pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.06847 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: no theorem link

Privacy Perceptions in Sensor-Powered Smart Vehicle Cabins

BoRui Li , Bofan Yu , Xing-Dong Yang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 02:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords privacy perceptionssmart vehiclessensor-powered cabinsvehicle ownersnon-ownerssemi-structured interviewsdesign implications
0
0 comments X

The pith

Interviews reveal both shared and ownership-specific factors shaping privacy preferences in sensor-equipped car cabins.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how privacy is perceived in vehicles turning into smart sensor environments. It contrasts the views of owners who control the car with those of non-owners who use it temporarily. Semi-structured interviews with eighteen participants surface factors that affect both groups similarly as well as factors that weigh more heavily on one group. The work draws design implications for balancing the privacy needs of multiple users in the same cabin.

Core claim

Through interviews the study identifies key factors that commonly influence privacy preferences for both owners and non-owners as well as factors that exert stronger impact on one group over the other, leading to recommendations for sensor and interface designs that accommodate diverse stakeholder needs.

What carries the argument

Qualitative identification of common versus differential privacy-influencing factors between vehicle owners and non-owners, drawn from semi-structured interviews.

If this is right

  • Cabin sensor systems should make data collection and use transparent to all users regardless of ownership status.
  • Designs must accommodate owners' greater emphasis on long-term control over vehicle data.
  • Temporary users require protections focused on session-specific privacy rather than persistent ownership.
  • Future interfaces need mechanisms to balance the competing privacy expectations of multiple stakeholders in one cabin.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same owner-versus-non-owner distinction may appear in other shared sensor spaces such as smart homes or offices.
  • Quantitative validation through surveys could test whether the interview-derived factors hold at scale.
  • The findings could inform privacy regulations or standards specific to in-vehicle data collection.

Load-bearing premise

That a sample of eighteen semi-structured interviews can reliably surface the main factors that shape privacy perceptions across broader populations of owners and non-owners.

What would settle it

A larger survey or observational study of hundreds of owners and non-owners that finds no consistent set of shared factors or no reliable differences between the two groups.

read the original abstract

As car cabins evolve with the integration of diverse sensors, traditional car cabins are transforming into smart environments. This shift raises important questions about how privacy is understood and managed in such spaces. In this work, we investigate privacy perceptions from the perspectives of both vehicle owners (i.e., people who purchase and own cars) and non-owners (i.e., people who temporarily use cars, such as family members, friends, or renters). Through semi-structured interviews with eighteen participants, we identified key factors that influence these groups' views on privacy. Our findings reveal factors that commonly influence privacy preferences for both owners and non-owners, as well as factors that have a stronger impact on one group over the other. Drawing on these insights, we discuss design implications for future designs to better support and balance the diverse privacy needs of multiple stakeholders in smart car cabins.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports on a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 18 participants (vehicle owners and non-owners) exploring privacy perceptions in sensor-powered smart vehicle cabins. It identifies factors commonly influencing privacy preferences across both groups as well as factors with differential impact on owners versus non-owners, and discusses design implications for supporting diverse privacy needs in multi-stakeholder smart car environments.

Significance. If the identified factors hold, this work offers timely empirical insights into privacy in an emerging HCI domain: sensor-rich vehicle cabins. Distinguishing owner and non-owner perspectives is a useful contribution for designing privacy mechanisms in shared or multi-user vehicles. The study is grounded in direct user data, which strengthens its relevance to design implications, though the small sample inherently limits claims of prevalence or generalizability.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: The account of the qualitative analysis (thematic coding, codebook development, and handling of participant quotes) lacks sufficient detail on process, saturation criteria, or steps to address self-report bias. Because the central claims consist of the specific factors surfaced from these 18 interviews, this reporting gap directly affects the ability to evaluate the reliability of the common versus differential factor distinctions.
  2. [Findings] Findings section: Statements that certain factors 'commonly influence' both groups or have 'stronger impact' on one group are not accompanied by explicit evidence such as mention frequencies, participant counts per theme, or saturation notes. Without this, the characterizations risk appearing impressionistic rather than systematically derived from the interview data.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Explicitly label the work as exploratory/qualitative to calibrate reader expectations about generalizability.
  2. [Discussion] Discussion: Add a dedicated limitations paragraph addressing sample size, demographic scope, and the absence of observational or longitudinal data.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and recommendation for minor revision. The comments help us improve the transparency of our qualitative methods and the traceability of our findings. We address each point below and will incorporate the suggested enhancements in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The account of the qualitative analysis (thematic coding, codebook development, and handling of participant quotes) lacks sufficient detail on process, saturation criteria, or steps to address self-report bias. Because the central claims consist of the specific factors surfaced from these 18 interviews, this reporting gap directly affects the ability to evaluate the reliability of the common versus differential factor distinctions.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation on methodological transparency. Our original manuscript outlined the thematic analysis at a summary level, but we agree that expanded detail is needed to allow readers to assess the rigor behind the common and differential factors. In the revision, we will add a dedicated subsection describing the codebook development process (including independent coding by two researchers, iterative reconciliation meetings, and refinement criteria), our approach to assessing thematic saturation (through ongoing review of new data against emerging themes), and steps taken to address self-report bias (such as interview probing techniques and cross-verification of responses). These additions will directly support evaluation of the factor distinctions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Findings] Findings section: Statements that certain factors 'commonly influence' both groups or have 'stronger impact' on one group are not accompanied by explicit evidence such as mention frequencies, participant counts per theme, or saturation notes. Without this, the characterizations risk appearing impressionistic rather than systematically derived from the interview data.

    Authors: We acknowledge that greater linkage to the underlying data would strengthen the presentation. Although our study is qualitative and we intentionally avoided frequency-based claims to prevent implying statistical prevalence, we will revise the Findings section to include the number of participants (owners and non-owners) contributing to each theme, along with additional illustrative quotes tagged by participant ID. This will make explicit the patterns supporting descriptions of 'common influence' across groups versus 'stronger impact' on one group, while preserving the interpretive nature of the analysis. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

This is a qualitative HCI study reporting themes from 18 semi-structured interviews on privacy perceptions in smart vehicle cabins. It contains no equations, derivations, fitted parameters, predictions, or self-citation chains. All claims are direct empirical observations scoped to the sample, with no reduction of results to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Qualitative empirical study based on interviews; contains no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5441 in / 962 out tokens · 54218 ms · 2026-05-11T02:36:41.999297+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sailesh Acharya and Michelle Mekker. 2022. Measuring data sharing intention and its association with the acceptance of connected vehicles.Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour89 (2022), 423–436. doi:10.1016/ j.trf.2022.07.014

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    I. Altman. 1975.The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. https://books.google.ca/ books?id=GLBPAAAAMAAJ

    work page 1975

  3. [3]

    Muhammad Arif, Jianer Chen, Guojun Wang, Oana Geman, and Valentina Emilia Balas. 2021. Privacy preserving and data publication for vehicular trajecto- ries with differential privacy.Measurement173 (2021), 108675. doi:10.1016/j. measurement.2020.108675

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2021

  4. [4]

    atockar. 2014. Riding with the Stars: Passenger privacy in the NYC taxi- cab dataset. https://agkn.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/riding-with-the-stars- passenger-privacy-in-the-nyc-taxicab-dataset/

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Robert Avram, Geoffrey Tison, Peter Kuhar, Gregory Marcus, Mark Pletcher, Jeffrey Olgin, and Kirstin Aschbacher. 2019. PREDICTING DIABETES FROM PHOTOPLETHYSMOGRAPHY USING DEEP LEARNING.Journal of the American College of Cardiology73 (03 2019), 16. doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(19)33778-7 Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Trovato et al

    work page doi:10.1016/s0735-1097(19)33778-7 2019

  6. [6]

    Ari, Nasreddine Lagraa, and Mohamed Amine Ferrag

    Messaoud Babaghayou, Nabila Labraoui, Ado Adamou, A.A. Ari, Nasreddine Lagraa, and Mohamed Amine Ferrag. 2020. Pseudonym change-based privacy- preserving schemes in vehicular ad-hoc networks: A survey.Journal of Informa- tion Security and Applications55 (10 2020), 102618. doi:10.1016/j.jisa.2020.102618

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jisa.2020.102618 2020

  7. [7]

    Giampaolo Bella, Pietro Biondi, and Giuseppe Tudisco. 2021. Car Drivers’ Privacy Concerns and Trust Perceptions. InTrust, Privacy and Security in Digital Business, Simone Fischer-Hübner, Costas Lambrinoudakis, Gabriele Kotsis, A. Min Tjoa, and Ismail Khalil (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 143–154

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Rebecca Bellan. 2023. Harman’s driver-monitoring system can measure your heart rate. https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/04/harmans-driver-monitoring- system-can-measure-your-heart-rate/

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Carlos Bermejo Fernandez, Petteri Nurmi, and Pan Hui. 2021. Seeing is Believing? Effects of Visualization on Smart Device Privacy Perceptions. InProceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia(Virtual Event, China)(MM ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4183–4192. doi:10.1145/3474085.3475552

    work page doi:10.1145/3474085.3475552 2021

  10. [10]

    Karthikeyan Bhargavan, Bruno Blanchet, and Nadim Kobeissi. 2017. Verified Models and Reference Implementations for the TLS 1.3 Standard Candidate. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). 483–502. doi:10.1109/SP.2017. 26

    work page doi:10.1109/sp.2017 2017

  11. [11]

    Cara Bloom, Joshua Tan, Javed Ramjohn, and Lujo Bauer. 2017. Self-driving cars and data collection: privacy perceptions of networked autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth USENIX Conference on Usable Privacy and Security (Santa Clara, CA, USA)(SOUPS ’17). USENIX Association, USA, 357–375

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    Paul Bossauer, Thomas Neifer, Gunnar Stevens, and Christina Pakusch. 2020. Trust versus Privacy: Using Connected Car Data in Peer-to-Peer Carsharing. 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. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376555

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376555 2020

  13. [13]

    James Boylan, Denny Meyer, and Won Sun Chen. 2024. A systematic review of the use of in-vehicle telematics in monitoring driving behaviours.Accident Analysis & Prevention199 (2024), 107519. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2024.107519

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aap.2024.107519 2024

  14. [14]

    Laura Brandimarte and Alessandro Acquisti. 2013. Misplaced Confidences Privacy and the Control Paradox.Social Psychological and Personality Science4 (05 2013), 340–347. doi:10.1177/1948550612455931

    work page doi:10.1177/1948550612455931 2013

  15. [15]

    Benedikt Brecht, Dean Therriault, André Weimerskirch, William Whyte, Virendra Kumar, Thorsten Hehn, and Roy Goudy. 2018. A Security Credential Management System for V2X Communications.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems19, 12 (2018), 3850–3871. doi:10.1109/TITS.2018.2797529

    work page doi:10.1109/tits.2018.2797529 2018

  16. [16]

    Jason Carlton and Hafiz Malik. 2024. A data privacy survey on personal identi- fiable information (PII) left on rental vehicle infotainment systems.Journal of Surveillance, Security and Safety5 (11 2024), 198–212. doi:10.20517/jsss.2024.07

    work page doi:10.20517/jsss.2024.07 2024

  17. [17]

    Xusen Cheng, Tingting Hou, and Jian Mou. 2021. Investigating perceived risks and benefits of information privacy disclosure in IT-enabled ride-sharing.Information & Management58, 6 (2021), 103450. doi:10.1016/j.im.2021.103450 PACIS2019 Special Issue: Emerging technology, business, and applications in digital economy

    work page doi:10.1016/j.im.2021.103450 2021

  18. [18]

    Eun Kyoung Choe, Sunny Consolvo, Jaeyeon Jung, Beverly Harrison, and Julie A. Kientz. 2011. Living in a glass house: a survey of private moments in the home. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing(Beijing, China)(UbiComp ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 41–44. doi:10.1145/2030112.2030118

    work page doi:10.1145/2030112.2030118 2011

  19. [19]

    Richard Chow. 2017. The Last Mile for IoT Privacy.IEEE Security & Privacy15, 6 (2017), 73–76. doi:10.1109/MSP.2017.4251118

    work page doi:10.1109/msp.2017.4251118 2017

  20. [20]

    Patrick Cichy, Torsten Oliver Salge, and Rajiv Kohli. 2021. Privacy Concerns and Data Sharing in the Internet of Things: Mixed Methods Evidence from Connected Cars.Management Information Systems Quarterly45, 4 (12 2021), 1863–1891. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2021/14165

    work page doi:10.25300/misq/2021/14165 2021

  21. [21]

    Jessica Colnago, Yuanyuan Feng, Tharangini Palanivel, Sarah Pearman, Megan Ung, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Norman Sadeh. 2020. Inform- ing the Design of a Personalized Privacy Assistant for the Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’20). Association fo...

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376389 2020

  22. [22]

    David Crandall, Lars Backstrom, Dan Cosley, Siddharth Suri, Daniel Huttenlocher, and Jon Kleinberg. 2010. Inferring social ties from geographic coincidences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107 (12 2010), 22436–41. doi:10.1073/pnas.1006155107

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1006155107 2010

  23. [23]

    Tom Koch (Acting DAD and Stephanie T. Nguyen. 2025. FTC takes action against General Motors for sharing drivers’ precise location and driving behavior data without consent. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press- releases/2025/01/ftc-takes-action-against-general-motors-sharing-drivers- precise-location-driving-behavior-data

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Anupam Das, Martin Degeling, Daniel Smullen, and Norman Sadeh. 2018. Per- sonalized Privacy Assistants for the Internet of Things: Providing Users with Notice and Choice.IEEE Pervasive Computing17 (07 2018), 35–46. doi:10.1109/ MPRV.2018.03367733

    work page arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    Anna Dowthwaite, Dave Cook, and Anna L. Cox. 2024. Privacy preferences in automotive data collection.Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 24 (2024), 101022. doi:10.1016/j.trip.2024.101022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.trip.2024.101022 2024

  26. [26]

    Sastry Duri, Marco Gruteser, Xuan Liu, Paul Moskowitz, Ronald Perez, Monin- der Singh, and Jung-Mu Tang. 2002. Framework for security and privacy in automotive telematics. InProceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Mo- bile Commerce(Atlanta, Georgia, USA)(WMC ’02). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 25–32. doi:10.1145/570705.570711

    work page doi:10.1145/570705.570711 2002

  27. [27]

    Cynthia Dwork, Frank McSherry, Kobbi Nissim, and Adam Smith. 2017. Cal- ibrating Noise to Sensitivity in Private Data Analysis.Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality7 (05 2017), 17–51. doi:10.29012/jpc.v7i3.405

    work page doi:10.29012/jpc.v7i3.405 2017

  28. [28]

    Pardis Emami-Naeini, Sruti Bhagavatula, Hana Habib, Martin Degeling, Lujo Bauer, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Norman Sadeh. 2017. Privacy expectations and preferences in an IoT world. InProceedings of the Thirteenth USENIX Conference on Usable Privacy and Security(Santa Clara, CA, USA)(SOUPS ’17). USENIX Association, USA, 399–412

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    Fleiss, B

    J.L. Fleiss, B. Levin, and M.C. Paik. 2013.Statistical Methods for Rates and Propor- tions. Wiley. https://books.google.ca/books?id=9VefO7a8GeAC

    work page 2013

  30. [30]

    András Gazdag, Szilvia Lestyán, Mina Remeli, Gergely Ács, Tamás Holczer, and Gergely Biczók. 2023. Privacy pitfalls of releasing in-vehicle network data. Vehicular Communications39 (2023), 100565. doi:10.1016/j.vehcom.2022.100565

    work page doi:10.1016/j.vehcom.2022.100565 2023

  31. [31]

    Zheng Gong, Xuezhi Yang, Rencheng Song, Xuesong Han, Chong Ren, Hailin Shi, Jianwei Niu, and Wei Li. 2024. Heart Rate Estimation in Driver Monitoring System Using Quality-Guided Spectrum Peak Screening.IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement73 (2024), 1–14. doi:10.1109/TIM.2024.3352710

    work page doi:10.1109/tim.2024.3352710 2024

  32. [32]

    Verly, and Marc Van Droogenbroeck

    Anaïs Halin, Jacques G. Verly, and Marc Van Droogenbroeck. 2021. Survey and Synthesis of State of the Art in Driver Monitoring.Sensors21, 16 (2021). doi:10.3390/s21165558

    work page doi:10.3390/s21165558 2021

  33. [33]

    Antonio Hidalgo-Muñoz, Adolphe Béquet, Mathis Astier-Juvenon, Guillaume Pepin, Alexandra Fort, Christophe Jallais, Hélène Tattegrain, and Catherine Gabaude. 2019. Respiration and Heart Rate Modulation Due to Competing Cognitive Tasks While Driving.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience12 (01 2019),

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00525

    work page doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00525 2018

  35. [35]

    Kaiyuan Hou, Stephen Xia, and Xiaofan Jiang. 2022. BuMA: Non-Intrusive Breathing Detection using Microphone Array. InProceedings of the 1st ACM International Workshop on Intelligent Acoustic Systems and Applications(Portland, OR, USA)(IASA ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. doi:10.1145/3539490.3539598

    work page doi:10.1145/3539490.3539598 2022

  36. [36]

    Júlia Kafková, Branko Babusiak, Rastislav Pirnik, Pavol Kuchár, Juraj Kekelak, and Filippo D’Ippolito. 2025. Seat to beat: Novel capacitive ECG integration for in-car cardiovascular measurement.Measurement240 (01 2025), 115528. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2024.115528

    work page doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2024.115528 2025

  37. [37]

    Mohammad Khodaei, Hongyu Jin, and Panagiotis Papadimitratos. 2018. SEC- MACE: Scalable and Robust Identity and Credential Management Infrastructure in Vehicular Communication Systems.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems19, 5 (2018), 1430–1444. doi:10.1109/TITS.2017.2722688

    work page doi:10.1109/tits.2017.2722688 2018

  38. [38]

    Dohun Kim, Hyukjin Park, Tonghyun Kim, and Wonjong Kim. 2023. Real-time Driver Monitoring System with Facial Landmark-based Eye Closure Detection and Head Pose Recognition. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3223799/v1

    work page doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3223799/v1 2023

  39. [39]

    I know what you did last semester

    Injung Kim and Adam J. Lee. 2024. "I know what you did last semester": Un- derstanding Privacy Expectations and Preferences in the Smart Campus. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 980, 15 pages. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642174

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642174 2024

  40. [40]

    Sunjae Kim, Jeehun Jung, Haein Kang, Yejin Yoon, Seong je Cho, Minkyu Park, and Sangchul Han. 2025. An effective automotive forensic technique utilizing various logs of Android-based In-vehicle infotainment systems.Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation55 (2025), 301990. doi:10.1016/j.fsidi.2025. 301990

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fsidi.2025 2025

  41. [41]

    Lee, Jacob T

    Adam J. Lee, Jacob T. Biehl, and Conor Curry. 2018. Sensing or Watching? Balancing Utility and Privacy in Sensing Systems via Collection and Enforcement Mechanisms. InProceedings of the 23nd ACM on Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies(Indianapolis, Indiana, USA)(SACMAT ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 105–116. d...

    work page doi:10.1145/3205977 2018

  42. [42]

    Hosub Lee and Alfred Kobsa. 2016. Understanding User Privacy in Internet of Things Environments. In2016 IEEE 3rd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT). IEEE Press, IEEE Press, Reston, VA, 407–412. doi:10.1109/WF-IoT.2016.7845392

    work page doi:10.1109/wf-iot.2016.7845392 2016

  43. [43]

    Steffen Leonhardt, Lennart Leicht, and Daniel Teichmann. 2018. Unobtrusive Vital Sign Monitoring in Automotive Environments—A Review.Sensors18 (09 2018), 3080. doi:10.3390/s18093080

    work page doi:10.3390/s18093080 2018

  44. [44]

    Jiayi Lu, Zhaoxia Peng, Shichun Yang, Yuan Ma, Rui Wang, Zhaowen Pang, Xinjie Feng, Yuyi Chen, and Yaoguang Cao. 2023. A review of sensory interactions between autonomous vehicles and drivers.J. Syst. Archit.141, C (Aug. 2023), 15 pages. doi:10.1016/j.sysarc.2023.102932

    work page doi:10.1016/j.sysarc.2023.102932 2023

  45. [45]

    Machanavajjhala, J

    A. Machanavajjhala, J. Gehrke, D. Kifer, and M. Venkitasubramaniam. 2006. L- diversity: privacy beyond k-anonymity. In22nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE’06). 24–24. doi:10.1109/ICDE.2006.1 Privacy Perceptions in Sensor-Powered Smart Vehicle Cabins Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY

    work page doi:10.1109/icde.2006.1 2006

  46. [46]

    Malik and J

    A. Malik and J. Boger. 2021. Zero-Effort Ambient Heart Rate Monitoring Using Ballistocardiography Detected Through a Seat Cushion: Prototype Development and Preliminary Study.JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies8 (2021). doi:10.2196/25996

    work page doi:10.2196/25996 2021

  47. [47]

    Karola Marky, Alexandra Voit, Alina Stöver, Kai Kunze, Svenja Schröder, and Max Mühlhäuser. 2020. ”I don’t know how to protect myself”: Understanding Privacy Perceptions Resulting from the Presence of Bystanders in Smart Environments. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society(Tallinn, ...

    work page arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Manuel Martin, Alina Roitberg, Monica Haurilet, Matthias Horne, Simon Reiß, Michael Voit, and Rainer Stiefelhagen. 2019. Drive&Act: A Multi-Modal Dataset for Fine-Grained Driver Behavior Recognition in Autonomous Vehicles. In2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). 2801–2810. doi:10. 1109/ICCV.2019.00289

    work page arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek. 2015. Remote exploitation of an unaltered passenger vehicle.Black Hat USA2015, S 91 (2015), 1–91

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    Ashutosh Mishra, Sangho Lee, Dohyun Kim, and Shiho Kim. 2022. In-Cabin Monitoring System for Autonomous Vehicles.Sensors22 (06 2022), 4360. doi:10. 3390/s22124360

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Helen Nissenbaum. 2004. Privacy as Contextual Integrity.Washington Law Review79, 1 (2004), 119–158

    work page 2004

  52. [52]

    Ewa Nowara, Tim Marks, Hassan Mansour, and Ashok Veeraraghavany. 2018. SparsePPG: Towards Driver Monitoring Using Camera-Based Vital Signs Estima- tion in Near-Infrared. 1353–135309. doi:10.1109/CVPRW.2018.00174

    work page doi:10.1109/cvprw.2018.00174 2018

  53. [53]

    Adriano Palao, Rikard Fredriksson, and Mike Lenné. 2023. Euro NCAP’s current and future in-cabin monitoring systems assessment. https://research.chalmers. se/en/publication/536297

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    Sebastian Pape, Sarah Syed-Winkler, Armando Miguel Garcia, Badreddine Chah, Anis Bkakria, Matthias Hiller, Tobias Walcher, Alexandre Lombard, Abdeljalil Abbas-Turki, and Reda Yaich. 2023. A Systematic Approach for Automotive Privacy Management. InProceedings of the 7th ACM Computer Science in Cars Symposium(Darmstadt, Germany)(CSCS ’23). Association for C...

    work page doi:10.1145/3631204.3631863 2023

  55. [55]

    Pierce, Tatiana Kostova, and Kurt T

    Jon L. Pierce, Tatiana Kostova, and Kurt T. Dirks. 2001. Toward a Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations.The Academy of Management Review 26, 2 (2001), 298–310. http://www.jstor.org/stable/259124

    work page 2001

  56. [56]

    Pierce, Tatiana Kostova, and Kurt T

    Jon L. Pierce, Tatiana Kostova, and Kurt T. Dirks. 2003. The State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research.Review of General Psychology7, 1 (2003), 84–107. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84 doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84

    work page doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84 2003

  57. [57]

    Manya Sleeper, Sebastian Schnorf, Brian Kemler, and Sunny Consolvo. 2015. Attitudes toward vehicle-based sensing and recording. InProceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (Osaka, Japan)(UbiComp ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1017–1028. doi:10.1145/2750858.2806064

    work page doi:10.1145/2750858.2806064 2015

  58. [58]

    Kim Strandberg, Nasser Nowdehi, and Tomas Olovsson. 2023. A Systematic Literature Review on Automotive Digital Forensics: Challenges, Technical Solu- tions and Data Collection.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles8, 2 (2023), 1350–1367. doi:10.1109/TIV.2022.3188340

    work page doi:10.1109/tiv.2022.3188340 2023

  59. [59]

    Latanya Sweeney. 2002. k-anonymity: a model for protecting privacy.Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl.-Based Syst.10, 5 (Oct. 2002), 557–570. doi:10.1142/ S0218488502001648

    work page 2002

  60. [60]

    Mingyue Tang, Pranshu Teckchandani, Jizheng He, Hanbo Guo, and Elahe Soltanaghai. 2024. BSENSE: In-vehicle Child Detection and Vital Sign Moni- toring with a Single mmWave Radar and Synthetic Reflectors. InProceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems(Hangzhou, China)(SenSys ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York...

    work page doi:10.1145/3666025.3699352 2024

  61. [61]

    Jonas Walter and Bettina Abendroth. 2018. Losing a Private Sphere? A Glance on the User Perspective on Privacy in Connected Cars. InAdvanced Microsystems for Automotive Applications 2017, Carolin Zachäus, Beate Müller, and Gereon Meyer (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 237–247

    work page 2018

  62. [62]

    Haohuang Wen, Qi Alfred Chen, and Zhiqiang Lin. 2020. Plug-N-Pwned: Com- prehensive Vulnerability Analysis of OBD-II Dongles as A New Over-the-Air Attack Surface in Automotive IoT. In29th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 20). USENIX Association, 949–965. https://www.usenix.org/conference/ usenixsecurity20/presentation/wen

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    A.F. Westin. 1968.Privacy and Freedom. Atheneum. https://books.google.ca/ books?id=EqGAfBTQreMC

    work page 1968

  64. [64]

    Yijie Xun, Jiajia Liu, Nei Kato, Yongqiang Fang, and Yanning Zhang. 2020. Auto- mobile Driver Fingerprinting: A New Machine Learning Based Authentication Scheme.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics16, 2 (2020), 1417–1426. doi:10.1109/TII.2019.2946626

    work page doi:10.1109/tii.2019.2946626 2020

  65. [65]

    Yaxing Yao, Justin Reed Basdeo, Oriana Rosata Mcdonough, and Yang Wang. 2019. Privacy Perceptions and Designs of Bystanders in Smart Homes.Proc. ACM Hum.- Comput. Interact.3, CSCW, Article 59 (Nov. 2019), 24 pages. doi:10.1145/3359161

    work page doi:10.1145/3359161 2019

  66. [66]

    Did you know this camera tracks your mood?

    Shikun Zhang, Yuanyuan Feng, Lujo Bauer, Lorrie Cranor, Anupam Das, and Norman Sadeh. 2021. “Did you know this camera tracks your mood?”: Un- derstanding Privacy Expectations and Preferences in the Age of Video Ana- lytics.Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies2021 (04 2021), 282–304. doi:10.2478/popets-2021-0028

    work page doi:10.2478/popets-2021-0028 2021