# Broadening Privacy and Surveillance: Eliciting Interconnected Values with a
Scenarios Workbook on Smart Home Cameras

Richmond Y. Wong<EMAIL_ADDRESS>0000-0001-8613-0380 Georgia Institute of
TechnologyAtlantaGeorgiaUSA30308 ,  Jason Caleb Valdez<EMAIL_ADDRESS>0009-0008-4019-570X University of WashingtonSeattleWashingtonUSA98195 ,
Ashten Alexander<EMAIL_ADDRESS>0009-0001-1608-6043 University of
WashingtonSeattleWashingtonUSA98195 ,  Ariel Chiang<EMAIL_ADDRESS>0009-0003-4091-6515 University of WashingtonSeattleWashingtonUSA98195 ,
Olivia Quesada<EMAIL_ADDRESS>0009-0003-7760-9324 University of
WashingtonSeattleWashingtonUSA98195 and  James Pierce<EMAIL_ADDRESS>0000-0002-2192-1728 University of WashingtonSeattleWashingtonUSA98195

(2023)

###### Abstract.

We use a design workbook of speculative scenarios as a values elicitation
activity with 14 participants. The workbook depicts use case scenarios with
smart home camera technologies that involve surveillance and uneven power
relations. The scenarios were initially designed by the researchers to explore
scenarios of privacy and surveillance within three social relationships
involving “primary” and “non-primary” users: Parents-Children, Landlords-
Tenants, and Residents-Domestic Workers. When the scenarios were utilized as
part of a values elicitation activity with participants, we found that they
reflected on a broader set of interconnected social values beyond privacy and
surveillance, including autonomy and agency, physical safety, property rights,
trust and accountability, and fairness. The paper suggests that future
research about ethical issues in smart homes should conceptualize privacy as
interconnected with a broader set of social values (which can align or be in
tension with privacy), and reflects on considerations for doing research with
non-primary users.

scenarios, privacy, surveillance, ethics, values in design, smart home
cameras, workbooks

††journalyear: 2023††copyright: rightsretained††conference: Designing
Interactive Systems Conference; July 10–14, 2023; Pittsburgh, PA,
USA††booktitle: Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23), July
10–14, 2023, Pittsburgh, PA, USA††doi: 10.1145/3563657.3596012††isbn:
978-1-4503-9893-0/23/07††ccs: Security and privacy Social aspects of security
and privacy††ccs: Human-centered computing Empirical studies in HCI

Figure 1. Section “title pages” from our Scenario Workbook (images of the
scenarios are in Section 3.1 and Appendix A.)

3 screenshots of ”title pages” from the workbook. Title page saying ”parents
and children” with an illustration of a house. ”Landlords and tenants” title,
with an illustration of an apartment building with smart sensors. ”Residents
and domestic workers” title page with an image of cameras watching a child and
babysitter.

##  1\. Introduction

Consumers are increasingly adopting and deploying “smart” products or Internet
of Things (IoT) technologies, including speakers, doorbells, locks, cameras,
appliances, and others. While these may provide new ways to live and interact
with others, they also present concerns related to privacy and surveillance.
Furthermore, these technologies may affect additional social values, such as
mediating social interactions and changing how trust or autonomy are
considered within relationships. This paper focuses on smart home cameras
because they are one of the most popular, growing (Tan et al., 2022b), and
controversial applications of smart home products (Pierce, 2019b; Pierce et
al., 2022; Tan et al., 2022b). Values in design scholars have sought methods
to proactively identify and discuss the potential social values impacts and
ethical harms related to new technologies (Shilton, 2018; Wong et al., 2020a).
Forward-looking and open ended design methods may assist in these efforts
(Shilton et al., 2020; Wong and Mulligan, 2019).

This paper presents a case study using a design workbook of conceptual designs
proposals and hypothetical use case scenarios to elicit discussion about
social values and ethical issues with users and stakeholders of smart home
camera technologies (Figure 1). We created a workbook to initially explore how
smart camera technologies might continue to amplify and exacerbate issues of
privacy and surveillance (Pierce, 2019b; Tan et al., 2022b), especially in
social relationships between “primary” and “non-primary” users. Primary users
have greater forms of control and access to smart camera devices, while non-
primary users (Tan et al., 2022b) have less control and access. Specifically,
the workbook explores how future smart home camera systems might affect
relationships among Parents & Children, Landlords & Tenants, and Residents &
Domestic Workers.

We shared the workbook with 14 participants who were users of smart home
technologies and experienced at least one of the social relationship
categories described in the scenarios (e.g., parent, landlord). We conducted
interviews to understand: When using these scenarios as elicitation tools, how
do participants assess values and ethics? What perspectives, values, opinions,
preferences, and judgments do participants reveal? While participants directly
mentioned privacy and surveillance in their reactions to the scenarios, we
also found that they contextualized these among a broader (and sometimes
conflicting) set of interconnected social values.

This paper makes two empirical contributions. First, it builds on prior
research broadening conceptions of privacy by finding that participants
employed multiple values and concepts in their ethical assessments of the
scenarios. Contributing to HCI research on privacy, ethics and values, this
suggests that smart home research should similarly broaden how it
conceptualizes problems of privacy and surveillance. Second, it provides a
case study of doing research that engages both primary and non-primary users.
We reflect on our design process for constructing scenarios that can engage in
discussion from multiple points of view.

In the following sections, we discuss related work, our design process, and
methods. We then present our findings of how participants identified multiple
and sometimes conflicting social values at stake in the scenarios including:
privacy and surveillance, autonomy and agency, physical safety, property
rights, trust and accountability, and fairness. We end with reflections on (1)
expanding our conceptions of privacy to be entangled with other values, (2)
the fluidity of the categories of “primary” and “non-primary” users, (3) the
modes of engagement participants used to reflect on values, and (4) future
implications for research and design.

##  2\. Related Work

###  2.1. Values & Ethics, Primary & Non-Primary Users, and Smart Home
Technologies

Prior research has studied privacy in smart home settings. Traditionally,
digital privacy research has focused on the relationships between device
owners and the companies that collect the data, such as providing privacy
notices in smart home settings (Naeini et al., 2017), providing users control
over personal data (Bahirat et al., 2021; Chalhoub et al., 2021; Feng et al.,
2021), or creating systems that make privacy decisions for users (Lee and
Kobsa, 2020). These focus on the so-called “vertical” relationships between
users and companies. However in practice, not everyone is equally able to
exercise these rights or make these decisions. Furthermore, many consumer IoT
devices involve spatial sensors such as cameras and microphones which affect
the privacy of nearby actors (Pierce et al., 2022; Tan et al., 2022b).

A growing body of HCI research has begun studying how privacy and ethical
concerns arise in “lateral” (Andrejevic, 2005; Mulligan and King, 2011) social
relationships between different types of users. In particular we consider
primary users as users who have greater forms of control and access to smart
home devices (often by owning them), while non-primary users have less control
and access (Tan et al., 2022b). Koshy et al. use the terms “pilot” and
“passenger” users to similarly describe these relationships (Koshy et al.,
2021), though we build on Pierce et al.’s conception of non-primary users
(Pierce et al., 2022) to consider a range of relationships (such as secondary
and tertiary users who may have some but restricted access to devices, or
indirect/incidental users like delivery workers interacting with cameras).
Pierce et al combine prior work (e.g., (Baumer, 2015; Bernd et al., 2022; Yao
et al., 2019; Zeng et al., 2017)) to outline a range of terminology to grapple
with various types of non-primary users. They refer to people who meaningfully
interact with a digital system but experience low levels of control and
benefits as “adjacent users” (Pierce et al., 2022, p.37).

Regardless of the specific terminology used to describe non-primary users, the
introduction of smart home devices has the potential to cause tension in
social relationships in the home (Choe et al., 2012; Yao et al., 2019). Prior
research suggests that non-primary users have limited understanding of how
smart devices collect their data (Marky et al., 2020, 2021), and limited
ability to access or control device settings (Zeng et al., 2017). In some
contexts, primary users may wish to protect non-primary users’ privacy but
often lack features to help do this (Wu et al., 2023; Ahmad et al., 2020).
Given this, researchers have explored how to design to increase non-primary
users’ awareness, understandings, and ability to control how their data is
collected and used (Cobb et al., 2021; Lau et al., 2018; Thakkar et al.,
2022).

Importantly, non-primary users often have less social power than primary
users, potentially exacerbating their privacy violations. For instance, Ur et
al. study a smart lock system, and find that parents would configure the
system in ways that surveils their teenage children (Ur et al., 2014).
Participatory design workshops with smart home sensor systems have suggested
that some participants might actively seek to create applications to surveil
or control non-primary users’ behaviors (Kurze et al., 2020; Tabassum et al.,
2020).

Several projects study these dynamics specifically with smart cameras. Bernd
et al. study privacy practices of in-home nannies in relation to smart cameras
installed by home residents (their employers), finding that nannies may have
the right to data protection, but in practice do not have the ability to
request control over the data because of the power imbalance in their
employer-employee relationship (Bernd et al., 2022, 2020). Tan et al. find
that many primary users of smart cameras have limited concern for non-primary
users’ privacy, and that some non-primary users feel concerned about privacy
but are uncomfortable confronting primary users about it (Tan et al., 2022b).
While there are a few examples of design interventions specifically intended
to improve privacy and social tensions with smart sensing devices (e.g., (Chen
et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2019; David-John et al., 2021)), there remains a
need to better understand and foreground primary and non-primary user
dynamics.

Prior research has also investigated additional values and ethical
implications of smart home environments. Smart home devices have implications
for trust in social relationships (Bernd et al., 2022; Choe et al., 2012), and
for autonomy and agency (Denefleh et al., 2019; Ehrenberg and Keinonen, 2021;
Garg and Cui, 2022). Others have questioned the values and politics of smart
homes more broadly by asking who gets considered as a smart home user and what
counts as a smart home (Jenkins, 2017; Kozubaev et al., 2019; Odom et al.,
2019; Oogjes et al., 2018), and highlighting power imbalances in gender roles
in the smart home (Strengers et al., 2019).

In our design explorations, we consider three particular relationships of
primary and non-primary users: Parents & Children, Landlords & Tenants, and
Residents & Domestic Workers.

###  2.2. Conceptualizing Privacy

Privacy scholars have attempted to define privacy in many ways, such as
privacy as: control over personal information, as protections from government
searches, as the protection of physical spaces and bodies, as freedom of
thought, and more. However, no single definition applies well to every
situation. Reacting to this, privacy scholar Dan Solove has written that
privacy as “a concept in disarray. Nobody can articulate what it means”
(Solove, 2008).

Shifting away from universal theories of privacy, recent work has acknowledged
multifaceted conceptions of privacy, such as Solove’s taxonomy of data privacy
harms (Solove, 2003), and his articulation of multiple conceptions of privacy
(Solove, 2002). Nissenbaum’s contextual integrity formulates how privacy
depends on contextual and situational norms (Nissenbaum, 2009). Mulligan et
al. present a set of dimensions that can be used to describe privacy in
specific contexts, asking why is privacy important, who and what is protected
by privacy, what actions violate privacy, what protects privacy, and how
broadly privacy applies (Mulligan et al., 2016).

Notably, recent privacy scholarship has begun to discuss how the harms of
privacy violations are multifaceted and include social values related to many
aspects of human experience. Citron and Solove’s typology of privacy harms
describes how violations of privacy can lead to physical harms (such as bodily
injury and death), economic and monetary losses, harms to individuals’
reputations, psychological and emotional harms, harms to people’s autonomy and
ability to make choices, discrimination harms, and harms to personal and
professional social relationships (Citron and Solove, 2022). They write that
each of these types of harms implicates different values, legal theories, and
histories. Citron and Solove articulate this typology using legal case
studies. Our research surfaces perspectives and experiences from actual users
of smart technology who suggest a similarly wide range of interconnected
privacy harms.

While these theories broadening the conceptualization of privacy are
acknowledged and cited within HCI, privacy is still often operationalized in
narrower ways within HCI research. McDonald and Forte describe (McDonald and
Forte, 2020) that HCI privacy work tends to either conceptualize privacy as
individual control (e.g., individual privacy boundaries (Altman, 1975)), or as
social community norms (e.g., contextual integrity (Nissenbaum, 2009)). Wong
and Mulligan describe how much of HCI research frames privacy as a technical
problem that can be solved through design solutions such as encryption or data
architecture; or frames privacy as an informational problem which requires the
re-design of notices and other informational content to assist users’
decision-making (Wong and Mulligan, 2019). McDonald and Forte suggest that HCI
would benefit by expanding its conceptions of privacy to focus on
vulnerabilities from feminist and queer perspectives (McDonald and Forte,
2020), building on other research identifying how people’s experiences of
privacy can vary with their social power positions (McDonald et al., 2020;
Freed et al., 2018). This paper similarly suggests that HCI can usefully
expand its conceptions of privacy, but by considering a broader network of
interconnected social values.

###  2.3. Design Futuring Methods

Imagining different sociotechnical configurations of the world with design
futuring provides opportunities to consider matters of public concern, such as
how social values, ethical outcomes, and arrangements of power might change
(DiSalvo et al., 2014; Lockton et al., 2019; Wong et al., 2020b). “Ethical
speculation” practices can be useful for pedagogical and reflective discussion
of technology’s ethical impacts (Fiesler, 2019, 2021). Yet at times, these
practices have been critiqued for not engaging adequately with people and
perspectives beyond designers or not providing empirical knowledge (Elsden et
al., 2017; Kozubaev et al., 2020).

In response, researchers and designers have involved participants in design
futuring by co-designing futures (Kozubaev et al., 2019; Tran O’Leary et al.,
2019), creating activities or experiences for participants to engage in
(Ballard et al., 2019; Elsden et al., 2017; Kozubaev et al., 2020; Merrill,
2020), or using design futuring artifacts as probes to elicit participants’
reflections in values-centered research (Briggs and Thomas, 2015; Harrington
and Dillahunt, 2021; Noortman et al., 2019; Wong et al., 2017). Several design
futuring projects consider smart home cameras and themes related to privacy
and surveillance, including Pierce et al.’s speculative exploration of smart
camera surveillance metaphors (Pierce, 2019a, b; Pierce et al., 2020; Pierce,
2021), Tan et al.’s in-home speculative probes with participants to imagine
new relationships with their own cameras (Tan et al., 2022a), and Cheng et
al.’s design research camera platform that allows for home participants to
actively or passively share their recording data (Cheng et al., 2019).

With varying degrees of participation, HCI and design researchers have further
explored a variety of forms for presenting design scenarios to various
audiences and stakeholders, including concept videos (Rogers et al., 2019;
Lindley et al., 2020a), textual narratives (Baumer et al., 2018), interface
elements such as icons (DiSalvo et al., 2016; Lindley et al., 2020b), GIFs
(Biggs et al., 2021), and brief design proposals involving photographs,
collage, illustration, diagrams, and annotations (Aipperspach et al., 2008;
Pierce and DiSalvo, 2018; Gaver and Martin, 2000; Boucher et al., 2012).

####  2.3.1. Design Workbooks and Values Elicitation

Design workbooks, while often used as an internal tool for design teams to
explore a design space (Gaver, 2011), have more recently been used as research
probes to elicit participant reflection and engagement. Wong et al. use
workbooks of imagined IoT surveillance devices to understand how technologists
might think about different aspects of privacy, finding that participants
engaged with the workbooks in multiple ways when discussing privacy, such as
seeing themselves as both users and designers, imagining the designs as real,
and comparing the designs to real-world examples and experiences (Wong et al.,
2017). Based on this, the authors suggest that design workbooks could be
useful in a values in design process. Wyche utilizes workbooks as part of a
visual elicitation study in an ICTD context, finding that design concepts
afforded rich participant responses that gave insight into participants’
memories and experiences, helped participants note practical problems and
question the designs’ assumptions, and showed how local community members
conceptualized values (such as surveillance) differently than the researchers
(Wyche, 2021). Similar to these elicitation activities, Chen et al. utilize
workbooks of visual design concepts to broach topics with participants that
might be difficult to discuss in an interview, such as the role of data after
death (Chen et al., 2021). Harrington and Dillahunt take design workbooks in a
more participatory direction, creating an interactive design workbook with
explicit prompts and spaces for participants to brainstorm, allowing for co-
speculating with Black youth (Harrington and Dillahunt, 2021). Other
researchers have creatively used design probes, participatory engagements, and
design scenarios in other ways to engage people with the topics privacy,
security, and surveillance (Pierce et al., 2018b; Knowles et al., 2019; Nägele
et al., 2018; Rogers et al., 2019).

This paper uses workbooks as a form of visual elicitation and values
elicitation, showing participants scenarios created by the researchers to
understand their reactions and reflections on social values.

####  2.3.2. Scenario Literature that Motivates Our Approach

Scenarios, broadly defined as strategically produced visions of possible
futures (Buehring and Liedtka, 2018), vary in their form and purpose across
fields. Design scenarios in HCI are typically brief textual and/or visual
descriptions (e.g., use cases) used to creatively imagine design solutions
(Carroll, 1995), or to communicate, validate and endorse design decisions
about user actions (Evans, 2003; Martin, 2009).

A scenario lineage from outside HCI comes from strategic planning and
foresight (van der Heijden, 2005)—often used in public policy, crisis
management, and business strategy—to help organizations deal with uncertainty
by envisioning medium to long-term futures (5-15 years) to influence an
organization’s strategic decisions (Vaara and Whittington, 2012). Scenarios
are not predictive but rather anticipatory tools (Weber, 1996) for imagining,
discussing, shaping, planning, and preparing for possible futures. We found
this lineage’s use of trend analysis to create scenarios useful for our design
explorations.

While largely separate today, HCI design scenarios and strategic planning
scenarios do have common origins in the 1960s (Wong and Khovanskaya, 2018;
Mazé et al., 2019). Recent work has sought to re-integrate the two approaches
of design scenarios and strategic planning scenarios, highlighting
opportunities to: improve strategic scenarios using design expertise (Buehring
and Liedtka, 2018), improve the “worldmaking” aspects of scenarios (Vervoort
et al., 2015), involve diverse stakeholders in the planning process (van der
Heijden, 2005; Vaara and Whittington, 2012), combine both traditions to
explore ethical issues related to emerging technologies (Epp et al., 2022;
Wong and Nguyen, 2021) including privacy and security (for Long-Term
Cybersecurity, 2016; Knowles et al., 2019). This paper uses scenarios as a
probe (Hutchinson et al., 2003; Noortman et al., 2019) in a values elicitation
activity. We draw inspiration from value sensitive design approaches that use
scenarios as a way to elicit stakeholder understandings of values (Briggs and
Thomas, 2015; Friedman et al., 2017; Nathan et al., 2008).

##  3\. Developing the Scenarios Workbook

The scenarios we present in this study form part of a larger, ongoing project
that aims to (a) conceptually explore trends of smart home devices, (b)
methodologically combine the strengths of design scenarios and strategic
planning scenarios, and (c) adapt this approach to engage broader
participation from diverse stakeholders. To develop scenarios for the design
workbook, we identified current trends in smart home technologies synthesized
from prior research and news reporting. In parallel, we generated a wide range
of hypothetical scenarios that explored a range of themes related to smart
home devices and datafication of daily life. (We present more details about
this process in Appendix A).

Scenarios Design Process. Developing the scenarios was an iterative and
emergent process. We began generating scenarios using short textual
descriptions. We ideated by creating lists of scenarios that consisted of a
short and often catchy title followed by a few sentences describing the
scenario. From here, we selected some to iterate by adding rough sketches. We
then continued to select and refine. This process allowed us to explore many
scenarios before committing further efforts toward refining them through
visual illustration and polished copywriting. The next stage was splitting the
scenarios into text and illustration. One group of authors created rough
illustrations while another focused on refining the text. To achieve
consistency, we then had one author finalize all illustrations and one author
finalize all captions.

We initially explored at least 50 possible scenario ideas covering multiple
themes including (1) the sensorification of daily life, (2) perceptually
powerful devices, (3) behind-the-scenes actors and data misuse, (4) beyond
safety and security: social, reflective, and aesthetic applications, (5)
environmental sensor pollution, and (6) social tensions and asymmetric power
relations. Ultimately, our study demanded that we narrow down and select fewer
scenarios that we could discuss with participants in a 60-90 minute interview.
We decided to focus on the theme of smart camera surveillance within everyday
asymmetric power relations as it captured important social and ethical issues
at stake with smart devices, and this theme elicited much discussion among the
authors. Scenario ideas on other themes were excluded, leaving us with
approximately a dozen scenarios. Of those, most fit into one of three
categories of social relationships: Parents & Children, Landlords & Tenants,
and Homeowners & Domestic Workers, so we focused on developing scenarios in
these categories. Other relationships with fewer scenario ideas (such as one
scenario between homeowners and delivery drivers) were not selected for
further exploration. We ended up developing text and visuals for 3 scenarios
from those 3 categories which we felt would explore different facets of these
relationships as they relate to privacy and surveillance.

Figure 2. We explored different levels of detail, for instance, single-image
snapshots (left) versus multi-frame storyboards (right). Ultimately we decided
to create single-image snapshot scenarios.

Screenshot on the left of a scenario with 1 image and some text; screenshot on
the right of a storyboard scenario, with 5 visual scenes and text descriptions

Design Composition of Scenarios. We wanted the scenarios to be legible,
comprehensible, and relatable to participants so that it might lead to
discussion, reflection, criticism, and imagination. We formalized a design
framework of 4 core considerations to help us achieve these goals:

1\. Ethical tone: Do the scenarios suggest a use case that is positive,
negative, or ambiguous (from our perspective or the anticipated perspective of
our audience)? We intended each scenario to be ethically ambiguous in order to
avoid being immediately interpreted as completely utopian or dystopian, by
incorporating positive and negative aspects. We note that “ambiguous” is
different than neutral; rather than avoiding being positive or negative
(neutral), we find that ambiguity allows us to acknowledge how many scenarios
can have both positive and negative elements, depending on one’s perspective
or viewpoint.

2\. Timescale: Does the scenario take place in the near-term (soon?) or long-
term (someday?). We decided to place each scenario closer to the present to
ensure they were more relatable and comprehensible.

3\. Levels of detail: Does a scenario focus on breadth or depth? Are they
conveyed through a single snapshot or a longer storyboard (e.g., a single
image or a multi-panel storyboard)? We decided to make each scenario simple,
easy to digest, and presentable within a single page to ensure we cover
approximately 10 scenarios within the relatively short interview time. We
constrained each scenario to a single-image with short captions, rather than a
longer storyboard narrative showing multiple scenes (Figure 2). We referred to
these as a “snapshot” scenario format.

4\. Mundanity: Does the scenario depict an ordinary versus extraordinary scene
within the fictional future world? We tended to select scenarios that, within
the speculative world, appeared to be fairly regular, commonplace events in
order to prompt normative judgements about future “new normals.” The question
of “mundane for whom?” was one we grappled with, given that what might appear
as “normal” depends on one’s life experiences. We tried to include a mix of
experiences, such as an overprotective parent, a tenant living in a large
apartment building, and nanny reporting for work. However, we note that the
research team lived in close proximity to large cities on the U.S. west coast,
all of whom lived in rental housing. We recognize that there are broader
housing situations than our own lived experiences (Kozubaev et al., 2019; Odom
et al., 2019). We note that one limitation of this approach is that by
building scenarios focused on more mundane situations (from our perspective)
we missed an opportunity to engage with more marginal, idiosyncratic, or
subcultural scenes—something we intend to explore in future work.

###  3.1. Scenarios in the Workbook Study

The scenarios in the final version of the workbook (Table 1) are grouped in
sections featuring different relationships: (1) Parents & Children, where
parents monitor or take care of children; (2) Landlords & Tenants, where
apartment landlords and property managers manage the tenants who rent from
them; and (3) Residents & Domestic Workers, where home residents hire people
to work within their home such as nannies or babysitters.

Table 1. Summary of Scenarios in the Workbook  Scenario Name |  Scenario Description
---|---
Parents & Children
Out After Curfew Detector |  Smart cameras designed to keep intruders out might be also used to help keep kids in. (Fig 8)
Remote Chaperone |  Smart cameras might be used to help parents remotely monitor kids (Fig 9).
Drone Parents |  A helicopter parent is one who “hovers” over their child to closely monitor their experiences and problems. Smart cameras might enable a whole new level of helicopter parenting (Fig 3)
Landlords & Tenants
Extreme Lease Enforcer |  Smart cameras and microphones might be used to precisely and strictly enforce rental agreements by helping landlords and property managers send warnings, fines, or eviction notices. (Fig 10)
Dealing with a Problem Tenant |  Smart devices might enable tenants to report dangerous or annoying behavior so that property managers can deal with it (Fig 11)
Approved Access Only |  Cameras and other smart devices might be used to increase security for tenants. The same technology may be used to limit access for non-approved guests and tenants not in good standing. (Fig 4)
Residents & Domestic Workers
Dropping in, Keeping Tabs |  Smart cameras might allow people to easily check in on nannies, housekeepers, babysitters, plumbers, painters, and other hired help. (Fig 12)
Incident Report |  An indoor smart camera system might allow an adult to monitor their parent’s caregiver and their child’s nanny. The system sends incident reports whenever a notable event occurs such as a grandparent falling, a child having a meltdown, or a caregiver yelling or neglecting their patient. (Fig 13)
Mood Check |  Smart camera systems might also monitor the internal emotional states of people. This could be used to assess whether a nanny, caregiver, or pet sitter enjoys their job or not, and whether they have the right social skills and temperament. (Fig 5)

Figure 3. Detailed view of the Drone Parents scenario shown to participants.

Drawing of ”drone parents” scenario - Drone Parents. A helicopter parent is
one who “hovers” over their child to closely monitor their experiences and
problems. Smart cameras might enable a whole new level of helicopter parenting

Figure 4. Detailed view of the Approved Access Only scenario shown to
participants.

Drawing of approved access only scenario - Cameras and other smart devices
might be used to increase security for tenants. The same technology may be
used to limit access for non-approved guests and tenants not in good standing.

Figure 5. Detailed view of the Mood Check scenario shown to participants

Drawing of mood check scenario - Mood Check. Smart camera systems might also
monitor the internal emotional states of people. This could be used to assess
whether a nanny, caregiver, or pet sitter enjoys their job or not, and whether
they have the right social skills and temperament.

##  4\. Study Methods

In 2021, we recruited participants through advertisements using Craigslist in
the San Francisco Bay area and Seattle metro area, and social media posts. We
initially recruited near the researchers’ institutions, planning to meet
participants in-person. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, we conducted all
interviews using Zoom. As our social media posts were re-shared online, we
ended up recruiting from across the United States. The recruitment messages
described that we were looking for people who either “own a smart home device”
or “interact with smart home devices that you don’t own.” We did not define
“smart home device.” Interested participants filled out a screener survey
asking them to list smart home devices that they own or interact with,
describe a previous experience with a smart device, and basic demographic
data. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at the
authors’ institutions.

All participants we reached out to for interviews reported having some prior
experience with smart home devices, either as a primary or non-primary user.
All participants also fit into one of the social relationship categories in
the scenarios, through their current or past experiences (e.g., currently a
parent, or previously a domestic worker). Some met more than one of these
qualifications. All participants resided in the United States. A limitation of
our recruitment is that we did not have IRB permission to do research with
people under 18 years old. As a proxy, we interviewed several younger adults
who currently live with their parents (P8, P12) both to understand their
current home dynamics and their recent experiences from when they were
younger. Table 2 provides key information about the participants, while Table
3 provides aggregated demographic information.111Demographic information is
provided in aggregate form in order to help preserve participants’ anonymity.
Classifications of current and previous experiences were determined by coding
participants’ explicit discussion of their experiences, so this table likely
undercounts people’s experiences. For instance, most people probably lived
with their parents previously at some point, but we only indicate participants
who explicitly discussed it.

Table 2. Summary of Participants and their Relevant Experiences (C = currently does this, P = previously did this)  # |  Gender |  Age |  Occupation |  House-hold Size |  Other Household Members |  Lives w/ Parent(s) |  Lives w/ Child(ren) |  Is Landlord |  Is Tenant/ Renter |  Hires Domestic Workers |  Is Domestic Worker
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
P1 |  Female |  35 |  Grad Student |  1 |  n/a |  P |  |  |  C |  |  P
P2 |  Male |  35 |  Project Manager |  4 |  Spouse and children |  |  C |  |  |  |
P3 |  Male |  28 |  Electrical Engineer |  2 |  Roommate |  |  |  |  C |  |
P4 |  Male |  24 |  Graduate Student |  4 |  Roommates |  P |  |  |  C |  |
P5 |  Female |  37 |  Finance Manager |  2 |  Spouse |  |  |  C |  P |  C |
P6 |  Female |  36 |  Administrative Assistant |  4 |  Spouse and children |  |  C |  |  P |  C |
P7 |  Male |  37 |  Sales Executive |  7 |  Spouse, children, mother, brother |  |  C |  C |  P |  |
P8 |  Male |  22 |  Student, Administrative Assistant |  5 |  Parents, siblings |  C |  |  |  |  |
P9 |  Male |  50 |  Banquet server & Food Delivery |  2 |  Spouse |  |  |  P |  C |  C |
P10 |  Female |  47 |  Administrative Assistant |  3 |  Spouse, child |  |  C |  |  |  |
P11 |  Female |  41 |  Administrative |  4 |  Spouse, children |  |  C |  |  |  |
P12 |  Male |  28 |  Student & Pet Sitter/Dog Walker |  3 |  Parent and roommate |  C |  |  |  C |  |  C
P13 |  Female |  60 |  Operations Manager |  2 |  Spouse |  |  |  C |  C |  C |
P14 |  Male |  40 |  Social Worker |  2 |  Spouse |  |  |  |  C |  |
Table 3. Aggregated demographics of participants  Ethnicity | Area Lived In | Highest Education | Annual Household Income
---|---|---|---
White/Caucasian (7) | Big City/Urban (7) | Some college (1) | $10k-50k (2)
Asian (6) | Suburban (5) | Associate’s Degree (2) | $50k-100k (5)
Hispanic (1) | Mid-Sized City (1) | Bachelor’s Degree (6) | $100k-150k (5)
| Small Town (1) | Master’s Degree (5) | $150k+ (1)
|  |  | Prefer not to share (1)

We interviewed 14 participants for between 60-90 minutes, conducted by the
first or second authors in a semi-structured fashion. Participants were
compensated with a $30 Amazon.com gift card. Interviews consisted of two
parts. First, participants were asked background questions about their prior
experiences with smart home technologies to get them comfortable talking.
However, this part of the interview is not analyzed, as we focus instead on
the participants’ interactions with the scenarios.

The second part focused on the scenario workbook. The interviewer would screen
share the workbook, explaining that these are fictional scenarios depicting
smart home cameras. We decided the researcher would share their screen to show
participants the scenarios, rather than having interviewees share their
screens to avoid potential technical difficulties. The workbook was presented
in a linear fashion, similar to a slideshow. It was shown in the order listed
in Table 1 to all participants, since the workbook was grouped into sections
and had summary pages listing the designs in order, to help communicate the
three groups of relationships. The interviewer would present the scenarios in
one section, asking participants to “think aloud” and provide any initial
thoughts or reactions. For instance, with Parents & Children, the interviewer
would go through the Out After Curfew Detector, Remote Chaperone, and Drone
Parent. After viewing a section, the interviewer would present a section
summary page. While on this page, participants were asked a range of questions
about the scenarios, such as if they have had similar experiences, what they
think is positive or negative, how they think the people in the scenarios
might feel, and if there were any new ideas or scenarios that came to mind.
This was repeated for the Landlords & Tenants and Residents & Domestic Worker
sections. While we asked participants if they had any concerns about the
scenarios, we never explicitly prompted them to speak about privacy,
surveillance, or other social values.

Recordings were transcribed using Zoom’s captioning features. The first author
conducted the first round of analysis. While reading transcripts he
inductively used action coding to identify participants’ interactions with the
workbooks (Saldaña, 2013, pg.96), and values coding to identify statements
related to social values, attitudes, beliefs, and ethics (Saldaña, 2013,
pg.110). Text excerpts with these codes were extracted from the transcripts
and grouped into themes. The first, second, and last authors met periodically
to discuss and refine the codes and themes of the analysis.

###  4.1. Cultural Context of the Study

This research was conducted by researchers living in large cities on the west
coast of the United States and with participants living in the U.S. This
cultural and legal context affected participants’ responses and the
researchers’ analysis. At the time of research. the U.S. does not have a
national data privacy law, meaning that many expectations of privacy depend on
people’s beliefs about proper norms and practices rather than on a legal
definition. Culturally, ownership of private property is encouraged and often
seen as a way to increase generational wealth (although the ability to
purchase property is not evenly distributed among social, class, and racial
differences). Furthermore, in most states and cities in the U.S., there are
relatively limited protections legal protections or recourse for renters and
tenants (such as if tenants face rate increases or evictions by landlords) or
employees (in many cases it is very easy to be fired by an employer).
Knowledge of these dynamics affected how the researchers interpreted
participants’ statements about their beliefs and experiences in these domains.

##  5\. Findings: Eliciting Participants’ Values Reflections on the Scenarios

In our findings, we report on prominent values that surfaced across
participant reactions: (1) privacy and surveillance, (2) autonomy and agency,
(3) physical safety and care, (4) private property interests, (5) trust and
accountability, (6) fairness, and (7) how values differ across social
identities. We note that participants introduced these values; we did not
explicitly name any of the values when asking participants questions. One
takeaway is that participants rarely thought in terms of a single value or
concern, such as privacy, but rather suggested a network of interrelated
values and concerns.

Before discussing those findings, we briefly note how participants expressed a
range of mixed reactions to the scenarios both within and across subjects.
Participants varied widely on their feelings of positivity or negativity of
each scenario. No scenario was universally liked or disliked by participants.
Some disliked almost all the scenarios, some liked almost all the scenarios,
but most liked some and disliked others. Some participants also expressed
mixed feelings about the same scenario when considering it from different
points of view. For instance, P1 immediately reacted to the designs by stating
“I can appreciate why the parent might want [that] and the child might not”
when presented with the first scenario, Curfew Detector. Across all the
scenarios, participants were able to consider the situations from multiple
stakeholder perspectives.

###  5.1. Privacy and Surveillance

Participants explicitly brought up privacy in multiple ways, often describing
how primary users (Parents, Landlords, and Residents) were in positions to
surveil or violate the privacy of non-primary users (Children, Tenants, and
Domestic Workers) in the scenarios. For instance, in response to the Landlords
& Tenants scenarios P4 (current renter) explained “I think a problem on one
side would be abuse of power by the landlord and again the invasion of
privacy.”

Participants described how their expectations of privacy related to practices
of surveillance and data collection. Several participants observed that smart
cameras might allow an owner to constantly collect data. P3 (current renter),
reflecting on the Problem Tenant scenario said “I wouldn’t want them
[landlords] to record everything all the time. But for a specific time when
you receive a complaint or something from others, and they can just keep that,
it’s fine.” P3 suggests that landlords keeping specific recordings related to
tenant complaints might be acceptable, but that recording all the time
violates a tenant’s expectations of privacy.

Another concern with privacy expectations emerged with the Mood Check
scenario, which depicts a smart home camera used for new, speculative types of
emotional surveillance.

> P5 (current landlord, previous renter): It strikes me as a little strange to
> have something that was never available to me. I don’t know if it’s
> necessary. We’ve all gone through life without mood checks. […] I feel like
> this is a little invasive, like you’re trying to read someone’s mind,
> basically and boil it down to one simple description.

P5’s reflection suggests that the scenario reconfigures Resident & Domestic
Worker relationships by introducing a new form of intimate data that was not
available before this speculative technology, violating current social
expectations of privacy.

Several participants drew connections to other experiences of privacy and
surveillance, including surveillance of workers at stores and offices, or
tracking others’ location on smartphones. P1 (current renter) noted how the
Landlord & Tenant scenarios fit into a longer (pre-IoT) history of landlords
surveilling and taking advantage of tenants, stating that “these aren’t really
new problems; this is a new way to achieve an old technique.”

Overall, participants reflected on multiple aspects of privacy and
surveillance, including the role of social power differences between primary
and non-primary users, current social expectations of privacy, and connecting
the scenarios to issues of privacy and surveillance in other domains and time
periods. Next, we discuss how participants typically other social values
(though often still in relation to privacy and surveillance).

###  5.2. Autonomy and Agency

Many participants who responded negatively to the scenarios described threats
to individual autonomy and agency. These values arose most prominently in the
Parents & Children scenarios. For instance, P9 (does not live with children)
responded to the Remote Chaperone scenario saying:

> P9: Kids need to be able to bad talk their parents in front of friends and
> stuff like that and without worrying about their dad or mom listening or
> hearing that. They need to be themselves. Use cuss words or whatever with
> their friends. […]And it [the scenario] just takes away from kids’ freedom
> and the ability to be it to be themselves.

Here, autonomy away from a parent’s watchful eye—which is amplified to an
unnatural degree by technology—is seen as an important part of children’s
development. P1,5,6,8,13,14 expressed similar concerns (this includes
participants who currently live with parents, currently live with children,
and some who live with neither). P4 (used to live with parents) expressed a
desire for children to have more autonomy by comparing the Parent & Children
scenarios to how his parents used to keep in touch with him using a landline
phone when they were away from the home—which allowed them to check in, but
not monitor him at all times, granting him more autonomy compared to the
scenarios’ smart cameras.

Several participants described agency through the concept of informed consent,
particularly for domestic workers. P13 (hires domestic workers) reacted to the
childcare scenarios in Residents and Domestic Workers by saying “the camera
for a small child’s carer would be great but there needs to be agreement, I
wouldn’t want to keep it hidden. In other words, I want the babysitter to
know, just in fairness to them.” While many researchers discuss consent in
relation to data privacy, P13 frames consent as an issue of dignity in the
power relationship between residents and domestic workers. P4,9,11 (one of
whom discussed currently hiring domestic workers) also discussed how to notify
domestic workers about the use of smart home cameras and obtain their consent.
These reflections suggest home residents’ recognition of the autonomy and
agency of domestic workers.

Others considered how scenarios could be re-designed to give non-primary users
more agency. P1 (previous babysitter) imagined if babysitters could use or
access smart home recordings to understand if there is potential parental
abuse in the household.

> P1 (previous domestic worker): As a babysitter you see a very intimate
> picture of a parent and child relationship […] But what if you’re there to,
> like, secretly assess child abuse? Is this mother giving her teenage
> daughter an eating disorder? What is the child saying to you when the
> parents are not there? Yes, there’s a predominant power relationship […] but
> what would the reverse be?

Similarly, P6 (previous renter) imagined that monitoring systems in the
scenarios could be re-designed to help tenants protect themselves from
landlords when ending a lease by having video evidence that can help tenants
dispute cases when landlords erroneously claim that tenants have caused
property damage and owe extra money.

Overall, participants noted how the scenarios presented challenges to
different conceptions of autonomy and agency. Some framed autonomy as allowing
for self-development (particularly during childhood), others discussed
autonomy and agency in terms of consent or making informed choices, and others
connected issues of autonomy and agency to the power differences between
primary and non-primary users.

###  5.3. Physical Safety & Care

Many participants who found the scenarios positive viewed scenarios as
protecting people’s physical safety or expressing care. These themes were most
prominent with the Parents & Children and Residents & Domestic Worker
scenarios (and often in tension with autonomy and agency). Several parents
described the scenarios as providing physical safety for their children. P13
(did not disclose if living with children) described how Curfew Detector would
help “keep them safe” by tracking a child’s comings and goings from their room
and home.

Some acknowledged that the scenarios might violate children’s privacy but that
was outweighed by the parents’ interest in safety and care. In a mixed
reaction, P6 viewed the Remote Chaperone as useful even if her kids resisted.

> P6 (currently lives with children): I can see where kids or teenagers might
> really hate that. But as a parent myself, I really like that, especially
> now. Like you want to give them some semblance of privacy, but if you learn
> or hear that things are going wrong you can check in and make sure. It’s
> just nice to be able to have an eye on them.

P6 recognizes the potential privacy invasions, but she would still value the
system as a form of parental care. At the same time, she considered ways to
provide her kids with more privacy by suggesting that she would only check the
system if something “goes wrong,” rather than continuously monitoring it.

Several participants discussed protecting the physical safety of home
residents and private property from domestic workers. While not explicitly
identifying as a “domestic worker,” P8 had experience as a behavioral
interventionist working with children in their homes, and related that to the
Domestic Workers scenarios:

> P8: This past year I was a behavior interventionist […] You’re trusting your
> kid with disabilities, with a stranger who is supposed to help you with
> them. As someone who’s providing that care, I wouldn’t feel invaded if my
> client’s family happened to record what I was doing to make sure that their
> child is safe. […] They’re looking for the best interest of their kid, not
> necessarily trying to pinpoint something that I do wrong.

These participants felt that surveilling children’s activities and people
working with children in the home was justified due to physical safety and
security concerns, discussing it as an expression of care. In these cases,
participants often viewed themselves as responsible for the care of others.
Echoing tensions expressed by some participants, researchers have noted that
even if socially accepted, surveillance as care can still reinforce
problematic power dynamics and obscure other forms of care (Jacobs, 2016;
Stark and Levy, 2018).

###  5.4. Property Rights

Participants discussed values related to private property ownership in the
U.S. in both positive and negative reactions to the scenarios. For those who
responded more positively, beliefs about private property owners’ rights were
used to justify the acceptability of owners’ control over devices and spaces.
P10 (did not disclose property ownership), reacting to the Problem Tenant
scenario, said “Remember you’re renting somebody’s space. You have to be
respectful. And those [cameras] could be some of the rules.” P6 juxtaposed
tenants’ privacy concerns with a landlord’s private property rights with the
Extreme Lease Enforcer:

> P6 (previously rented): If it’s in the rental agreement, I don’t see an
> issue with having something like this. A lot of people probably wouldn’t
> like it just because they feel like it’s invading their privacy. But it is
> the landlord’s property. I think that if they wanted to really enforce how
> many guests are staying, this would be a good option for landlords.

This suggests a belief that a landlord’s private property interests outweigh
the privacy interests of tenants, even though P6’s reaction acknowledges
tenants might react negatively. P5 similarly justified parental surveillance
of children by explaining that “the house is my domain” and parents should be
able to set the rules within the home because they own it.

Those who responded negatively noted that property owners do not have absolute
control over their private property in practice. P9 drew on his landlord and
property management experience to describe how the Extreme Lease Enforcer
changes the landlord-tenant relationship in significant ways, even though it
purportedly just enforces terms of a lease:

> P9 (previous landlord, current renter): I’ve been a landlord and this
> crosses the line. Most rental agreements—I’ve been an apartment manager for
> many years—they’re loosely enforced. If someone has a guest for an extra
> week or so it’s not that big a deal. If they’re causing a problem, then
> that’s one thing. But to me this is really micromanaging your tenants.

P9 points out that in practice, many provisions of a landlord’s lease are
loosely enforced as long as tenants are not causing problems, even if
technically prohibited. The Extreme Lease Enforcer would change these norms
and practices by strictly enforcing a lease’s terms, providing less leeway
than what is socially expected.

Several participants who were tenants described feeling that the physical
space of a home should still afford them privacy or autonomy without being
constantly controlled by a landlord.

> P13 (current landlord, current renter): So right now I’m a tenant, I have an
> apartment in the Bay Area. I wouldn’t want any of these. I wouldn’t welcome
> them because I consider myself a good tenant. Why would I want something
> that was potentially tracking my behavior, my daily activities when I want
> some privacy? And that’s part of the deal when you’re renting from someone.
> You’re signing a lease with clear expectations.

Moreover, for P13 these expectations about a tenant’s rights are communicated
through the leasing agreement with the landlord.

After looking at the workbook, P5 expressed mixed feelings about her own use
of smart security cameras for property protection.

> P5 (current landlord, previous renter): In San Francisco we see a ton of
> theft. I bought a sign that says “secured by Ring, Ring enabled security.”
> […] But maybe in that very act of trying to deter theft, it leaves people
> feeling like this is not a welcoming home or not a welcoming building. So
> it’s a little bit of a double edged sword. What are these little things that
> we’re doing around the home and how is it impacting the community?

While P5 initially bought smart cameras to secure her property and felt
positive towards them, the scenarios led her to consider that others in the
neighborhood might interpret her cameras as being unwelcoming to the
community. Overall, participants’ varying opinions highlight tensions in
considering how to balance rights, social power, and control between privacy
property owners and other stakeholders.

###  5.5. Trust, Accountability, and Social Relationships

Participants described how the scenarios’ smart cameras might mediate social
relationships and affect trust and accountability. A few participants
suggested that some scenarios might increase trust and improve social
relationships. P6 imagined that Approved Access might improve landlord-tenant
relationships.

> P6 (previous renter): I think this is a good way to hold people accountable.
> If they were having an issue where they couldn’t pay rent or they needed
> something else approved, they would actually have to communicate with their
> landlord, which I think is always a good thing.

P6 felt that the penalty of automatically revoking tenants’ access to
facilities after a lease violation would motivate tenants to proactively
communicate potential issues with landlords and strengthen tenants’
accountability to landlords. P6 (who also hires domestic workers) also thought
that the scenarios might improve communication between residents and domestic
workers such as plumbers or electricians by reducing awkward conversations,
helping the worker communicate their progress, or remotely communicating if
they need to leave the home temporarily to purchase materials and return
later.

However, many other participants expressed concern that these might negatively
affect social relationships and decrease trust. Viewing the Residents &
Domestic Workers scenarios skeptically, P1 discussed her experiences as a
babysitter and how these scenarios alter social dynamics.

> P1 (previous domestic worker): When I babysat, […] I loved all the kids. I
> appreciated their [parents] caring about who I was as a person, as it
> related to their kid. Taking out that relationship, would I still do the job
> for the money? Yeah, but it would change how I feel about it and I feel like
> that would change over time. […] I’m just checking the boxes.

P1 felt that these smart camera applications would make her job feel narrowly
task-focused rather than being about holistically building deeper social
relationships with the kids and their parents.

P13, a landlord, similarly critiqued the Landlord & Tenant scenarios:

> P13 (current landlord, current renter): I prefer to do things more directly
> with people. The [scenario] seems like the tenant-landlord relationship is
> much more removed. I would like to have a stronger communication plan or
> process with my tenants so that I can deal with these things proactively.

P13 notes that in-person she can “try to determine if this is just a
complainer, or is this someone who’s got a legitimate issue.” She feels these
judgements gained through social interactions would be more difficult to make
if mediated by smart cameras.

Relatedly, many participants (P1,4,5,6,3,9,11) felt that the Parents &
Children scenarios suggested that parents mistrust their children. P7
(currently lives with children), drew comparisons to his childhood which
lacked the technology-enforced rules of the scenarios, saying “I grew up
without limits. […] [this scenario] is like taking the parenting out of being
a parent.” Across these examples, participants expressed concerns that the
responsibilities and trust built through in-person social interactions would
suffer if mediated by a smart camera or its analytical capabilities.

Participants’ varying opinions in relation to the scenarios’ effects on trust
and accountability highlight how the scenarios suggest changes to existing
social relationships, and may affect these relationships over long term use.

###  5.6. Fairness

Participants also discussed fairness, particularly noting how the power
imbalance between primary and non-primary users might lead to unfair outcomes.
Some participants imagined new social rules, behaviors, or norms that could
help make the scenarios more fair. P9 viewed the Out After Curfew Detector as
a form of punishment for misbehavior, and argued that fair parental
surveillance of children should have a time limit and its use should be
collectively understood, rather than being used indiscriminately.

> P9: It has to be an issue the parent and child decide. “You know you’re
> being punished, I’m going to have this up for six months, as a form of being
> grounded.” I think there needs to be a time limitation. “If you don’t try to
> disable the camera, we’ll take it down or shut it off at a certain time
> within six months,” something like that.

Participants also imagined alternative scenarios of their own that might be
fairer by giving more discretion to non-primary users. For instance, some
participants imagined using alternate technologies that might achieve similar
ends but limit visual surveillance. P3 suggested that parents might monitor
children’s activities with smartwatches and a geofence tagging system. P9
suggested that to check if a pet sitter or domestic worker came to the home, a
sensor detecting the door opening would be enough. P8 suggested that if
landlords are concerned about tenant noise, a decibel monitor would avoid
collecting private audio.

P9 (previously landlord, current renter) also described how housing laws in
U.S. cities and states promote fairness by providing some basic protections
for renters. Drawing on his former experiences as a property manager, P9
discussed how Approved Access might be illegal, or at least goes against the
spirit of the law.

> P9 (previous landlord, current renter): If you’re behind on your rent and
> not allowing a tenant to do laundry or throw away their garbage, that is
> cruel. […] To me that’s kind of akin to turning off the lights. It’s illegal
> for landlord to turn off power in your house, or shut the water off to try
> to get someone out.

P9 later reflected that stronger tenant laws may be needed to preserve
fairness and to protect tenants from landlord surveillance overreach. Scholars
have noted that fairness, like other values, has multiple conceptions and
definitions in different contexts (Mulligan et al., 2019); participants tended
to discuss fairness as a sense of empathy and respect for others, and as a
belief in equal process and treatment (rather than being about fair
distributions of resources).

###  5.7. Reflecting on Values Across Social Identities

Some participants noted how values implications may vary across identity and
cultural differences, which were not explicitly depicted in the scenarios.
P1,8,12 expressed concerns that women and girls may be disproportionately and
unfairly surveilled in some of the scenarios. P4 described how the Approved
Access scenario’s determination of whether a tenant is in “good standing”
might embed and promote stereotypes, particularly for residents who are
“Black, Indigenous, or people of color […] and there’s not a good
justification behind it.” P1,4,12 also discussed how scenarios make
assumptions about defining “good” neighbors and tenants that may exacerbate
gentrification tensions in U.S. cities.

> P1 (current renter): Noise complaints are one of the early signs of
> gentrification. People moving into neighborhoods and then saying, “This
> neighborhood is too loud” and calling the police. That leads to escalations
> and can be a tool to evict lower income people in a neighborhood where the
> prices are getting higher. The problem tenant is not the loud tenant. It’s
> the new tenant who comes in and expect things to be quiet. […] I think there
> are class and racial elements of what is considered loud, what music. Are
> you blasting Tchaikovsky or hip hop? You know it can be the same decibel but
> I think it would have a different cultural read and have different impacts.

Participants not only considered different values at play, but some
participants discussed how the experience of these values varied among groups,
and can be entangled with unequal distributions of social power. This aligns
with contemporary research on values that view them as situated, lived
experiences rather than a set of static norms and principles (JafariNaimi et
al., 2015; Le Dantec et al., 2009).

##  6\. Discussion

We discuss how participants considered values beyond privacy and surveillance,
how the concepts of primary and non-primary users are fluid categories, and
the modes of engagement participants had with the workbooks when reflecting on
values. We then suggest implications for future research and design, and
reflect on our limitations and future work.

###  6.1. Expanding Conceptions of Privacy: How Participants Reflected on
Multiple Interconnected Values

We find that participants engaged in complex reflections about the values “at
play” in the scenarios (Flanagan and Nissenbaum, 2014). Prior HCI research
tends to focus on privacy as being about individual management or local norms,
allowing privacy problems to be addressed by technical and informational
solutions (McDonald and Forte, 2020; Wong and Mulligan, 2019). However,
participants’ conceptions of privacy in relation to other values reflects the
wide-ranging conceptualizations described by privacy law and social science
scholars (Citron and Solove, 2022; Mulligan et al., 2016; Solove, 2002). We
note several ways how participants discussed ethical issues that encompassed
privacy and other values.

