Mind the Gap: Mapping Wearer-Bystander Privacy Tensions and Context-Adaptive Pathways for Camera Glasses

Abstract

Camera glasses create fundamental privacy tensions between wearers seeking recording functionality and bystanders concerned about unauthorized surveillance. We present a systematic multi-stakeholder evaluation of privacy mechanisms through surveys (N=525) and paired interviews (N=20) in China. Study 1 quantifies expectation-willingness gaps: bystanders consistently demand stronger information transparency and protective measures than wearers will provide, with disparities intensifying in sensitive contexts where 65-90% of bystanders would take defensive action. Study 2 evaluates twelve privacy-enhancing technologies, revealing four fundamental trade-offs that undermine current approaches: visibility versus disruption, empowerment versus burden, protection versus agency, and accountability versus exposure. These gaps reflect structural incompatibilities rather than inadequate goodwill, with context emerging as the primary determinant of privacy acceptability. We propose context-adaptive pathways that dynamically adjust protection strategies: minimal-friction visibility in public spaces, structured negotiation in semi-public environments, and automatic protection in sensitive contexts. Our findings contribute a diagnostic framework for evaluating privacy mechanisms and implications for context-aware design in ubiquitous sensing.

Figures (14)

• Figure 1: Representative camera-equipped smart glasses launched by major technology companies over the past decade. Their built-in cameras are often seamlessly disguised within everyday eyewear form factors, and LED indicators signaling recording status are typically small, making recording less perceptible to bystanders.
• Figure 2: Research framework overview. Study 1 investigates the expectation-willingness gap between wearers and bystanders across contexts (what is the gap). Study 2 evaluates existing PETs to understand underlying tensions (why the gap persists). Design insights propose context-adaptive pathways (how to address the gap).
• Figure 3: Privacy perceptions across six contextual scenarios. Each panel shows scenario illustration and distribution of responses for Recording Reasonability (R(W)) by wearers, Privacy Concern by bystanders (PC(B)), and Privacy Concern by wearers (PC(W)). Asterisks indicate significant group differences (* $p<.05$, ** $p<.01$, *** $p<.001$).
• Figure 4: Bystanders' anticipated behavioral responses to smart glasses recording across six scenarios. Bars represent the percentage of participants endorsing each response option (multiple selections allowed).
• Figure 5: Information transparency and protective measure expectations across scenarios. Top row: Information dimensions. Bottom row: Protective measures. Left panels show bystanders' needs, middle panels show wearers' willingness, and right panels show the difference (Bystander $-$ Wearer). Warmer colors indicate larger gaps. Asterisks denote significant differences (* $p<.05$, ** $p<.01$, *** $p<.001$).