In this contribution, we investigate the privacy implications of social robots as an emerging mobile technology. Drawing on a scoping literature review and expert interviews, we show how social robots come with privacy implications that go beyond those of established mobile technology. Social robots challenge not only users’ informational privacy but also affect their physical, psychological, and social privacy due to their autonomy and potential for social bonding. These distinctive privacy challenges require study from varied theoretical perspectives, with contextual privacy and human–machine communication emerging as particularly fruitful lenses. Findings also point to an increasing focus on technological privacy solutions, complementing an evolving legal landscape as well as a strengthening of user agency and literacy.
AcharyaA. (2015). Are we ready for driver-less vehicles? Security vs. privacy – A social perspective. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5207
2.
*AlaiadA.ZhouL. (2014). The determinants of home healthcare robots adoption. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 83(11), 825–840.
3.
ArkseyH.O’MalleyL. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
4.
*ArmbrustC.MehdiS. A.ReichardtM.KochJ.BernsK. (2011). Using an autonomous robot to maintain privacy in assistive environments. Security and Communication Networks, 4(11), 1275–1293.
BartschM.DienlinT. (2016). Control your Facebook: An analysis of online privacy literacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 147–154.
7.
BeaneM.OrlikowskiW. (2015). What difference does a robot make? The material enactment of distributed coordination. Organization Science, 26(6), 1553–1573.
8.
BekeyG. (2012). Current trends in robotics: Technology and ethics. In LinP.AbneyK.BekeyG. A. (Eds.), Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics (pp. 17–34). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
*BroadbentE. (2017). Interactions with robots: The truth we reveal about ourselves. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 627–652.
11.
BurgoonJ. (1982). Privacy and communication. In BurgoonM. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 6 (pp. 206–249). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
12.
*CaineK.ŠabanovićS.CarterM. (2012). The effect of monitoring by cameras and robots on privacy enhancing behaviors of older adults. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (pp. 343–350). New York, NY: ACM.
13.
*CaloR. (2010a). People can be so fake: A new dimension to privacy and technology scholarship. Penn State Law Review, 114(3). Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1458637
14.
*CaloR. (2010b). Robots and privacy. In LinP.AbneyK.BekeyG. A. (Eds.), Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics (pp. 187–201). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
DencikL.CableJ. (2017). The advent of surveillance realism: Public opinion and activist responses to the Snowden leaks. International Journal of Communication, 11, 763–781.
23.
*DenningT.MatuszekC.KoscherK.SmithJ.KohnoT. (2009). A spotlight on security and privacy risks with future household robots. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 105–114). New York, NY: ACM.
24.
DienlinT.TrepteS. (2015). Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in-depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3), 285–297.
25.
DinevT.HartP. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61–80.
26.
*DraperH.SorellT. (2017). Ethical values and social care robots for older people. Ethics and Information Technology, 19, 49–68.
27.
FeakC.SwalesJ. (2011). Telling a research story: Writing a literature review. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
28.
FoggB. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
29.
FongT.NourbakhshI.DautenhahnK. (2003). A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 143–166.
30.
*Fosch VillarongaE.RoigA. (2017). European regulatory framework for person carrier robots. Computer Law & Security Review, 33, 502–520.
31.
GatesB. (2008). A robot in every home. Scientific American, 18, 4–11.
32.
GrossR.AcquistiA. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (pp. 71–80). New York, NY: ACM.
GuzmanA. (2018). Introduction: What is human–machine communication, anyway? In GuzmanA. (Ed.), Human–machine communication: Rethinking communication, technology, and ourselves (pp. 1–28). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
35.
HargittaiE.MarwickA. (2016). “What can I really do?” Explaining the privacy paradox with online apathy. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3737–3757.
36.
HoffmannC. P.LutzC.RanziniG. (2016). Privacy cynicism: A new approach to the privacy paradox. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 10(4). doi:10.5817/CP2016-4-7
*KaminskiM. (2015). Regulating real-world surveillance. Washington Law Review, 113(9), 1113–1165.
39.
KaminskiM.WitnovS. (2015). The conforming effect: First Amendment implications of surveillance, beyond chilling speech. University of Richmond Law Review, 49, 483–493.
40.
KhanK.KunzR.KleijnenJ.AntesG. (2003). Five steps to conducting a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96(3), 118–121.
41.
*KahnP. H.IshiguroH.FriedmanB.KandaT. (2007). What is a human? – Toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human–robot interaction. Interaction Studies, 8(3), 363–390.
42.
*KernaghanK. (2014). The rights and wrongs of robotics: Ethics and robots in public organizations. Canadian Public Administration, 57(4), 485–506.
43.
KokolakisS. (2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & Security, 64, 122–134.
44.
*KörtnerT. (2016). Ethical challenges in the use of social service robots for elderly people. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 49, 303–307.
LatourB. (1994). On technical mediation—philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowledge, 3(2), 29–64.
47.
LatourB. (2000). The Berlin key or how to do words with things. In Graves-BrownP. M. (Ed.), Matter, materiality, and modern culture (pp. 10–21). London, UK: Routledge.
48.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
49.
LawJ. (2009). Actor network theory and material semiotics. In TurnerB. S. (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory (pp. 141–158). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
50.
*LeeM.TangK.ForlizziJ.KieslerS. (2011). Understanding users’ perception of privacy in human–robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (pp. 181–182). New York, NY: ACM.
51.
Leino-KilpiH.VälimäkiM.DassenT.GasullM.LemonidouC.. . . ArndtM. (2001). Privacy: A review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 38, 663–671.
52.
LevacD.ColquhounH.O’BrienK. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
53.
LightB.BurgessJ.DuguayS. (2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 20(3), 881–900.
54.
LutzC.HoffmannC.BucherE.FieselerC. (2018). The role of privacy concerns in the sharing economy. Information, Communication & Society, 21(10), 1472–1492.
55.
*LutzC.TamòA. (2015). RoboCode-ethicists: Privacy-friendly robots, an ethical responsibility of engineers? In Proceedings of the ACM Web Science Conference. New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2786451.2786465
56.
LutzC.TamòA. (2018). Communicating with robots: ANTalyzing the interaction between healthcare robots and humans with regards to privacy. In GuzmanA. (Ed.), Human–machine communication: Rethinking communication, technology, and ourselves (pp. 145–165). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
57.
LyonD. (2001). Surveillance society: Monitoring everyday life. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
58.
*McReynoldsE.HubbardS.LauT.SarafA.CakmakM.RoesnerF. (2017). Toys that listen: A study of parents, children, and Internet-connected toys. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 5197–5207). New York, NY: ACM.
59.
NassC.SteuerJ.TauberE. R. (1994). Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 72–78). New York, NY: ACM.
60.
NissenbaumH. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79, 101–139.
61.
OakleyA.GoughD.OliverS.ThomasJ. (2005). The politics of evidence and methodology: Lessons from the EPPI-Centre. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, 1(1), 5–32.
62.
ObarJ. A. (2015). Big data and the phantom public: Walter Lippmann and the fallacy of data privacy self-management. Big Data & Society, 2(2), 1–16. doi:10.1177/2053951715608876
63.
*PagalloU. (2013). Robots in the cloud with privacy: A new threat to data protection?Computer Law & Security Review, 29(5), 501–508.
PasqualeF. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
66.
PhamM. T.RajićA.GreigJ. D.SargeantJ. M.PapadopoulosA.McEwenS. A. (2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(4), 371–385.
67.
PinchT. J.BijkerW. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399–441.
ReevesB. (2004). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
70.
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC, OJ L 119 4.5.2016 pp. 1–88 (2016). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj
71.
RichardsN. (2013). The dangers of surveillance. Harvard Law Review, 126(7), 1945–1952.
72.
RouvroyA. (2008). Privacy, data protection, and the unprecedented challenges of ambient intelligence. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, 2(1). doi:10.2202/1941-6008.1001
73.
RuebenM.AroyoA.LutzC.van CleynenbreugelP.SchmölzJ.CortiA.. . . SmartW. (2018). Themes and research directions in privacy-sensitive robotics. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts (ARSO). New York, NY: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ARSO.2018.8625758
74.
*RuebenM.GrimmC.BernieriF.SmartW. (2017). A taxonomy of privacy constructs for privacy-sensitive robotics. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.00841
75.
*SadasivamR. S.LugerT. M.ColeyH. L.TaylorB. B.PadirT.RitchieC. S.HoustonT. K. (2014). Robot-assisted home hazard assessment for fall prevention: A feasibility study. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 20(1), 3–10.
76.
*SanfeliuA.LlácerM. R.GramuntM. D.PunsolaA.YoshimuraY. (2010). Influence of the privacy issue in the deployment and design of networking robots in European urban areas. Advanced Robotics, 24(13), 1873–1899.
77.
*SchaferB.EdwardsL. (2017). “I spy, with my little sensor”: Fair data handling practices for robots between privacy, copyright, and security. Connection Science, 29(3), 200–209.
78.
ScheutzM. (2012). The inherent dangers of unidirectional emotional bonds between humans and social robots. In LinP.AbneyK.BekeyG. A. (Eds.), Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics (pp. 205–222). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
79.
*SedenbergE.ChuangJ.MulliganD. (2016). Designing commercial therapeutic robots for privacy preserving systems and ethical research practices within the home. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(4), 575–587.
80.
SharkeyA. J. C. (2016). Should we welcome robot teachers?Ethics and Information Technology, 18(4), 283–297.
81.
*SharkeyA. J. C.SharkeyN. (2010). The crying shame of robot nannies. Interaction Studies, 11(2), 161–190.
82.
*SharkeyA. J. C.SharkeyN. (2012a). Granny and the robots: Ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(1), 27–40.
83.
*SharkeyA. J. C.SharkeyN. (2012b). The eldercare factory. Gerontology, 58(3), 282–288.
84.
*SharkeyN. (2008). The ethical frontiers of robotics. Science, 322(5909), 1800–1801.
85.
SimitisS. (1987). Reviewing privacy in an information society. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 135(3), 707–746.
86.
SmithH. J.DinevT.XuH. (2011). Information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 989–1015.
87.
SmithersT. (1997). Autonomy in robots and other agents. Brain and Cognition, 34(1), 88–106.
*SorellT.DraperH. (2017). Second thoughts about privacy, security and deception. Connection Science, 29(3), 217–222.
91.
SuchmanL. A. (2007). Human–machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
92.
*SyrdalD. S.WaltersM. L.OteroN.KoayK. L.DautenhahnK. (2007). “He knows when you are sleeping” – Privacy and the personal robot companion. In AAAI-07 Workshop on Human Implications of Human–Robot Interaction. Retrieved from https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Workshops/2007/WS-07-07/WS07-07-006.pdf
93.
TurkleS.TaggartW.KiddC. D.DastéO. (2006). Relational artifacts with children and elders: The complexities of cybercompanionship. Connection Science, 18(4), 347–361.
94.
WestinA. F. (1968). Privacy and freedom. Social Work, 13(4), 114–115.
95.
YoungA. L.Quan-HaaseA. (2013). Privacy protection strategies on Facebook: The Internet privacy paradox revisited. Information, Communication & Society, 16(4), 479–500.
96.
*ZsigaK.EdelmayerG.RumeauP.PéterO.TóthA.FazekasG. (2013). Home care robot for socially supporting the elderly. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 36(4), 375–378.
