Bystander Privacy in Smart Homes: A Systematic Review of Concerns and Solutions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smart home devices, such as security cameras and voice assistants, have seen widespread adoption due to the utility and convenience they offer to users. The deployment of these devices in homes, however, raises privacy concerns for bystanders—people who may not necessarily have a say in the deployment and configuration of these devices, and yet are exposed to or affected by their data collection. Examples of bystanders include guests, short-term tenants, and domestic workers. Prior work has studied the privacy concerns of different bystander groups and proposed design solutions for addressing these concerns. In this article, we present a systematic review of previous studies, describing how smart home bystanders are defined and classified, and illuminating the range of concerns and solutions proposed in the existing academic literature. We also discuss limitations in prior work, barriers to the uptake of research-based solutions by industry, and identify avenues for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it