Immersive Invaders: Privacy Threats from Deceptive Design in Virtual Reality Games and Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual Reality (VR) technologies offer immersive experiences but collect substantial user data. While deceptive design is well-studied in 2D platforms, little is known about its manifestation in VR environments and its impact on user privacy. This research investigates deceptive designs in privacy communication and interaction mechanisms of 12 top-rated VR games and applications through autoethnographic evaluation of the applications and thematic analysis of privacy policies. We found that while many deceptive designs rely on 2D interfaces, some VR-unique features, while not directly enabling deception, amplified data disclosure behaviors, and obscured actual data practices. Convoluted privacy policies and manipulative consent practices further hinder comprehension and increase privacy risks. We also observed privacy-preserving design strategies and protective considerations in VR privacy policies. We offer recommendations for ethical VR design that balance immersive experiences with strong privacy protections, guiding researchers, designers, and policymakers to improve privacy in VR environments.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".