Photo sharing on online social networks (OSNs) can cause privacy issues. Face blurring is one strategy to increase privacy while still allowing users to share photos. To explore the potential blurring has as a privacy-enhancing technology for OSN photos, we conducted an online experiment with 47 participants to evaluate the effectiveness of face blurring compared to the original photo (as-is), and users’ experience (satisfaction, information sufficiency, enjoyment, social presence, and filter likeability). Users’ experience ratings for face blurring were positive, indicating blurring may be an acceptable way to modify photos from the users’ perspective. However, from a privacy-enhancement perspective, while face blurring may be useful in some situations, such as those where the person in the photo is unknown to the viewer, in other cases, such as in an OSN where the person in the image is known to the viewer, face blurring does not provide privacy protection.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgrawalP. (2010). De-Identification for Privacy Protection in Surveillance Videos. (Masters thesis, International Institute of Information Technology Hyderabad, India).
2.
BesmerA.LipfordH. R. (2010). Moving beyond untagging: photo privacy in a tagged world. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1563-1572). ACM.
3.
BindemannM.AttardJ.LeachA.JohnstonR. A. (2013). The Effect of Image Pixelation on Unfamiliar-Face Matching. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(6), 707-717.
4.
BoshmafY.MuslukhovI.BeznosovK.RipeanuM. (2011). The socialbot network: when bots socialize for fame and money. In Proceedings of the 27th annual computer security applications conference (pp. 93-102). ACM.
5.
BoyleM.EdwardsC.GreenbergS. (2000). The effects of filtered video on awareness and privacy. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 1-10). ACM.
6.
CyrD.HeadM.LariosH.PanB. (2009). Exploring human images in website design: a multi-method approach. MIS quarterly, 539-566.
7.
DemanetJ.DhontK.NotebaertL.PattynS.VandierendonckA. (2007). Pixelating Familiar People in the Media: Should Masking Be Taken at Face Value?Psychologica belgica, 47(4).
8.
EllisonN. B.W.SteinfieldC. W.LampeC. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.
9.
FireM.GoldschmidtR.EloviciY. (2014). Online social networks: threats and solutions. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 16(4), 2019-2036.
10.
GoutamR. K. (2015). Importance of Cyber Security. International Journal of Computer Applications, 111(7).
11.
HarmonL. D.JuleszB. (1973). Masking in visual recognition: Effects of two-dimensional filtered noise. Science, 180(4091), 1194-1197.
12.
IliaP.PolakisI.AthanasopoulosE.MaggiF.IoannidisS. (2015). Face/off: Preventing privacy leakage from photos in social networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (pp. 781-792). ACM.
13.
JanaS.NarayananA.ShmatikovV. (2013). A Scanner Darkly: Protecting user privacy from perceptual applications. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2013 IEEE Symposium on (pp. 349-363). IEEE.
14.
KumarA.GuptaS. K.RaiA. K.SinhaS. (2013). Social networking sites and their security issues. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(4), 1-5.
15.
KumarN.BenbasatI. (2006). Research note: the influence of recommendations and consumer reviews on evaluations of websites. Information Systems Research, 17(4), 425-439.
16.
LanderK.BruceV.HillH. (2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of pixelation and blurring on masking the identity of familiar faces. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 101-116.
17.
LedigC.TheisL.HuszárF.CaballeroJ.CunninghamA.AcostaA.. . . ShiW. (2016). Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a generative adversarial network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.04802.
18.
LewisK.KaufmanJ.ChristakisN. (2008). The taste for privacy: An analysis of college student privacy settings in an online social network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 79-100.
19.
LiA.LiQ.GaoW. (2016). PrivacyCamera: Cooperative Privacy-Aware Photographing with Mobile Phones. In Sensing, Communication, and Networking (SECON), 2016 13th Annual IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1-9). IEEE.
20.
LiC.GallagherA.LouiA. C.ChenT. (2010). Aesthetic quality assessment of consumer photos with faces. In Image Processing (ICIP), 2010 17th IEEE International Conference on (pp. 3221-3224). IEEE.
21.
LiY.VishwamitraN.KnijnenburgB.HuH.CaineK. (2017a). Blur vs. Block: Investigating the effectiveness of privacy-enhancing obfuscation for images. In The First International Workshop on The Bright and Dark Sides of Computer Vision: Challenges and Opportunities for Privacy and Security (CV-COPS 2017).
22.
LiY.VishwamitraN.KnijnenburgB.HuH.CaineK. (2017b). Effectiveness and users’ experience of obfuscation as a privacy-enhancing technology for sharing photos. Manuscript submitted for publication.
23.
MeissnerC. A.BrighamJ. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review.
24.
MurrayK. B.HäublG. (2010). Freedom of choice, ease of use, and the formation of interface preferences.
PhillipsM. R.McAuliffB. D.KoveraM. B.CutlerB. L. (1999). Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 940.
27.
ReddenJ. P. (2008). Reducing satiation: The role of categorization level. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(5), 624-634.
28.
SainiM.AtreyP. K.MehrotraS.KankanhalliM. (2014). W3-privacy: understanding what, when, and where inference channels in multi-camera surveillance video. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 68(1), 135-158.
29.
SeddonP.KiewM.-Y. (1996). A partial test and development of DeLone and McLean's model of IS success. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 4(1).
SquicciariniA. C.ShehabM.PaciF. (2009). Collective privacy management in social networks. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on World wide web (pp. 521-530). ACM.
32.
StraterK.LipfordH. R. (2008). Strategies and struggles with privacy in an online social networking community. In Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Culture, Creativity, Interaction-Volume 1 (pp. 111-119). British Computer Society.
33.
StutzmanF. (2006). An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network communities. Journal of the International Digital Media and Arts Association, 3(1), 10-18.
34.
SwetsJ. A. (1964). Signal Detection and Recognition in Human Observers: Contemporary Readings.
ThomasK.GrierC.NicolD. M. (2010). unFriendly: Multi-party privacy risks in social networks. In International Symposium on Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (pp. 236-252). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
VishwamitraN.LiY.WangK.HuH.CaineK.AhnG. J. (2017). Towards PII-based multiparty access control for photo sharing in online social networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM on Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies (pp. 156-166). ACM.
39.
WallD. (2004). What are Cybercrimes?Criminal Justice Matters, 58(1), 20-21.
40.
WangX.TangX. (2005). Hallucinating face by eigentransformation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reivews), 35(3), 425-434.
