Last week, the class went to the videoconferencing lab to speak with a few people who have some sort of experience with videoconferencing. Although the system was extremely high-tech, there are a few fundamental flaws with the videoconferencing software and the system itself concerning privacy along with a few aspects that maintain privacy.
The users of this videoconferencing system have only some privacy. The first example that we saw was something that was discussed in this class, as well as 2450 last semester. We were speaking with a representative from IOCOM, and we called Eric, a member of the staff at the School of Information at the University of Michigan. When we called Eric and he answered, Eric was automatically added to all parties' session. Therefore, the representative from IOCOM had Eric's video feed added to his session. This is lacking in privacy. When Eric answered our call, he was unaware of anyone else who was in the session. This could be problematic if there is someone in the session with whom Eric would not like to speak. Another flaw that concerns privacy in this system is the auto-answer function. When we called Judy and Gary Olson, they were not present. However, their software automatically answered the call. After asking them more about this event, they informed us that this is a feature that can be enabled or disabled in the settings. This is one of the more positive aspects of this system. However, this feature can be improved. If we look at this from a heuristic point of view, a good system should prevent errors, often with confirmation dialogs. An error clearly occurred when we were using this system. What their software can do is remind them that they still have auto-answer turned on and offer the option to turn it off. This was a violation of their privacy, and they did not know someone had called them. All a malicious user needs to do is obtain their IP address, and they can call them and see what they are doing. Another possible redesign, although less feasible at this time, would be to have it set to auto-answer only when they are present in the room.
The videoconferencing system is a great communication tool, but these few issues dealing with privacy make it less appealing to use.
Posts
I also wrote about privacy in my blog post, and I used the same example involving Judy and Gary Olson. I suggested an alternate design that reduces the fidelity of the video, which would allow us to see whether or not the Olsens have entered their office (which could be considered a legitimate use case) without letting us see too much more detail.
ReplyDeleteBut you are right that this isn’t necessarily enough; the Olsens weren’t even aware that their camera was activated in the first place, so it is still a violation of privacy. If the camera auto-answers only in their presence, it will be brought to their attention immediately.
I unfortunately missed the video conferencing, but from what I've heard, privacy was definitely an issue. It is interesting to notice that they haven't changed this issue with knowing whether the camera is on or off.
ReplyDelete