Participants highlighted how surveillance and invasions of privacy can violate
individuals’ autonomy and agency, and how this may have an outsized effect on
individuals with less social power (such as non-primary users). Autonomy and
agency are complex concepts as well. Privacy scholars Citron and Solove
discuss many types of autonomy harms, including: coercion, manipulation,
failing to be given sufficient information to make decisions, thwarted
expectations, lack of control, or chilling effects inhibiting people from
conducting lawful activities (Citron and Solove, 2022). Participants discussed
several of these conceptions, such as wanting to make cameras visible to
provide sufficient information to non-primary users, or raising concerns that
parental surveillance might lead to chilling effects on the activities
children choose to engage in.

Some participants suggested that physical safety and care was important enough
to warrant surveillance of others, even if it raised privacy concerns.
Sometimes this was to make sure physical harm did not occur to the watched
subject, such as a parent watching their child outdoors. Other times this was
to make sure that the watched subject did not cause harm, such as a parent
watching a babysitter’s behaviors, or a homeowner trying to protect themselves
against property damage. While “surveillance as care” may be useful in some
situations, privacy researchers have noted that this can still reinforce
problematic power dynamics, and obscure other forms of care that are less
surveillant (Stark and Levy, 2018).

Participants also discussed tensions in how much power a private property
owner has to surveil others. Property owners and landlords have interests in
knowing what occurs on their property, but home dwellers (such as renters,
tenants, children, or domestic workers) also have a reasonable expectation of
privacy. Some local housing laws in the U.S. attempt to create balances
between stakeholders, such as requiring landlords to give tenants at least 24
hours of notice before physically entering their residences, recognizing both
tenants’ privacy expectations and a landlord’s private property rights.
Recording data in homes with multiple stakeholders and competing interests
presents new challenges, which a few design researchers have begun to explore,
such as the implications of using smart technology in public housing (Kozubaev
et al., 2019). Legal approaches to balancing competing rights in these
situations may serve as models or inspiration for designing systems that
similarly need to balance competing stakeholder interests.

Participants also discussed how surveillance might decrease or increase social
trust and accountability. Those who felt that surveillance might increase
social trust and accountability tended to suggest that it would create
information parity or symmetry between people, which might improve
communication. Those who felt it might decrease social trust and
accountability raised concerns about how mediating human-to-human
relationships through smart home cameras suggested a lack of trust or care in
a social relationship.

Participants noted how surveillance and violations of privacy can threaten
fairness. Prior researchers have noted how the values of privacy and fairness
can be in tension with each other, in the context of collecting sensitive
personal data in order to understand if a marginalized community is being
fairly treated (Dwork and Mulligan, 2013). However, our participants focused
more on power imbalances between primary and non-primary users and how
surveillance could harm people’s dignity and respect in unequal and unfair
ways.

Participants’ reflections show the ripple effects that social values can have,
sometimes supporting each other and sometimes being in tension. For instance,
values such as fairness might be used to address violations of privacy (for
instance, finding ways to try to fairly notify non-primary users that they are
being recorded). In some situations, values like privacy and trust may align,
while in other situations the same values may be in tension with one another.
And these effects are not experienced evenly. Stakeholders with different
amounts of social power or different social identities may be affected in
dissimilar ways.

We highlight how privacy is a wide-ranging concept, as that was our entry
point as researchers. However, we note that the values discussed by
participants are themselves entangled too (for instance, participants’
discussion of fairness often implicated the values of autonomy and agency).
This suggests that it may be difficult to study privacy without consideration
of other social values, which we return to in the Implications section.

Finally, we note that understanding privacy as interconnected to other ethical
concerns aligns with an “ethics of care” perspective articulated by feminist
scholars (e.g., (de la Bellacasa, 2010)). A care ethics perspective points to
how the ethical positions and responses of people are, in practice, often
highly contextual, relational, and complex. We find empirical evidence of a
care ethics perspective across participants’ responses, particularly when they
described nuanced consideration of multiple actors, perspectives, and details
of the particular situation (e.g., relating to both the competing perspectives
of a child and a parent). Future work should continue to place discourses of
privacy and surveillance in conversation with burgeoning work within design
and HCI advocating for a care ethics perspectives (Bardzell, 2010; Key et al.,
2021), which includes both human and non-human actors (Wakkary, 2021; Akama et
al., 2020; Liu et al., 2018; Giaccardi et al., 2016).

###  6.2. Primary & Non-Primary Stakeholders are Fluid Categories

While we initially recruited participants based on our ideas of primary and
non-primary users from the scenarios, we find that in practice, these
categories are fluid and dynamic and can overlap or change. Put simply, a
person can be a primary user at one time and place, and a non-primary user in
another time and place.

Sometimes this change occurs over time. Several participants reflected on
their previous experiences as children (non-primary users) as compared to
their current experiences as adults or parents (primary users). Similarly,
other participants described having previously worked as domestic workers and
no longer doing so, or having previously rented a home to now becoming a
homeowner. In another example, a primary user may be later surveilled by a
camera that they initially acquired and set up.

Other times, people may shift between primary and non-primary use as they move
between contexts. Some participants described being monitored as a non-primary
user at their workplaces by an employer, while being in control of the smart
devices in their own home as a primary user.

Others may play multiple roles at the same time. One participant discussed how
they both manage rental properties but are a renter themselves. Others
described how in public areas of an apartment building they are a non-primary
user (because the landlord installed and monitors cameras in those areas), but
simultaneously they are a primary user of smart camera devices used within
their own apartment.

This suggests a need not only to consider non-primary users and their privacy
when designing smart camera systems, but to also design systems in ways that
acknowledge that these roles can vary with time and context. Designing a
system that assigns someone a static “primary” or “non-primary” user role with
different permissions or access controls may not fully account for the dynamic
experience of these roles.

###  6.3. Reflecting on Participants’ Engagements with Workbooks

Building on prior research using workbooks as a values elicitation activity
with participants [18,98,100], we reflect on how participants engaged with,
responded to, and thought through our scenarios when discussing values or
ethical issues. These engagement types may be of use to researchers seeking to
engage participants in reflective discussions using future-oriented design
scenarios. We identified five types of engagement that build on and extend
prior work.

1\. Participants viewed designs from different stakeholder positions. Wong et
al.’s workbooks elicitation study found that expert participants viewed
designs through the lens of being a technologist and being a user (Wong et
al., 2017). We find that non-technologist participants are also able to view
designs from user and stakeholder perspectives beyond their own. This suggests
that workbooks may be useful for sensitizing people to multiple user and
stakeholder perspectives, particularly with primary/non-primary user
relationships, rather than just a single type of user.

2\. Participants related the scenarios to their historical and lived
experiences. Discussing scenarios elicited memories from participants (such as
comparisons to their own experiences as children) and discussions of current
lived experiences (such interacting with tenants and landlords). This aligns
with Wyche’s finding that workbooks can help elicit memories and
understandings of local context (Wyche, 2021). We found that participants
discussed their lived experiences in service of two goals: (a) describing how
new technologies might change existing and historical social relationships,
such as introducing new forms of technical mediation into a social
relationship; (b) comparing the scenarios’ technology to a previous or
existing technology, such as parents’ use of landline phones to check in on
children. Prior research has described how using new technologies to achieve
the same function can have ethical consequences (Mulligan and Nissenbaum,
2020). For instance, the function of parents keeping track of their children
is the same when using a landline phone and smart camera, but these
technologies have different ethical implications, and suggest different
expectations of privacy. Participants’ discussion of lived and historical
experiences helps elicit details about how and why technical choices can have
ethical consequences.

3\. Participants directly contested and critiqued the scenarios. Some
participants suggested the scenarios granted primary users too much power, or
discussed how the technologies in the scenarios might exacerbate issues of
social and economic inequality. This aligns with Wyche’s finding that people
find practical problems with the proposed designs (Wyche, 2021) and Wong et
al.’s finding that participants may question workbook designs’ framings and
motivations (Wong et al., 2017). Moreover, it suggests how scenarios can be
used for more than just values elicitation, but also to open up a space to
engage in more critical conversations about power and justice.

4\. Participants extended the scenarios by imagining ripple effects, and
imagining what else would need to change in order for the scenario’s fictional
world to come true. Participants speculated on new social rules, behaviors,
norms, and laws that could change or would be required if the scenarios’
imagined futures became true. They then reflected on the values embedded in
those norms and rules. This aligns with Wong et al.’s finding that
technologists discussed implications of workbook designs as if they were real
(Wong et al., 2017), and extends it by showing that a non-technologist
audience can engage with workbooks in a similar way.

5\. Participants imagined alternate scenarios. Even though we did not
explicitly create our design workbooks as a tool for co-speculation (unlike
Harrington and Dillahunt who used workbooks containing interactive activities
explicitly for co-speculation (Harrington and Dillahunt, 2021)), we find that
participants still engaged in practices of speculation while responding to a
workbook of visual designs and scenarios. Participants’ alternatives included
systems that might achieve similar ends but limit the amount of data
surveillance—such as using geofencing to lessen the need for visual
surveillance, or using a decibel monitor instead of recording private audio to
measure noise levels. Others suggested new scenarios that could invert the
power relationships and give the non-primary users more power, such as helping
tenants protect themselves from bad landlords or helping babysitters rather
than parents. While not all participants engaged in this way, it nevertheless
shows the possibility for using visual-based scenarios in participatory
speculative design activities.

Several scenario design decisions may have helped encourage participants’
reflections through these forms of engagement. As this paper is exploratory,
future research can explore the causal relationship between these design
dimensions and the types of reflections they elicit:

  * •

Ethical tone: We attempted to make the ethical tone ambiguous—neither utopian
nor dystopian, nor neutral. This may have been reflected in participants’
mixed reactions to the scenarios, considering them useful in some
circumstances but ethically problematic in others.

  * •

Timescale: We designed the scenarios to appear closer to the present, which
may have helped participants relate the scenarios to lived experiences.

  * •

Levels of detail: We provided short “single snapshot” scenarios. This allowed
participants to view multiple scenarios and compare them. It also may have
invited them to extend the scenarios and speculate about “missing details.”

  * •

Mundanity: We depicted “everyday” scenarios, which potentially helped
participants relate the scenarios to everyday real-world experiences. Future
work depicting more diverse situations in the scenarios may help elicit
additional forms of values reflections.

This study adds to prior research using design workbooks, suggesting that
visual and textual scenarios can be an effective method of values elicitation
with participants. Beyond design research, this also suggests opportunities
for participatory engagement in policy and business uses of scenarios. In
these contexts, scenarios are often created by and for decision-making experts
(Vervoort et al., 2015; Wack, 1985). Actively soliciting engagement from a
broader range of stakeholders may help surface discussion of values tensions
within the scenarios, and generate further ideas to explore.

###  6.4. Implications

We highlight several implications for design and research related to smart
home cameras, privacy, and primary and non-primary users.

####  6.4.1. Defining Privacy in Smart Home Systems Differs Based on Whose
Privacy is Considered

While “privacy” is often discussed as a social value that needs to be
considered in the design of smart home camera systems, the actual problem of
privacy and how to design for it may differ based on the answer to “privacy
for whom?” (Mulligan et al., 2016). Prior research notes how privacy is not
experienced equally due to people’s different amounts of social power
(McDonald et al., 2020; Ur et al., 2014), historical inequities that persist
in the present (Browne, 2015), and different groups’ threat models (Pierce et
al., 2018a).

Our results demonstrate how participants conceptualized privacy differently
when considering different stakeholders. When discussing children,
participants discussed children’s privacy and their autonomy to develop into
adults, versus parents’ interests in the physical safety of their children.
With tenants, participants considered tenants’ expectation of privacy in their
homes, versus a landlord’s interests in protecting their private property.
With domestic workers, participants weighed a domestic worker’s agency versus
the private property interests of the home residents or cultural norms about
workplace surveillance.

While all the scenarios contained smart home cameras, the problem of privacy
is quite different in each. Answers to questions such as “why is privacy
important?”, “who should have access to the camera data?”, and “for what
purposes should the data be used?” differs based on who the stakeholders are.
This suggests that the design of privacy systems in smart home cameras and
similar sensing technologies need to be flexible to adapt to different
conceptions of privacy when used in different contexts by different
stakeholders.

####  6.4.2. Researchers and Designers Can Shift from Studying Privacy Per Se
to Entangled Values

This study also shows how values related to smart home camera use and
deployment are entangled. While privacy and surveillance were our entry point
into this project, we found that “privacy” rarely emerged as the single or
paramount concern for participants. Rather, participants conceptualized
privacy in multiple ways, often in relation to other social values, aligning
with a body of theoretical research that conceptualizes privacy in
multifaceted ways, and related to values such as agency, autonomy, safety,
community (Citron and Solove, 2022; Mulligan et al., 2016; Solove, 2002).

However, much prior smart home research frames privacy as a distinct problem
or concern. Formulating research questions and conducting empirical studies
exclusively focused on “privacy” may lead researchers to miss out on
understanding a broader range of interconnected ethical and moral issues
related to smart homes. While some prior research considers tradeoffs of
privacy versus utility (Butler et al., 2015; Zeng and Roesner, 2019),
“utility” may conflate multiple specific goals and values, and oversimplify
the relationship between privacy and other values.

Values can be entangled in a network of interrelated ethical concerns. While
we described values independently, privacy is tied to a range of other values
(in this case, autonomy and agency, safety and care, private property
expectations, trust, and fairness). Sometimes promoting another value violates
privacy (or vice versa), at other times protecting privacy also protects other
values. Promoting a value for one stakeholder may simultaneously violate a
value of another stakeholder.

It is important—in fact, necessary—for designers and researchers to define a
scope of the problems or issues they are addressing. However, our findings
suggest that in some cases, it may be a mistake for designers and researchers
to assume that “privacy” represents the overarching concern from the
perspective of users and stakeholders. This is not a call for smart home
designers and researchers to abandon privacy, but rather to build on research
that considers a broader and more multifaceted range of values that may be
desirable to promote, protect, and negotiate—and to consider the interplay
among those values.

We consider how our results might have changed if we explicitly focused our
discussion around questions of “privacy” and refrained from probing other
issues such as property rights, autonomy, and safety. If our primary research
questions had strictly focused on privacy and subtopics such as information
disclosure, we may have missed the wider range of concerns that our
participants surfaced. While future empirical research would be needed to test
this counterfactual hypothesis, our study results show that the scenarios we
initially created to probe issues of privacy also surfaced a broader range of
interconnected values.

Practically, we suggest that even when smart home research is conducted on a
specific value (like privacy), designers and researchers should remain open to
additional values that participants may surface, and allow participants
opportunities to bring these into the conversation.

####  6.4.3. Designers and Researchers Should Consider Both Primary and Non-
Primary User Roles and Interactions

Designers and researchers of smart home systems should consider both primary
and non-primary user perspectives, and how those categories might shift. A
primary user of a technology will likely also find themselves as a non-primary
user of the same device (e.g., someone else in their household watches them on
the smart camera). We found that participants discussed their experiences as
both primary and non-primary users of technologies, and were able to imagine
the scenarios from multiple user perspectives. Because people shift between
being primary and non-primary users across times and contexts, considering
non-primary users can help primary users if they later interact with system as
a non-primary user.

Furthermore, smart home devices with spatial sensors—such as cameras,
microphones, location tracking, and lidar—will invariably affect non-primary
users and subjects. In a general moral sense, it is desirable to consider and
respect the perspectives of non-primary users. We also found that many primary
users may want to better respect and consider non-primary users. Many
participants considered if there were ways that they might make camera
surveillance systems “fair” to people being monitored. Considerations of non-
primary users should be included throughout the design process, to ensure that
features designed for non-primary users are integrated from the start.

###  6.5. Limitations and Future Work

We consider several limitations and opportunities for future work. We shared
the workbooks with participants via the interviewer’s screen as a slide show,
providing greater ease of use for participants. However, this may have limited
their ability to make comparisons across scenarios as they might have done if
all scenarios were laid out on a table, as shown in prior research (Wong et
al., 2017). We also showed the scenarios in the same order listed in Table 1
to each participant, since the workbook was organized into 3 “sections” and
each section had a summary page listing the designs in order. While this was
done to communicate the types of social relationships for each section, these
ordering effects means that participants’ reactions to earlier scenarios may
have affected reactions to later ones. Future research using virtual design
workbooks may consider using alternate platforms or forms that might help
participants compare multiple scenarios, such as by creating scenarios in the
form of concise virtual cards.

Our participants were not evenly distributed across the relationship
categories (for instance, we had fewer participants who identified as domestic
workers). While we do not claim generalizability from this project, future
work could recruit more people from the specific populations and relationships
we identified, and from more diverse populations to further investigate the
question “privacy for whom?”.

Our design choices may affect how participants engaged with the material. The
development of our scenarios was foregrounded ideas of surveillance, which may
have encouraged participants to discuss privacy. In part, we were less
interested in understanding if participants raised privacy issues, and more
interested in how participants would discuss privacy and other ethical issues
when confronted with them. However, it is possible that a different set of
scenarios less focused on surveillance or with different ethical tones might
elicit a different set of ethical issues. We are mindful of our own biases and
predispositions as researchers and designers working on this project, and how
these may come through in our scenarios and discussions. Future iterations of
these scenarios might depict additional scenarios and increase the visual
diversity of the people depicted in the scenarios, such as: incorporating a
broader range of skin tones, less explicitly gendered characters, and a range
of different abilities. These may help participants consider additional
ethical issues and a more diverse range of stakeholders.

##  7\. Conclusion

This paper presents a case study utilizing a design workbook of speculative
scenarios that ground privacy and surveillance concerns related to smart
cameras in three types of primary/non-primary user relationships: Parents &
Children, Landlords & Tenants, and Residents & Domestic Workers. We found that
our scenarios elicited discussion from participants about social values and
ethical issues beyond (and sometimes in tension with) privacy and
surveillance, including: autonomy and agency, safety, property, trust and
accountability, and fairness. We found that participants rarely thought in
terms of a single value or concern, but rather suggested a network of
interrelated values and concerns, conceptualizing privacy in multiple ways.
This builds on prior theoretical work that views privacy as inherently
multifaceted, entangled and connected with other values and concerns. This
suggests that smart home researchers would benefit by being open to multiple
conceptions of privacy, and considering values together rather than separating
out “privacy” from other values and concerns. We further found that many
participants also identified both as primary and non-primary users at
different times and contexts. This suggests a need for smart home research to
both consider primary and non-primary users as fluid categories, and to
consider a larger constellation of ethical concerns that represent how
stakeholders think about social tensions and values with smart home
technology.

###### Acknowledgements.

Thank you to Noura Howell, Ji Su Yoo, Jon Gillick, Elizabeth Resor, and the
anonymous reviewers for their feedback. This research was supported by
National Science Foundation Grants 1910218, 2142795, 2230825, and the UC
Berkeley Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity.

## References

  * (1)
  * Ahmad et al. (2020) Imtiaz Ahmad, Rosta Farzan, Apu Kapadia, and Adam J. Lee. 2020.  Tangible Privacy: Towards User-Centric Sensor Designs for Bystander Privacy.  _Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact._ 4, CSCW2, Article 116 (oct 2020), 28 pages.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3415187
  * Aipperspach et al. (2008) Ryan Aipperspach, Ben Hooker, and Allison Woodruff. 2008.  The Heterogeneous Home. In _Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing_ (Seoul, Korea) _(UbiComp ’08)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 222–231.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1409635.1409666
  * Akama et al. (2020) Yoko Akama, Ann Light, and Takahito Kamihira. 2020.  Expanding Participation to Design with More-Than-Human Concerns. In _Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020 - Participation(s) Otherwise - Volume 1_ (Manizales, Colombia) _(PDC ’20)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3385010.3385016
  * Altman (1975) Irwin Altman. 1975.  _The environment and social behavior: privacy, personal space, territory, crowding_.  Brooks/Cole Pub. Co., Monterey, California.
  * Andrejevic (2005) Mark Andrejevic. 2005.  The work of watching one another: Lateral surveillance, risk, and governance.  _Surveillance and Society_ 2, 4 (2005), 479–497.  https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v2i4.3359
  * Bahirat et al. (2021) Paritosh Bahirat, Martijn C. Willemsen, Yangyang He, Qizhang Sun, and Bart P. Knijnenburg. 2021.  Overlooking Context : How do Defaults and Framing Reduce Deliberation in Smart Home Privacy Decision-Making?. In _Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (2021). ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445672
  * Ballard et al. (2019) Stephanie Ballard, Karen M. Chappell, and Kristen Kennedy. 2019.  Judgment Call the Game: Using value sensitive design and design fiction to surface ethical concerns related to technology. In _Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference - DIS ’19_ (2019). ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 421–433.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3323697
  * Bardzell (2010) Shaowen Bardzell. 2010.  Feminist HCI: Taking Stock and Outlining an Agenda for Design. In _Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) _(CHI ’10)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1301–1310.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753521
  * Barrett (2015) Brian Barrett. 2015.  Fuhu’s Kid-Centric Smart Home Is a Helicopter Parent’s Dream.  _Wired_ (8 7 2015).  https://www.wired.com/2015/07/fuhu-smart-home/
  * Baumer (2015) Eric P.S. Baumer. 2015.  Usees. In _Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (Seoul, Republic of Korea) _(CHI ’15)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3295–3298.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702147
  * Baumer et al. (2018) Eric P.S. Baumer, Timothy Berrill, Sarah C. Botwinick, Jonathan L. Gonzales, Kevin Ho, Allison Kundrik, Luke Kwon, Tim LaRowe, Chanh P. Nguyen, Fredy Ramirez, Peter Schaedler, William Ulrich, Amber Wallace, Yuchen Wan, and Benjamin Weinfeld. 2018.  What Would You Do? Design Fiction and Ethics. In _Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work_ (Sanibel Island, Florida, USA) _(GROUP ’18)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 244–256.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3148330.3149405
  * Bernd et al. (2022) Julia Bernd, Ruba Abu-Salma, Junghyun Choy, and Alisa Frik. 2022.  Balancing Power Dynamics in Smart Homes: Nannies’ Perspectives on How Cameras Reflect and Affect Relationships. In _Eighteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2022)_ (2022). USENIX Association, 687—706.  https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2022/presentation/bernd
  * Bernd et al. (2020) Julia Bernd, Ruba Abu-Salma, and Alisa Frik. 2020.  Bystanders’ privacy: The perspectives of nannies on smart home surveillance. In _FOCI 2020 - 10th USENIX Workshop on Free and Open Communications on the Internet_ (2020).
  * Biggs et al. (2021) Heidi Biggs, Cayla Key, Audrey Desjardins, and Afroditi Psarra. 2021.  Moving Design Research: GIFs as Research Tools. In _Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021_ (Virtual Event, USA) _(DIS ’21)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1927–1940.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3461778.3462144
  * Bohn (2020) Dieter Bohn. 2020.  The Ring drone is just the latest Amazon privacy puzzle box.  _The Verge_ (2020).  https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/25/21455197/amazon-ring-drone-home-security-surveillance-sidewalk-halo-privacy [Online; accessed 2021-09-09].
  * Boucher et al. (2012) Andy Boucher, David Cameron, and Nadine Jarvis. 2012.  Power to the People: Dynamic Energy Management through Communal Cooperation. In _Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference_ (Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom) _(DIS ’12)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 612–620.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2318048
  * Briggs and Thomas (2015) Pam Briggs and Lisa Thomas. 2015.  An Inclusive, Value Sensitive Design Perspective on Future Identity Technologies.  _ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction_ 22, 5 (10 8 2015), 1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2778972
  * Browne (2015) Simone Browne. 2015.  _Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness_.  Duke University Press, Durham.
  * Buehring and Liedtka (2018) Joern Henning Buehring and Jeanne Liedtka. 2018.  Embracing systematic futures thinking at the intersection of Strategic Planning, Foresight and Design.  _Journal of Innovation Management_ 6, 3 (23 11 2018), 134.  https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_006.003_0006
  * Butler et al. (2015) Daniel J. Butler, Justin Huang, Franziska Roesner, and Maya Cakmak. 2015.  The Privacy-Utility Tradeoff for Remotely Teleoperated Robots. In _Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction_ (2015-03-02). ACM, Portland Oregon USA, 27–34.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696484
  * Carroll (1995) John M Carroll (Ed.). 1995.  _Scenario-based design: Envisioning work and technology in system development_.  John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
  * Chalhoub et al. (2021) George Chalhoub, Martin J Kraemer, Norbert Nthala, and Ivan Flechais. 2021.  “It Did Not Give Me an Option to Decline”: A Longitudinal Analysis of the User Experience of Security and Privacy in Smart Home Products. In _Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (Yokohama, Japan) _(CHI ’21)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 555, 16 pages.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445691
  * Chen et al. (2021) Janet X. Chen, Francesco Vitale, and Joanna McGrenere. 2021.  What Happens After Death? Using a Design Workbook to Understand User Expectations for Preparing their Data. In _Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (2021-05-06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445359
  * Chen et al. (2020) Yuxin Chen, Huiying Li, Shan-Yuan Teng, Steven Nagels, Zhijing Li, Pedro Lopes, Ben Y. Zhao, and Haitao Zheng. 2020.  Wearable Microphone Jamming. In _Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (Honolulu, HI, USA) _(CHI ’20)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376304
  * Cheng et al. (2019) Yu-Ting Cheng, Mathias Funk, Wenn-Chieh Tsai, and Lin-Lin Chen. 2019.  Peekaboo Cam: Designing an observational camera for home ecologies concerning privacy. In _Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference_ (2019-06-18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 823–836.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3323699
  * Choe et al. (2012) Eun Kyoung Choe, Sunny Consolvo, Jaeyeon Jung, Beverly Harrison, Shwetak N. Patel, and Julie A. Kientz. 2012.  Investigating receptiveness to sensing and inference in the home using sensor proxies. In _Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing - UbiComp ’12_ (2012). ACM Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 61.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2370216.2370226
  * Citron and Solove (2022) Danielle Keats Citron and Daniel J. Solove. 2022.  Privacy Harms.  _Boston University Law Review_ 102, 3 (2022), 793–864.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3782222
  * Cobb et al. (2021) Camille Cobb, Sruti Bhagavatula, Kalil Anderson Garrett, Alison Hoffman, Varun Rao, and Lujo Bauer. 2021.  “I would have to evaluate their objections”: Privacy tensions between smart home device owners and incidental users.  _Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies_ 2021, 4 (1 10 2021), 54–75.  https://doi.org/10.2478/popets-2021-0060
  * David-John et al. (2021) Brendan David-John, Diane Hosfelt, Kevin Butler, and Eakta Jain. 2021.  Let’s SOUP up XR: Collected thoughts from an IEEE VR workshop on privacy in mixed reality. In _VR4Sec: Security for VR and VR for Security, SOUPS 2021 Workshop_.
  * de la Bellacasa (2010) Maria Puig de la Bellacasa. 2010.  Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things.  _Social Studies of Science_ 41, 1 (Dec. 2010), 85–106.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312710380301
  * Denefleh et al. (2019) Teresa Denefleh, Arne Berger, Albrecht Kurze, and Chris Frauenberger. 2019.  Sensorstation: Exploring Simple Sensor Data in the Context of a Shared Apartment. In _Proceedings of the 2019 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS)_ (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322309
  * DiSalvo et al. (2016) Carl DiSalvo, Tom Jenkins, and Thomas Lodato. 2016.  Designing Speculative Civics. In _Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (San Jose, California, USA) _(CHI ’16)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4979–4990.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858505
  * DiSalvo et al. (2014) Carl DiSalvo, Jonathan Lukens, Thomas Lodato, Tom Jenkins, and Tanyoung Kim. 2014.  Making public things: How HCI Design Can Express Matters of Concern. In _Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (2014-04-26). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2397–2406.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557359
  * Dwork and Mulligan (2013) Cynthia Dwork and Mulligan. 2013.  It’s not privacy, and it’s not fair.  _Stanford Law Review Online_ 66 (2013), 35–40.
  * Ehrenberg and Keinonen (2021) Nils Ehrenberg and Turkka Keinonen. 2021.  The Technology Is Enemy for Me at the Moment: How Smart Home Technologies Assert Control Beyond Intent. In _Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (2021-05-06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445058
  * Elsden et al. (2017) Chris Elsden, David Chatting, Abigail C. Durrant, Andrew Garbett, Bettina Nissen, John Vines, and David S. Kirk. 2017.  On Speculative Enactments. In _Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (2017-05-02). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5386–5399.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025503
  * Epp et al. (2022) Felix Anand Epp, Tim Moesgen, Antti Salovaara, Emmi Pouta, and İdil Gaziulusoy. 2022.  Reinventing the Wheel: The Future Ripples Method for Activating Anticipatory Capacities in Innovation Teams. In _Designing Interactive Systems Conference_ (2022-06-13). ACM, Virtual Event Australia, 387–399.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3534570
  * Evans (2003) Martyn Evans. 2003.  Trend Forecasting for Design Futures. In _European Academy of Design Conference_ (2003).
  * Feng et al. (2021) Yuanyuan Feng, Yaxing Yao, and Norman Sadeh. 2021.  A Design Space for Privacy Choices: Towards Meaningful Privacy Control in the Internet of Things.  _Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ , 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445148
  * Fiesler (2019) Casey Fiesler. 2019.  Ethical Considerations for Research Involving (Speculative) Public Data.  _Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction_ 3, GROUP (5 12 2019), 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3370271
  * Fiesler (2021) Casey Fiesler. 2021.  Ethical Speculation in the Computing Classroom. In _2021 Conference on Research in Equitable and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT)_ (2021-05-23). IEEE, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1–1.  https://doi.org/10.1109/RESPECT51740.2021.9620641
  * Flanagan and Nissenbaum (2014) Mary Flanagan and Helen Nissenbaum. 2014.  Groundwork for Values in Games.  In _Values at Play in Digital Games_. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  * for Long-Term Cybersecurity (2016) Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity. 2016.  _Cybersecurity futures 2020_.  Technical Report. 128 pages.  https://cltc.berkeley.edu/2016/04/28/cybersecurity-futures-2020/
  * Freed et al. (2018) Diana Freed, Jackeline Palmer, Diana Minchala, Karen Levy, Thomas Ristenpart, and Nicola Dell. 2018.  ”A Stalker’s Paradise”: How Intimate Partner Abusers Exploit Technology. In _Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’18_ (2018). ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174241
  * Friedman et al. (2017) Batya Friedman, David G. Hendry, and Alan Borning. 2017.  A Survey of Value Sensitive Design Methods.  _Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction_ 11, 2 (2017), 63–125.  https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000015
  * Garg and Cui (2022) Radhika Garg and Hua Cui. 2022.  Social Contexts, Agency, and Conflicts: Exploring Critical Aspects of Design for Future Smart Home Technologies.  _ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction_ 29, 2 (30 4 2022), 1–30.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3485058
  * Gaver and Martin (2000) Bill Gaver and Heather Martin. 2000.  Alternatives: Exploring Information Appliances through Conceptual Design Proposals. In _Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (The Hague, The Netherlands) _(CHI ’00)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 209–216.  https://doi.org/10.1145/332040.332433
  * Gaver (2011) William Gaver. 2011.  Making spaces: how design workbooks work. In _Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11)_ (2011). 1551–1560.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979169
  * Giaccardi et al. (2016) Elisa Giaccardi, Nazli Cila, Chris Speed, and Melissa Caldwell. 2016.  Thing Ethnography: Doing Design Research with Non-Humans. In _Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems_ (Brisbane, QLD, Australia) _(DIS ’16)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 377–387.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901905
  * Harrington and Dillahunt (2021) Christina Harrington and Tawanna R. Dillahunt. 2021.  Eliciting Tech Futures Among Black Young Adults: A Case Study of Remote Speculative Co-Design. In _Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (2021-05-06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445723
  * Hutchinson et al. (2003) Hilary Hutchinson, Heiko Hansen, Nicolas Roussel, Björn Eiderbäck, Wendy Mackay, Bosse Westerlund, Benjamin B Bederson, Allison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, and Helen Evans. 2003.  Technology probes. In _Proceedings of the conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI ’03)_ (2003). ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 17–24.  https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642616
  * Jacobs (2016) Alan Jacobs. 2016.  Attending to Technology - Theses for Disputation.  _The New Atlantis_ (2016).  https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/attending-to-technology-theses-for-disputation
  * JafariNaimi et al. (2015) Nassim JafariNaimi, Lisa Nathan, and Ian Hargraves. 2015.  Values as Hypotheses: Design, Inquiry, and the Service of Values.  _Design Issues_ 31, 4 (10 2015), 91–104.  https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00354
  * Jenkins (2017) Tom Jenkins. 2017.  Living Apart, Together: Cohousing as a Site for ICT Design. In _Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems_ (2017-06-10). ACM, Edinburgh United Kingdom, 1039–1051.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064751
  * Key et al. (2021) Cayla Key, Fiona Browne, Nick Taylor, and Jon Rogers. 2021.  Proceed with Care: Reimagining Home IoT Through a Care Perspective. In _Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (Yokohama, Japan) _(CHI ’21)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 166, 15 pages.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445602
  * Knowles et al. (2019) Bran Knowles, Sophie Beck, Joe Finney, James Devine, and Joseph Lindley. 2019.  A Scenario-Based Methodology for Exploring Risks: Children and Programmable IoT. In _Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference_ (2019-06-18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 751–761.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322315
  * Koshy et al. (2021) Vinay Koshy, Joon Sung Sung Park, Ti-Chung Cheng, and Karrie Karahalios. 2021.  “We Just Use What They Give Us”: Understanding Passenger User Perspectives in Smart Homes. In _Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (Yokohama, Japan) _(CHI ’21)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 41, 14 pages.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445598
  * Kozubaev et al. (2020) Sandjar Kozubaev, Chris Elsden, Noura Howell, Marie Louise Juul Søndergaard, Nick Merrill, Britta Schulte, and Richmond Y Wong. 2020.  Expanding Modes of Reflection in Design Futuring. In _Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (2020-04-21). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376526
  * Kozubaev et al. (2019) Sandjar Kozubaev, Fernando Rochaix, Carl DiSalvo, and Christopher A. Le Dantec. 2019.  Spaces and Traces: Implications of Smart Technology in Public Housing. In _Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’19_ (2019). ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300669
  * Kurze et al. (2020) Albrecht Kurze, Andreas Bischof, Sören Totzauer, Michael Storz, Maximilian Eibl, Margot Brereton, and Arne Berger. 2020.  Guess the Data: Data Work to Understand How People Make Sense of and Use Simple Sensor Data from Homes. In _Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (2020-04-21). ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376273
  * Lau et al. (2018) Josephine Lau, Benjamin Zimmerman, and Florian Schaub. 2018.  Alexa, Are You Listening?: Privacy Perceptions, Concerns and Privacy-seeking Behaviors with Smart Speakers.  _Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction_ 2, CSCW (11 2018), 1–31.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3274371
  * Le Dantec et al. (2009) Christopher A. Le Dantec, Erika Shehan Poole, and Susan P. Wyche. 2009.  Values as lived experience: Evolving value sensitive design in support of value discovery. In _Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI 09_ (2009). ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1141.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518875
  * Lee and Kobsa (2020) Hosub Lee and Alfred Kobsa. 2020.  Confident Privacy Decision-Making in IoT Environments.  _ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction_ 27, 1 (23 1 2020), 1–39.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3364223
  * Lindley et al. (2020a) Joseph Lindley, Haider Ali Akmal, and Paul Coulton. 2020a.  Design Research and Object-Oriented Ontology.  _Open Philosophy_ 3, 1 (Jan. 2020), 11–41.  https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2020-0002
  * Lindley et al. (2020b) Joseph Lindley, Haider Ali Akmal, Franziska Pilling, and Paul Coulton. 2020b.  Researching AI Legibility through Design. In _Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (Honolulu, HI, USA) _(CHI ’20)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376792
  * Liu et al. (2018) Jen Liu, Daragh Byrne, and Laura Devendorf. 2018.  Design for Collaborative Survival: An Inquiry into Human-Fungi Relationships. In _Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (Montreal QC, Canada) _(CHI ’18)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173614
  * Lockton et al. (2019) Dan Lockton, Devika Singh, Saloni Sabnis, Michelle Chou, Sarah Foley, and Alejandro Pantoja. 2019.  New Metaphors: A workshop method for generating ideas and reframing problems in design and beyond. In _Proceedings of the 2019 on Creativity and Cognition_ (2019-06-13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 319–332.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3325480.3326570
  * Marky et al. (2020) Karola Marky, Sarah Prange, Florian Krell, Max Mühlhäuser, and Florian Alt. 2020.  “You just can’t know about everything”: Privacy Perceptions of Smart Home Visitors. In _19th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia_ (2020-11-22). ACM, Essen Germany, 83–95.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3428361.3428464
  * Marky et al. (2021) Karola Marky, Sarah Prange, Max Mühlhäuser, and Florian Alt. 2021.  Roles Matter! Understanding Differences in the Privacy Mental Models of Smart Home Visitors and Residents. In _20th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia_ (2021-05-12). ACM, Leuven Belgium, 108–122.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3490632.3490664
  * Martin (2009) Roger Martin. 2009.  _The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Edge_.  Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  * Mazé et al. (2019) Ramia Mazé et al. 2019\.  Politics of designing visions of the future.  _Journal of Futures Studies_ 23, 3 (2019), 23–38.  https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.201903_23(3).0003
  * McDonald et al. (2020) Nora McDonald, Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Morgan G. Ames, Nicola Dell, Elizabeth Keneski, Manya Sleeper, and Pamela J. Wisniewski. 2020.  Privacy and Power: Acknowledging the Importance of Privacy Research and Design for Vulnerable Populations. In _Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (2020-04-25). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3375174
  * McDonald and Forte (2020) Nora McDonald and Andrea Forte. 2020.  The Politics of Privacy Theories: Moving from Norms to Vulnerabilities. In _Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (2020-04-21). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376167
  * Merrill (2020) Nick Merrill. 2020.  Security Fictions: Bridging Speculative Design and Computer Security. In _Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference_ (2020-07-03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1727–1735.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395451
  * Mulligan and King (2011) Deirdre K. Mulligan and Jennifer King. 2011.  Bridging the gap between privacy and design.  _University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law_ (2011), 989–1034.
  * Mulligan et al. (2016) Deirdre K. Mulligan, Colin Koopman, and Nick Doty. 2016.  Privacy is an essentially contested concept: a multi-dimensional analytic for mapping privacy.  _Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences_ 374, 2083 (28 12 2016), 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0118
  * Mulligan et al. (2019) Deirdre K. Mulligan, Joshua A. Kroll, Nitin Kohli, and Richmond Y. Wong. 2019.  This Thing Called Fairness: Disciplinary confusion realizing a value in technology.  _Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction_ 3, CSCW (7 11 2019), 1–36.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3359221
  * Mulligan and Nissenbaum (2020) Deirdre K. Mulligan and Helen Nissenbaum. 2020.  The Concept of Handoff as a Model for Ethical Analysis and Design.  In _The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI_ , Markus D. Dubber, Frank Pasquale, and Sunit Das (Eds.). Oxford University Press, 231–251.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.15
  * Naeini et al. (2017) Pardis Emami Naeini, Sruti Bhagavatula, Hana Habib, Martin Degeling, Lujo Bauer, Lorrie Cranor, and Norman Sadeh. 2017.  Privacy Expectations and Preferences in an IoT World. In _Thirteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2017)_ (2017). 399–412.
  * Nägele et al. (2018) Larissa Vivian Nägele, Merja Ryöppy, and Danielle Wilde. 2018.  PDFi: Participatory Design Fiction with Vulnerable Users. In _Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction_ (Oslo, Norway) _(NordiCHI ’18)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 819–831.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3240167.3240272
  * Nathan et al. (2008) Lisa P. Nathan, Batya Friedman, Predrag Klasnja, Shaun K. Kane, and Jessica K. Miller. 2008.  Envisioning systemic effects on persons and society throughout interactive system design. In _Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Designing interactive systems - DIS ’08_ (2008). ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1394445.1394446
  * Nissenbaum (2009) Helen Nissenbaum. 2009.  _Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life_.  Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
  * Noortman et al. (2019) Renee Noortman, Britta F. Schulte, Paul Marshall, Saskia Bakker, and Anna L. Cox. 2019.  HawkEye - Deploying a Design Fiction Probe. In _Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’19_ (2019). ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300652
  * Odom et al. (2019) William Odom, Sumeet Anand, Doenja Oogjes, and Jo Shin. 2019.  Diversifying the Domestic: A Design Inquiry into Collective and Mobile Living. In _Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference - DIS ’19_ (2019). ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1377–1390.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3323687
  * Oogjes et al. (2018) Doenja Oogjes, William Odom, and Pete Fung. 2018.  Designing for an other Home: Expanding and Speculating on Different Forms of Domestic Life. In _Proceedings of the 2018 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2018 - DIS ’18_ (2018). ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 313–326.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196810
  * Pierce (2019a) James Pierce. 2019a.  Lamps, Curtains, Robots: 3 scenarios for the future of the smart home. In _Proceedings of the 2019 on Creativity and Cognition - C &C ’19_ (2019). ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 423–424.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3325480.3329181
  * Pierce (2019b) James Pierce. 2019b.  Smart Home Security Cameras and Shifting Lines of Creepiness: A Design-Led Inquiry. In _Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (2019-05-02). ACM, Glasgow Scotland Uk, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300275
  * Pierce (2021) James Pierce. 2021.  Eccentric Sensing Devices: Using Conceptual Design Notes to Understand Design Opportunities, Limitations, and Concerns Connected to Digital Sensing. In _Creativity and Cognition_ (Virtual Event, Italy) _(C &C ’21)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 37, 14 pages.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3450741.3466775
  * Pierce and DiSalvo (2018) James Pierce and Carl DiSalvo. 2018.  Addressing Network Anxieties with Alternative Design Metaphors. In _Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (Montreal QC, Canada) _(CHI ’18)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174123
  * Pierce et al. (2018a) James Pierce, Sarah Fox, Nick Merrill, and Richmond Wong. 2018a.  Differential Vulnerabilities and a Diversity of Tactics: What Toolkits Teach Us about Cybersecurity.  _Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction_ 2, CSCW (1 11 2018), 1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3274408
  * Pierce et al. (2018b) James Pierce, Sarah Fox, Nick Merrill, Richmond Wong, and Carl DiSalvo. 2018b.  An Interface without A User: An Exploratory Design Study of Online Privacy Policies and Digital Legalese. In _Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference_ (Hong Kong, China) _(DIS ’18)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1345–1358.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196818
  * Pierce et al. (2022) James Pierce, Claire Weizenegger, Parag Nandi, Isha Agarwal, Gwenna Gram, Jade Hurrle, Hannah Liao, Betty Lo, Aaron Park, Aivy Phan, Mark Shumskiy, and Grace Sturlaugson. 2022.  Addressing Adjacent Actor Privacy: Designing for Bystanders, Co-Users, and Surveilled Subjects of Smart Home Cameras. In _Designing Interactive Systems Conference_ (2022-06-13). ACM, Virtual Event Australia, 26–40.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3535195
  * Pierce et al. (2020) James Pierce, Richmond Y. Wong, and Nick Merrill. 2020.  Sensor Illumination: Exploring Design Qualities and Ethical Implications of Smart Cameras and Image/Video Analytics. In _Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20)_ (2020). 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376347
  * Rogers et al. (2019) Jon Rogers, Loraine Clarke, Martin Skelly, Nick Taylor, Pete Thomas, Michelle Thorne, Solana Larsen, Katarzyna Odrozek, Julia Kloiber, Peter Bihr, Anab Jain, Jon Arden, and Max von Grafenstein. 2019.  Our Friends Electric: Reflections on Advocacy and Design Research for the Voice Enabled Internet. In _Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) _(CHI ’19)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300344
  * Saldaña (2013) Johnny Saldaña. 2013.  _The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers_.  Sage, Los Angeles.
  * Shilton (2018) Katie Shilton. 2018.  Values and Ethics in Human-Computer Interaction.  _Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction_ 12, 2 (2018), 107–171.  https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000073
  * Shilton et al. (2020) Katie Shilton, Donal Heidenblad, Adam Porter, Susan Winter, and Mary Kendig. 2020.  Role-Playing Computer Ethics: Designing and Evaluating the Privacy by Design (PbD) Simulation.  _Science and Engineering Ethics_ (1 7 2020).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00250-0
  * Solove (2002) Daniel J. Solove. 2002.  Conceptualizing privacy.  _California Law Review_ 90 (2002), 1087–1155.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1929609.1929610
  * Solove (2003) Daniel J. Solove. 2003.  A Taxonomy of Privacy.  _University of Pennsylvania Law Review_ 154, 3 (2003), 477–560.
  * Solove (2008) Daniel J Solove. 2008.  Privacy: A Concept in Disarray.  In _Understanding privacy_. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  * Stark and Levy (2018) Luke Stark and Karen Levy. 2018.  The surveillant consumer.  _Media, Culture & Society_ 40, 8 (25 11 2018), 1202–1220.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443718781985
  * Strengers et al. (2019) Yolande Strengers, Jenny Kennedy, Paula Arcari, Larissa Nicholls, and Melissa Gregg. 2019.  Protection, Productivity and Pleasure in the Smart Home: Emerging Expectations and Gendered Insights from Australian Early Adopters. In _Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (2019-05-02). ACM, Glasgow Scotland Uk, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300875
  * Swauger (2020) Shea Swauger. 2020.  Software that monitors students during tests perpetuates inequality and violates their privacy.  _MIT Technology Review_ (7 8 2020).  https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006132/software-algorithms-proctoring-online-tests-ai-ethics/
  * Tabassum et al. (2020) Madiha Tabassum, Jess Kropczynski, Pamela Wisniewski, and Heather Richter Lipford. 2020.  Smart Home Beyond the Home: A Case for Community-Based Access Control. In _Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (2020-04-21). ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376255
  * Tan et al. (2022a) Neilly H. Tan, Brian Kinnee, Dana Langseth, Sean A. Munson, and Audrey Desjardins. 2022a.  Critical-Playful Speculations with Cameras in the Home. In _CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (2022-04-29). ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3502109
  * Tan et al. (2022b) Neilly H. Tan, Richmond Y. Wong, Audrey Desjardins, Sean A. Munson, and James Pierce. 2022b.  Monitoring Pets, Deterring Intruders, and Casually Spying on Neighbors: Everyday Uses of Smart Home Cameras. In _CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (2022-04-29). ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517617
  * Thakkar et al. (2022) Parth Kirankumar Thakkar, Shijing He, Shiyu Xu, Danny Yuxing Huang, and Yaxing Yao. 2022.  “It would probably turn into a social faux-pas”: Users’ and Bystanders’ Preferences of Privacy Awareness Mechanisms in Smart Homes. In _CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (2022-04-29). ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3502137
  * Tran O’Leary et al. (2019) Jasper Tran O’Leary, Sara Zewde, Jennifer Mankoff, and Daniela K Rosner. 2019.  Who Gets to Future? Race, Representation, and Design Methods in Africatown. In _Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’19_ (2019). ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300791
  * Ur et al. (2014) Blase Ur, Jaeyeon Jung, and Stuart Schechter. 2014.  Intruders versus intrusiveness: Teens’ and Parents’ Perspectives on Home-Entryway Surveillance. In _Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing_ (2014-09-13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 129–139.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2632048.2632107
  * Vaara and Whittington (2012) Eero Vaara and Richard Whittington. 2012.  Strategy-as-Practice: Taking Social Practices Seriously.  _Academy of Management Annals_ 6, 1 (6 2012), 285–336.  https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.672039
  * van der Heijden (2005) Kees van der Heijden. 2005.  _Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation_.  John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  * Vervoort et al. (2015) Joost M. Vervoort, Roy Bendor, Aisling Kelliher, Oscar Strik, and Ariella E.R. Helfgott. 2015.  Scenarios and the art of worldmaking.  _Futures_ 74 (11 2015), 62–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.009
  * Wack (1985) Pierre Wack. 1985.  Scenarios: uncharted waters ahead.  _Harvard Business Review_ 63, 5 (1985), 73–89.
  * Wakkary (2021) Ron Wakkary. 2021.  _Things We Could Design: For More Than Human-Centered Worlds_.  MIT Press.
  * Weber (1996) Steven Weber. 1996.  Counterfactuals, past and future.  In _Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives_ , Phlip E. Tetlock and Aaron Belkin (Eds.). Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
  * Wong et al. (2020a) Richmond Y Wong, Karen Boyd, Jake Metcalf, and Katie Shilton. 2020a.  Beyond Checklist Approaches to Ethics in Design. In _Conference Companion Publication of the 2020 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing_ (2020-10-17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 511–517.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3406865.3418590
  * Wong and Khovanskaya (2018) Richmond Y. Wong and Vera Khovanskaya. 2018.  Speculative Design in HCI: From Corporate Imaginations to Critical Orientations.  In _New Directions in 3rd Wave HCI_ , Michael Filimowicz (Ed.). Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 175–202.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73374-6_10
  * Wong et al. (2020b) Richmond Y Wong, Vera Khovanskaya, Sarah E Fox, Nick Merrill, and Phoebe Sengers. 2020b.  Infrastructural Speculations: Tactics for Designing and Interrogating Lifeworlds. In _Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (2020-04-21). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376515
  * Wong and Mulligan (2019) Richmond Y. Wong and Deirdre K. Mulligan. 2019.  Bringing Design to the Privacy Table: Broadening ”Design” in ”Privacy by Design” Through the Lens of HCI. In _CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2019)_ (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300492
  * Wong et al. (2017) Richmond Y. Wong, Deirdre K Mulligan, Ellen Van Wyk, James Pierce, and John Chuang. 2017.  Eliciting Values Reflections by Engaging Privacy Futures Using Design Workbooks.  _Proceedings of the ACM on Human Computer Interaction_ 1, CSCW (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3134746
  * Wong and Nguyen (2021) Richmond Y. Wong and Tonya Nguyen. 2021.  Timelines: A World-Building Activity for Values Advocacy. In _Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ (2021-05-06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445447
  * Wu et al. (2023) Yanlai Wu, Xinning Gui, Pamela J. Wisniewski, and Yao Li. 2023.  Do Streamers Care about Bystanders’ Privacy? An Examination of Live Streamers’ Considerations and Strategies for Bystanders’ Privacy Management.  _Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact._ 7, CSCW1, Article 127 (apr 2023), 29 pages.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3579603
  * Wyche (2021) Susan Wyche. 2021.  The Benefits of Using Design Workbooks with Speculative Design Proposals in Information Communication Technology for Development (ICTD). In _Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021_ (2021-06-28). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1861–1874.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3461778.3462140
  * Yao et al. (2019) Yaxing Yao, Justin Reed Basdeo, Oriana Rosata Mcdonough, and Yang Wang. 2019.  Privacy Perceptions and Designs of Bystanders in Smart Homes.  _Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction_ 3, CSCW (7 11 2019), 1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3359161
  * Zeng et al. (2017) Eric Zeng, Shrirang Mare, and Franziska Roesner. 2017.  End User Security and Privacy Concerns with Smart Homes. In _Thirteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2017)_ (2017). 65–80.  https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2017/technical-sessions/presentation/zeng