and J. Schäwel, “Mastering the challenge of balancing self-disclosure and privacy in social media,” Current opinion in psychology, vol. 31, pp. 67–71, 2020.
  50. C. Hallam and G. Zanella, “Online self-disclosure: The privacy paradox explained as a temporally discounted balance between concerns and rewards,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 68, pp. 217–227, 2017.
  51. H. Krasnova, E. Kolesnikova, and O. Guenther, “” it won’t happen to me!”: self-disclosure in online social networks,” 2009.
  52. J. Nolan, K. Raynes-Goldie, and M. McBride, “The stranger danger: Exploring surveillance, autonomy, and privacy in children’s use of social media.” Canadian Children, vol. 36, no. 2, 2011.
  53. K. Subrahmanyam, R. E. Kraut, P. M. Greenfield, and E. F. Gross, “The impact of home computer use on children’s activities and development,” The future of children, pp. 123–144, 2000.
  54. S. Livingstone, J. Davidson, J. Bryce, S. Batool, C. Haughton, and A. Nandi, “Children’s online activities, risks and safety: a literature review by the ukccis evidence group,” 2017.
  55. S. Livingstone and P. K. Smith, “Annual research review: Harms experienced by child users of online and mobile technologies: The nature, prevalence and management of sexual and aggressive risks in the digital age,” Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 635–654, 2014.
  56. L. Palen and P. Dourish, “Unpacking” privacy” for a networked world,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 2003, pp. 129–136.
  57. S. Livingstone, “Children’s privacy online: experimenting with boundaries within and beyond the family,” 2006.
  58. H. J. Smith, T. Dinev, and H. Xu, “Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review,” MIS quarterly, pp. 989–1015, 2011.
  59. K. Sun, C. Sugatan, T. Afnan, H. Simon, S. A. Gelman, J. Radesky, and F. Schaub, ““they see you’re a girl if you pick a pink robot with a skirt”: A qualitative study of how children conceptualize data processing and digital privacy risks,” in Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2021, pp. 1–34.
  60. B. Shmueli and A. Blecher-Prigat, “Privacy for children,” Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev., vol. 42, p. 759, 2010.
  61. S. Livingstone, “Developing social media literacy: How children learn to interpret risky opportunities on social network sites,” Communications, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 283–303, 2014.
  62. J. C. Yip, K. Sobel, X. Gao, A. M. Hishikawa, A. Lim, L. Meng, R. F. Ofiana, J. Park, and A. Hiniker, “Laughing is scary, but farting is cute: A conceptual model of children’s perspectives of creepy technologies,” in Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2019, pp. 1–15.
  63. Y. Feng and W. Xie, “Teens’ concern for privacy when using social networking sites: An analysis of socialization agents and relationships with privacy-protecting behaviors,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 33, pp. 153–162, 2014.
  64. A. Bowyer, K. Montague, S. Wheater, R. McGovern, R. Lingam, and M. Balaam, “Understanding the family perspective on the storage, sharing and handling of family civic data,” in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2018, pp. 1–13.
  65. A. Duerager and S. Livingstone, “How can parents support children’s internet safety?” 2012.
  66. M. Madden, S. Cortesi, U. Gasser, A. Lenhart, and M. Duggan, “Parents, teens, and online privacy.” Pew internet & American life project, 2012.
  67. P. Wisniewski, H. Xu, M. B. Rosson, and J. M. Carroll, “Parents just don’t understand: Why teens don’t talk to parents about their online risk experiences,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, 2017, pp. 523–540.
  68. L. Blackwell, E. Gardiner, and S. Schoenebeck, “Managing expectations: Technology tensions among parents and teens,” in Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 2016, pp. 1390–1401.
  69. S. T. Hawk, L. Keijsers, W. W. Hale III, and W. Meeus, “Mind your own business! longitudinal relations between perceived privacy invasion and adolescent-parent conflict.” Journal of Family Psychology, vol. 23, no. 4, p. 511, 2009.
  70. S. Livingstone and M. Bober, “Regulating the internet at home: contrasting the perspectives of children and parents,” in Digital generations.   Routledge, 2013, pp. 93–113.
  71. J. G. Smetana, ““it’s 10 o’clock: Do you know where your children are?” recent advances in understanding parental monitoring and adolescents’ information management,” Child Development Perspectives, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 19–25, 2008.
  72. B. Teitell, “In digital world, kids gain the upper hand,” Boston Globe, September, vol. 5, 2013.
  73. R. Jääskeläinen, “Think-aloud protocol,” Handbook of translation studies, vol. 1, pp. 371–374, 2010.
  74. [Online]. Available: https://www.qualtrics.com/
  75. N. McDonald, S. Schoenebeck, and A. Forte, “Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for cscw and hci practice,” Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction, vol. 3, no. CSCW, pp. 1–23, 2019.
  76. A. Strauss and J. Corbin, “Basics of qualitative research techniques,” 1998.
  77. S. Steinberg, “Parent’s guide to vr headsets and vr games for kids,” Jun 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.verizon.com/about/parenting/parents-guide-vr-headsets-and-vr-games-kids
  78. E. Gent and LiveScience, “Are virtual reality headsets safe for children?” Dec 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-reality-headsets-safe-for-children/
  79. M. Jay, “What parents need to know about vr,” Apr 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.esrb.org/blog/what-parents-need-to-know-about-vr/
  80. P. Emami-Naeini, H. Dixon, Y. Agarwal, and L. F. Cranor, “Exploring how privacy and security factor into iot device purchase behavior,” in Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2019, pp. 1–12.
  81. S. Baker, J. Waycott, R. Carrasco, R. M. Kelly, A. J. Jones, J. Lilley, B. Dow, F. Batchelor, T. Hoang, and F. Vetere, “Avatar-mediated communication in social vr: an in-depth exploration of older adult interaction in an emerging communication platform,” in Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2021, pp. 1–13.
  82. K. Fu, Y. Chen, J. Cao, X. Tong, and R. LC, “” i am a mirror dweller”: Probing the unique strategies users take to communicate in the context of mirrors in social virtual reality,” in Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2023, pp. 1–19.
  83. S. Barth and M. D. De Jong, “The privacy paradox–investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior–a systematic literature review,” Telematics and informatics, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1038–1058, 2017.
  84. P. Wisniewski, “The privacy paradox of adolescent online safety: A matter of risk prevention or risk resilience?” IEEE Security & Privacy, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 86–90, 2018.
  85. S. Yardi and A. Bruckman, “Social and technical challenges in parenting teens’ social media use,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2011, pp. 3237–3246.
  86. M. Mazmanian and S. Lanette, “” okay, one more episode” an ethnography of parenting in the digital age,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, 2017, pp. 2273–2286.
  87. A. Ekambaranathan, J. Zhao, and M. Van Kleek, “Understanding value and design choices made by android family app developers,” in Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2020, pp. 1–10.
  88. A. Ekambaranathan, J. Zhao, and M. Van Kleek, ““money makes the world go around”: Identifying barriers to better privacy in children’s apps from developers’ perspectives,” in Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2021, pp. 1–15.
  89. A. Ekambaranathan, J. Zhao, and M. Van Kleek, “How can we design privacy-friendly apps for children? using a research through design process to understand developers’ needs and challenges,” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 7, no. CSCW2, pp. 1–29, 2023.
  90. A. K. Ghosh, K. Badillo-Urquiola, S. Guha, J. J. LaViola Jr, and P. J. Wisniewski, “Safety vs. surveillance: what children have to say about mobile apps for parental control,” in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2018, pp. 1–14.
  91. J. Li, K. Sun, B. S. Huff, A. M. Bierley, Y. Kim, F. Schaub, and K. Fawaz, ““it’s up to the consumer to be smart”: Understanding the security and privacy attitudes of smart home users on reddit,” in IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)(SP).   IEEE Computer Society Los Alamitos, CA, 2023, pp. 380–396.
  92. J. Holvast, “History of privacy,” in The history of information security.   Elsevier, 2007, pp. 737–769.
  93. N. Malazizi, H. Alipour, and H. Olya, “Risk perceptions of airbnb hosts: Evidence from a mediterranean island,” Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 5, p. 1349, 2018.
  94. P. M. Regan, “Privacy as a common good in the digital world,” Information, Communication & Society, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 382–405, 2002.
  95. P. Emami-Naeini, Y. Agarwal, L. F. Cranor, and H. Hibshi, “Ask the experts: What should be on an iot privacy and security label?” in 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP).   IEEE, 2020, pp. 447–464.
  96. P. Emami-Naeini, J. Dheenadhayalan, Y. Agarwal, and L. F. Cranor, “Which privacy and security attributes most impact consumers’ risk perception and willingness to purchase iot devices?” in 2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP).   IEEE, 2021, pp. 519–536.
  97. M. Wolfe, “Childhood and privacy. altman, i. and wohmill, jf children and the environment,” 1978.
  98. E. A.-L. Lee and K. W. Wong, “A review of using virtual reality for learning,” Transactions on edutainment I, pp. 231–241, 2008.
  99. S. Helsel, “Virtual reality and education,” Educational Technology, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 38–42, 1992.
  100. V. S. Pantelidis, “Virtual reality in the classroom,” Educational technology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 23–27, 1993.
  101. T. Kojić, D. Ali, R. Greinacher, S. Möller, and J.-N. Voigt-Antons, “User experience of reading in virtual reality—finding values for text distance, size and contrast,” in 2020 Twelfth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX).   IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–6.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Jiaxun Cao (4 papers)
  2. Anupam Das (36 papers)
  3. Pardis Emami-Naeini (4 papers)
  4. Abhinaya SB (1 paper)
Citations (2)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

Understanding Parents' Perceptions and Practices Toward Children's Security and Privacy in Virtual Reality

Introduction

The rising popularity of virtual reality (VR) among children under the age of 18 has led to emerging concerns about their security and privacy (S&P). While the immersive nature of VR offers unique user experiences, it also poses distinct S&P risks. Recognizing that children rely heavily on their parents to navigate these risks, this paper explores parents' knowledge, perceptions, and practices surrounding their children's S&P in the context of VR.

Methodology

To explore parents' perceptions and practices, a series of in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 parents of VR users under the age of 18. The interviews aimed to understand parents' awareness of S&P risks in VR, their strategies for mitigating these risks, and their expectations towards VR companies, educators, and policymakers in enhancing children's safety in VR environments.

Findings

Parents' Awareness and Perceptions of S&P Risks

The paper found that parents generally lacked immediate concern for their children's S&P specifically in VR, attributing this to a perception that VR technology is still in early stages and thus not widely adopted. Parents tended to prioritize concerns around physical health and well-being over S&P risks. However, when prompted, parents were able to articulate potential S&P risks, albeit with a greater emphasis on risks related to social interactions rather than data surveillance by VR companies.

Risk Mitigation Strategies

In terms of mitigating S&P risks, the paper revealed that parents predominantly employed active strategies such as verbal education about general online S&P and setting usage rules. Passive strategies like using VR's built-in parental controls were infrequently utilized, mainly due to perceived technical limitations and a lack of awareness about these features.

Expectations Towards Stakeholders

Parents identified a multi-stakeholder ecosystem including themselves, VR companies, educators, and governments as responsible for child safety in VR. While acknowledging their central role, parents also highlighted the need for more effective and granular S&P controls in VR, clearer and mandatory S&P guidance from VR companies, and enhanced regulation and oversight by governments.

Implications and Future Directions

This paper underscores a critical gap in parents' awareness and understanding of VR-specific S&P risks and the need for a concerted effort from all stakeholders to address these concerns. The findings suggest actionable recommendations for enhancing S&P support for children in VR, such as:

  • For Parents and Educators: Augmenting their understanding of VR technologies and incorporating physical metaphors or references when educating children about S&P risks in VR.
  • For VR Companies: Improving the usability and engagement of S&P controls and providing mandatory, clear, and engaging S&P guidance during onboarding.
  • For Governments: Enhancing supervision over VR companies' S&P practices without unduly hindering the immersive experiences VR offers.

In conclusion, as VR continues to evolve and gain popularity among younger users, it is imperative for all stakeholders to proactively address the unique S&P challenges it presents. This paper lays foundational groundwork for future research and policy development aimed at safeguarding children's security and privacy in virtual environments.

File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com PDF File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Markdown
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets