Journal of Information Technology Applications and Management

Korea Data Strategy Society (한국데이터전략학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Privacy Paradox in the IoT-based Smart Home Camera Usage Environment: Focusing on a Comparative Study of User Experience

IoT 기반 스마트 홈카메라 이용환경에서의 프라이버시 패러독스 현상에 관한 연구: 사용경험 비교연구를 중심으로

  • Lyu, JinDan (MIS Department in Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Kwon, Sundong (MIS Department in Chungbuk National University)
  • Received : 2021.12.08
  • Accepted : 2021.12.27
  • Published : 2021.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Recently, as personal information utilization devices such as IoT, artificial intelligence, and wearable devices that focus on the individual have spread, privacy violations are also increasing. However, the privacy paradox of providing personal information to enjoy services while worrying is getting stronger. However, there are still preliminary studies on this. In this study, an intelligent home camera based on IoT technology was selected as a research object, and whether privacy paradox exists in the IoT environment, including smart home camera, was studied. To this end, the effect of perceived usefulness, a benefit factor of smart home camera use, and privacy concern, a risk factor, on intention to use was verified. In addition, it was investigated whether the relationship between privacy concerns and intention to use differs according to the presence or absence of use experience. In order to verify the research model, a survey was conducted with people with and without experience in using smart home cameras, and a total of 298 data samples were used for statistical analysis. As a result of the analysis, it was found that both perceived usefulness and privacy concerns had a positive effect on the intention to use, proving that privacy paradox exists in the IoT-based smart home camera environment. In addition, by analyzing the fact that privacy concerns have different effects on usage intentions depending on the user experience, it was verified that those with experience have a strong privacy paradox and those without experience have a weak privacy paradox. This study is meaningful because it seeks strategic implications to improve service and business performance by understanding the relationship between privacy attitudes and behaviors of IoT service providers, including smart home cameras.

Keywords

References

  1. Acquisti, A. and Grossklags, J., "Privacy and rationality in individual decision making", IEEE Security & Privacy, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2005, pp. 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2005.22
  2. Aleisa, N., Renaud, K., and Bongiovanni, I., "The privacy paradox applies to IoT devices too: A Saudi Arabian study", Computers & Security, Vol. 96, 101897, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2020.101897
  3. Barnes, S. B., "A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States", First Monday, Vol. 11, No. 9, 2006.
  4. Barth, S. and De Jong, M. D., "The privacy paradox: Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior: A systematic literature review", Telematics and informatics, Vol. 34, No. 7, 2017, pp. 1038-1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013
  5. Belanger, F. and Crossler, R. E., "Privacy in the digital age: A review of information privacy research in information systems", MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2011, pp. 1017-1041. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409971
  6. Bhattacherjee, A., "An empirical analysis of the antecedents of electronic commerce service continuance", Decision support systems, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2001, pp. 201-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(01)00111-7
  7. Blank, G., Bolsover, G., and Dubois, E., "A new privacy paradox: Young people and privacy on social network sites", In Prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Vol. 17, 2014.
  8. Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., and Zarantonello, L., "Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty?", Journal of marketing, Vol.73, No. 3, 2009, pp. 52-68. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.3.52
  9. Chae, J. M., "The Effect of Mobile Fashion Shopping Characteristics on Consumer's Purchase Intention: Applying the Technology Acceptance Model", Fashion & Textile Research Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2016, pp. 38-47. https://doi.org/10.5805/SFTI.2016.18.1.38
  10. Chae, J. M., "The Effects of Shopping Value, Ease of Use, and Usefulness on Mobile Purchase Intention", Korean Journal of the Science of Emotion & sensibility, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2017, pp. 73-86. https://doi.org/10.14695/KJSOS.2017.20.2.73
  11. Choi, G. B., "An Empirical Study on the Post Acceptance of Mobile Banking Service", Internet E-commerce Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2012, pp. 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-012-9087-7
  12. Choi, H. S., Lee, M. S., and Lee, H. M., "Is There a Privacy Paradox in the Online Purchasing Context?: The Study on the Effects of Privacy Concern and Online Purchasing Behavior", Journal of Product Research, Vol. 37, No. 5, 2019, pp. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.36345/kacst.2019.37.5.001
  13. Choi, S. J., "An Empirical Study of Social Network Service (SNS) Continuance: Incorporating the Customer Value-Satisfaction-Loyalty Model into the IS Continuance Model", Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2013, pp. 1-28. https://doi.org/10.14329/apjis.2013.23.4.001
  14. Davis, F. D., "Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology", MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1989, pp. 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  15. Fishbach, A. and Dhar, R., "Goals as excuses or guides: The liberating effect of perceived goal progress on choice", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2005, pp. 370-377. https://doi.org/10.1086/497548
  16. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F., "Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error", Journal of marketing research, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1981, pp. 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
  17. Gao, T., Sultan, T. F., and Rohm, A. J., "Factors influencing Chinese youth consumers' acceptance of mobile marketing", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27, No. 7, 2010, pp. 574-583. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761011086326
  18. Ginosar, A. and Ariel, Y., "An analytical framework for online privacy research: What is missing?", Information & Management, Vol. 54, No. 7, 2017, pp. 948-957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.02.004
  19. Guo, X., Zhang, X., and Sun, Y., "The privacy-personalization paradox in mHealth services acceptance of different age groups", Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 16, 2016, pp. 55-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2015.11.001
  20. Hassenzahl, M., "User experience (UX) towards an experiential perspective on product quality", In Proceedings of the 20th Conference on l'Interaction HommeMachine, 2008, pp. 11-15.
  21. Hoch, S. J., "Product experience is seductive", Journal of consumer research, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2002, pp. 448-454. https://doi.org/10.1086/344422
  22. Jun, S. Y., Ho, H. J., and Kang, S. J., "The Effects of Risk Perception on the Relative Role of Brand and Price in Internet Shopping Mall", Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2003, pp. 19-43.
  23. Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., and Chervany, N. L., "Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and postadoption beliefs", MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2. 1999, pp. 183-213. https://doi.org/10.2307/249751
  24. Kim, H. J. and Jung, C. H., "The Impacts of Commodity and User Characteristics on Customers' Intention to Reuse in Mobile Banking Services", The Journal of Business Education, Vol. 21, 2008, pp. 215-246.
  25. Kim, J. I. and Kim, I. S., "A Study on how Smartphone Users Experiences Affect Consumer Loyalty Affect", Global Business Administration Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2014, pp. 179-203. https://doi.org/10.17092/jibr.2014.11.1.179
  26. Kim, J. K. and Kim, S. H., "A Study on Privacy Paradox between Privacy Concern and Information Disclosure Behavior: Focus on Privacy Calculus Theory", Entrue Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2014, pp. 139-152.
  27. Kim, M., "Privacy Protection Technologies on IoT Environments: Case Study of Networked Cameras", The Korea Contents Society, Vol. 16, No. 9, 2016, pp. 329-338. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2016.16.09.329
  28. Kim, Y. G. and Woo, E. J., "Privacy Concerns Within Personalization Based on the Internet of Things(IoT): A Perspective from the Privacy Paradox", The Tourism Sciences Society Of Korea, Vol. 42, No. 7, 2018, pp. 71-84.
  29. Kim, Y. K., "Six components of Smart Home (Home IoT) Ecosystem - Communication, Home appliance, and IT companies need mutual cooperation for Global Competitiveness", Digico Report, KT Economic Management Research Institute, 2014.
  30. Kokolakis, S., "Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon", Computers & security, Vol. 64, 2017, pp. 122-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002
  31. Kuratko, D. F., "Entrepreneurial leadership in the 21st century: Guest editor's perspective", Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 13, No. 4, 2007, pp. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/10717919070130040201
  32. Kwon, S. H., Lim, Y. W., and Kim, H. J., "A study on the usage intention of AI(artificial intelligence) speaker", Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2020, pp. 199-206. https://doi.org/10.9708/JKSCI.2020.25.01.199
  33. Lee, A. R., "The Privacy Paradox and User Values in Internet of Things: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Self-Efficacy and Differences between Groups of Demographic Characteristics", The E-business Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2020, pp. 205-223. https://doi.org/10.20462/tebs.2020.02.21.1.205
  34. Lee, H. S., Lim, D. W., and Zo, H. J., "Personal Information Overload and User Resistance in the Big Data Age", Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2013, pp. 125-139. https://doi.org/10.13088/JIIS.2013.19.1.125
  35. Lee, J. M. and Rha, J. Y., "Personalization-privacy paradox and consumer conflict with the use of location-based mobile commerce", Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 63, 2016, pp. 453-462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.056
  36. Lee, K. T. and Noh, M. J., "Factors Influencing the Usage Intention of Social Commerce: The Relationship between the Technology Acceptance Model and the Consumers' Perceived Risk", Consumption Culture Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2011, pp. 165-182. https://doi.org/10.17053/jcc.2011.14.4.009
  37. Lee, M. N. and Shim, J. W., "The Moderating Effect by Gender in the Relationship between the Perception of Online Privacy and Use of Privacy Protection Strategy", Media, Gender & Culture, Vol. 12, 2009, pp. 165-190.
  38. Letchumanan, M. and Muniandy, B., "Migrating to e-book: A study on perceived usefulness and ease of use", Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 30, No. 7. 2013, pp. 10-16. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-05-2013-0028
  39. Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., and Agarwal, J., "Internet users' information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model", Information systems research, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2004, pp. 336-355. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1040.0032
  40. Norberg, P. A., Horne, D. R., and Horne, D. A., "The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure Intentions Versus Behaviors", Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2007, pp. 100-126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00070.x
  41. Pal, D., Arpnikanondt, C., and Razzaque, M. A., "Personal Information Disclosure via Voice Assistants: The PersonalizationPrivacy Paradox", SN Computer Science, Vol. 1, No. 5, 2020, pp. 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-019-0007-y
  42. Park, J. Y. and Kwak, K. Y., "Motivational Factors Affecting Self-Disclosure Behavior of SNS Users", Korean Management Review, Vol. 48, No. 2, 2019, pp. 561-587. https://doi.org/10.17287/kmr.2019.48.2.561
  43. Park, S. A. and Choi, S. M., "A Understanding the Factors Influencing Satisfaction and Continued Use Intention of AI speakers: Focusing on the Utilitarian and Hedonic Values", The Journal of Information Society, Vol. 19, No. 3, 2018, pp. 159-182.
  44. Pavlou, P. A., "Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce : Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model", International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2003, pp. 101-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275
  45. Pavlou. P. A., "State of the information privacy literature: Where are we now and where should we go?", MIS quarterly, Vol.35, No.4. 2011, pp. 977-988. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409969
  46. Reynolds, B., Venkatanathan, J., Goncalves, J., and Kostakos, V., "Sharing Ephemeral Information in Online Social Networks: Privacy Perceptions and Behaviours", In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 2011, pp. 204-215.
  47. Shih, H. P., "An empirical study on predicting user acceptance of e-shopping on the Web," Information & Management, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2004, pp. 351-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(03)00079-X
  48. Shin, I. S. and Kim, H. S., "Privacy Concerns and SNS Activities: Focusing on the Validity and Explanations of the Existence of a Privacy Paradox", Korean Telecommunications Oolicy Review, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2018, pp. 33-67.
  49. Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., and Xu, H., "Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review", MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2011, pp. 989-1015. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409970
  50. Smith, H. J., Milberg, S. J., and Burke, S. J., "Information privacy: Measuring individuals' concerns about organizational practices", MIS Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2, 1996, pp. 167-196. https://doi.org/10.2307/249477
  51. Son, J. and Kim, S., "Internet users' information privacy-protective responses", MIS Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2008, pp. 503-529. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148854
  52. Stanislav, M. and Beardsley, T., "Hacking IoT: A Case Study on Baby Monitor Exposures and Vulnerabilities", Rapid7's report, 2015.
  53. Sun, Y., Wang, N., Shen, X. L., and Zhang, J. X., "Location information disclosure in location-based social network services: Privacy calculus, benefit structure, and gender differences", Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 52, 2015, pp. 278-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.006
  54. Taddicken, M., "The 'privacy paradox'in the social web: The impact of privacy concerns, individual characteristics, and the perceived social relevance on different forms of self-disclosure", Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 19,No. 2, 2014, pp. 248-273.
  55. Tam, K. Y. and Ho, S. Y., "Web personalization as a persuasion strategy: An elaboration likelihood model perspective", Information systems research, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2005, pp. 271-291. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1050.0058
  56. Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y. M., and Lauro, C., "PLS path modeling: Computational statistics & data analysis", Cross Ref Web of Science, Vol. 48, No. 1, 2005, pp. 159-205.
  57. Thong, J. Y., Hong, S. J., and Tam, K. Y., "The effects of post-adoption beliefs on the expectation-confirmation model for information technology continuance", International Journal of human-computer studies, Vol. 64, No. 9, 2006, pp. 799-810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.05.001
  58. Westin, A. F., "Privacy and Freedom", New York: Atheneum, 1967.
  59. Xu, H., Dinev, T., Smith, H. J., and Hart, P., "Examining the formation of individual's privacy concerns: Toward an integrative view", 2008.
  60. Xu, H., Luo, X. R., Carroll, J. M., and Rosson, M. B., "The personalization privacy paradox: An exploratory study of decision making process for locationaware marketing", Decision support systems, Vol. 51, No. 1, 2011, pp. 42-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.11.017
  61. Yim, M. S., "Understanding the Factors that influence Website Retention and Privacy Unconcern After the Disclosure of Privacy Information", Journal of Digital Convergence, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2013, pp. 107-119. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDPM.2013.11.1.107
  62. Zhao, L., Lu, Y., and Gupta, S., "Disclosure intention of location-related information in location-based social network service", International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2012, pp. 53-89. https://doi.org/10.2753/jec1086-4415160403