Coordination of Interpersonal PrivacyGrounding Privacy in Social Interaction
Natalia Romero Herrera
Scenario – Intentions to interact
• A face-to-face “hi”
• A mediated (MSN) “hi”
Agenda
• Context • Problem• Approach • In practice • Demonstration• Conclusions• Final Message
Context – Social Interactions
• Mediated communication• Awareness Systems• Media Spaces• Networked Communities
Problem – Too much/Too little
Problem – Signalling of borders
PictureNameStatusMessage
Personal
Availability
Activity
• People wants to feel connected
• People wants to share
• People want to signal borders with minimum effort
Problem – Grounding Borders
Problem – Signalling and Grounding
• Interpersonal privacy conflicts• Vulnerability of being always on
− Undesired interruption
• Lack of understanding of each others representations• False expectations and obligations• Physical, emotional and cognitive effort
• Communicators lack of lightweight and effective mechanisms to signal and ground each others’ intentions to interact
Approach
Security Legal
Social
Approach
• Privacy as a BORDER REGULATION process(Altman, 1975)
• Privacy is dynamic and dialectic
• Opening and closing borders of interaction
• Privacy as a GROUNDING process(Clark, 1996)• Establishing a shared understanding of each others’
representations for interaction
Solution
• Privacy Grounding Model (PGM)
Representing privacy borders
Establishing a shared understanding
In practice …
1. Identify the parties interacting• 1 to 1; 1 to many; many to many communication
• Hierarchy / Collaboration
2. Identify their borders of interaction• 1 or 2 ways communication• Asynchronous/synchronous• Text/visual/audio• Formal/casual
3. Identify scenarios of coordination of borders:• ‘knocking’ other’s borders: sending an email• Opening/closing your borders (after someone’s
‘knocking’): changing status to busy
In practice …
4. Identify signalling mechanisms to communicate intentions of opening/closing/knocking borders
• Sending an email with a ! symbol
• Lightweight: brief, background, simultaneous, distinctive
Interactive and Lightweight
5. Identify grounding mechanisms to establish understanding of the intentions of signalled borders
• Clicking the ! to ground its importance (though no answer can be provide yet)
• Interactive
DEMO - CB
Community Bar - Grouplab, Calgary
• Chat
• Own presence• Status - name
• Video
DEMO
QuickTime™ and aH.264 decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Conclusions
• Grounding mechanisms support lightweight and effective collaborative practices to establish a shared understanding of each others’ representations of privacy borders
• Lightweight• Interactivity• Effective in developing a shared understanding• Least collaborative effort• Explicit and ambiguity
Final Message
Research Challenge• Think about privacy!• Think about privacy as a border regulation process• Which is dynamic and collaborative
Design Challenge• Identify interactive and lightweight signalling and
grounding mechanisms to support the regulation of interaction borders