Ethical Implications of User Perceptions of Wearable Devices | Science and Engineering Ethics
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Ethical Implications of User Perceptions of Wearable Devices

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Health Wearable Devices enhance the quality of life, promote positive lifestyle changes and save time and money in medical appointments. However, Wearable Devices store large amounts of personal information that is accessed by third parties without user consent. This creates ethical issues regarding privacy, security and informed consent. This paper aims to demonstrate users’ ethical perceptions of the use of Wearable Devices in the health sector. The impact of ethics is determined by an online survey which was conducted from patients and users with random female and male division. Results from this survey demonstrate that Wearable Device users are highly concerned regarding privacy issues and consider informed consent as “very important” when sharing information with third parties. However, users do not appear to relate privacy issues with informed consent. Additionally, users expressed the need for having shorter privacy policies that are easier to read, a more understandable informed consent form that involves regulatory authorities and there should be legal consequences the violation or misuse of health information provided to Wearable Devices. The survey results present an ethical framework that will enhance the ethical development of Wearable Technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Bjorn, H. (2013). Ethical challenges with welfare technology: A review of the literature. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 389–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camaraa, C. L. (2015). Security and privacy issues in implanfigure wearable device: A comprehensive survey. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 271–289.

  • Carmichael, C. (2014). BNCI systems as a potential assistive technology: Ethical issues and participatory research in the BrainAble project. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 9, 41–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chana, M. (2012). Current status and future challenges. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 56, 137–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colclasure, S. (2014). Bid data requires a renewal of policies. Privacy Journal, 2–5.

  • Itani, W., Kayssi, A. (2012). Security and privacy in body sensor networks: Challenges, solutions and research directions. In E-Healthcare Systems and Wireless Communications: Current and Future Challenges (pp. 100–127). Information Science References.

  • Jacquemard, T. (2014). Challenges and opportunities of lifelof tecnologies: A literature review and critical analysis. Science and Engineering, 20, 379–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanjo, E., & Al-Husain, L. (2015). Emotions in context: Examining pervasive affective sensing systems, applications, and analyses. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 19, 1197–1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapadial, A. (2014). Virtual walls: Protecting digital privacy in pervasive enviroments. Computer Science Journal, 234–256.

  • Kotsios, A. (2015). Privacy in an augmented reality. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 23, 157–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novitzky, P. (2014). Challenges and opportunities of lifelog technologies: A literature review and critical analysis. Science and Engineering, 20, 379–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, T. (2015a). Privacy issues surrounding wearable technology. I-Manager’s Journal on Information Technology, 4, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, T. (2015b). A Forecast of the Adoption of Wearable technology. International Journal of Technology Diffusion, 6, 12–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safavi, S. (2014). Conecptual privacy framework for health information on wearable devices. Plus One, 9, 9–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spring, H. R. (2009). Improving caregivers’ well-being by using technology to manage nighttime activity in persons with dementia. Research in Gerontological Nursing, 2, 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagemakers, S., & Van Zoonen, L. (2014). Giving meaning to RFID and cochlear implants. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 33, 73–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. (2010). Wireless mobile medical devices. In Electrical and Computer Engineering Design Handbook (pp. 1–20).

  • Wu, F. (2013). Security analysis and improvement of a privacy authentication scheme for telecare medical information systems. Journal of Medical Systems, 4, 56–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeslam, A.-S. (2015). The use of data mining by private health insurance copmanies and customer’s privacy. Bioethics and Information technology, 24, 281–292.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Mrs. Katherine Bell from Faculty of Business, Justice and Behavioral Sciences and Angelika Maag from the study center for proof reading and making corrections to this article. Without their support, it would have not been possible to submit this in the current form.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Charles Sturt University, Sydney, Australia

    L. H. Segura Anaya

  2. Studygroup Australia, Level 1, 64, Oxford Street, Darlinghurst, Sydney, 2010, Australia

    Abeer Alsadoon, N. Costadopoulos & P. W. C. Prasad

Authors
  1. L. H. Segura Anaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abeer Alsadoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. Costadopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. W. C. Prasad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. W. C. Prasad.

Appendix: Hypothesis Questions

Appendix: Hypothesis Questions

Informed Consent

  1. 1.

    I believe it is important to sign an informed consent agreement before using a wearable devices.

  2. 2.

    Informed consent from users of wearable devices is an important ethical and legal obligation.

  3. 3.

    Informed consent forms for wearable devices should be in plain language.

  4. 4.

    I should be informed of the risks involved in sharing my personal information with non-authorized third parties when using a wearable device.

  5. 5.

    It is not ethical for companies to share my personal information without my consent.

Legislative Protection

  1. 1.

    I believe that Legislative Protection would protect me from the misuse of my personal health data.

  2. 2.

    Violation of the health information that I have provided to wearable devices should be able to be addressed via legal means.

  3. 3.

    I believe that the practices of how wearable device providers collect, use, and protect my private health information should be governed and interpreted.

  4. 4.

    I believe that anyone use my personal information should ask your permission before using it.

Data Sharing Awareness

  1. 1.

    I feel comfortable with the type of health information the wearable device collects from me.

  2. 2.

    I believe that the wearable device is designed in a way that protects your privacy and data.

  3. 3.

    The health information that is collected by the wearable device is very sensitive to me.

  4. 4.

    There is too much uncertainty associated with giving my personal health information to vendors providing wearable devices.

  5. 5.

    There is a high potential for loss associated with disclosing my personal health information to vendors providing wearable devices.

  6. 6.

    If my health data was unknowingly shared with third party via the app I would be upset.

Privacy Risk Perception (Dependent Variable) Findings

  1. 1.

    Self-responsibility of wearable technology users plays an important role in privacy matters.

  2. 2.

    Risks and benefits, and their associated uncertainties in the wearable devices were also commonly not included in the informed consent.

  3. 3.

    People with limited English proficiency have difficulties in reading level of informed consent documents and that can leads to a risk.

  4. 4.

    Simplifying Informed Consent Forms May Improve user Satisfaction and reduce the privacy risk perception.

  5. 5.

    Privacy is the most common open-ended risks associated with owning a wearable device.

Being unaware is a most common open-ended risks associated with owning a wearable device.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Segura Anaya, L.H., Alsadoon, A., Costadopoulos, N. et al. Ethical Implications of User Perceptions of Wearable Devices. Sci Eng Ethics 24, 1–28 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9872-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9872-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation