skip to main content
10.1145/985921.985999acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Affective sensors, privacy, and ethical contracts

Published:24 April 2004Publication History

ABSTRACT

Sensing affect raises critical privacy concerns, which are examined here using ethical theory, and with a study that illuminates the connection between ethical theory and privacy. We take the perspective that affect sensing systems encode a designer's ethical and moral decisions: which emotions will be recognized, who can access recognition results, and what use is made of recognized emotions. Previous work on privacy has argued that users want feedback and control over such ethical choices. In response, we develop ethical contracts from the theory of contractualism, which grounds moral decisions on mutual agreement. Current findings indicate that users report significantly more respect for privacy in systems with an ethical contract when compared to a control.

References

  1. Picard, R. W. and Klein, J. (2002). Computers that Recognise and Respond to User Emotion: Theoretical and Practical Implications. Interacting with Computers, 14(2) (2002), 141--169.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. DARPA SB032-038 TITLE: Integrated System for Emotional State Recognition for the Enhancement of Human Performance and Detection of Criminal Intent. http://www.dodsbir.net/solicitation/darpa032.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Reynolds, C. (2001) The Sensing and Measurement of Frustration with Computers. Master's thesis, MIT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Moor, J. H. (1985). What is computer ethics? Metaphilosophy, 28(3) 266--275.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Cudd, A. (2000). Contractarianism. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianismGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Friedman, B. (1995). It's the computer's fault: reasoning about computers as moral agents. CHI '95 Conference Companion 1995: 226--227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Cranor, L. and Reagle, J. (1998). Designing a Social Protocol: Lessons Learned from the Platform for Privacy Preferences Project, in J. K. MacKie-Mason and D. Waterman (eds.) Telephony, the Internet, and the Media. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Debian Social Contract http://www.debian.org/social_contractGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Affective sensors, privacy, and ethical contracts

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

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

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              CHI EA '04: CHI '04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
              April 2004
              975 pages
              ISBN:1581137036
              DOI:10.1145/985921

              Copyright © 2004 ACM

              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: 24 April 2004

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • Article

              Acceptance Rates

              Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader