Cited by 15Privacy, Security, and Data ProtectionPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataInformation and Cyber Security

DIPA2: An Image Dataset with Cross-cultural Privacy Perception Annotations

Open access
Xu, Anran, Zhou, Zhongyi, Miyazaki, Kakeru, Yoshikawa, Ryo, Hosio, Simo, Yatani, Koji·2023·Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies

Abstract

The world today is increasingly visual. Many of the most popular online social networking services are largely powered by images, making image privacy protection a critical research topic in the fields of ubiquitous computing, usable security, and human-computer interaction (HCI). One topical issue is understanding privacy-threatening content in images that are shared online. This dataset article introduces DIPA2, an open-sourced image dataset that offers object-level annotations with high-level reasoning properties to show perceptions of privacy among different cultures. DIPA2 provides 5,897 annotations describing perceived privacy risks of 3,347 objects in 1,304 images. The annotations contain the type of the object and four additional privacy metrics: 1) information type indicating what kind of information may leak if the image containing the object is shared, 2) a 7-point Likert item estimating the perceived severity of privacy leakages, and 3) intended recipient scopes when annotators assume they are either image owners or allowing others to repost the image. Our dataset contains unique data from two cultures: We recruited annotators from both Japan and the U.K. to demonstrate the impact of culture on object-level privacy perceptions. In this paper, we first illustrate how we designed and performed the construction of DIPA2, along with data analysis of the collected annotations. Second, we provide two machine-learning baselines to demonstrate how DIPA2 challenges the current image privacy recognition task. DIPA2 facilitates various types of research on image privacy, including machine learning methods inferring privacy threats in complex scenarios, quantitative analysis of cultural influences on privacy preferences, understanding of image sharing behaviors, and promotion of cyber hygiene for general user populations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3631439

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Paarijaat Aditya, Rijurekha Sen, Peter Druschel, Seong Joon Oh, Rodrigo Benenson, Mario Fritz, Bernt Schiele, Bobby Bhattacharjee, and Tong Tong Wu. 2016. I-pic: A platform for privacy-compliant image capture. In Proceedings of the 14th annual international conference on mobile systems, applications, and services (MobiSys '16). 235-248.
  2. Rawan Alharbi, Mariam Tolba, Lucia C Petito, Josiah Hester, and Nabil Alshurafa. 2019. To mask or not to mask? balancing privacy with visual confirmation utility in activity-oriented wearable cameras. Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies (IMWUT '19) 3, 3 (2019), 1-29.
  3. Mary Jean Amon, Aaron Necaise, Nika Kartvelishvili, Aneka Williams, Yan Solihin, and Apu Kapadia. 2023. Modeling User Characteristics Associated with Interdependent Privacy Perceptions on Social Media. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (2023).
  4. Gonul Ayci, Pınar Yolum, Arzucan Özgür, and Murat Şensoy. 2023. Explain to Me: Towards Understanding Privacy Decisions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.02079 (2023). · arXiv
  5. Hichang Cho, Milagros Rivera-Sánchez, and Sun Sun Lim. 2009. A multinational study on online privacy: global concerns and local responses. New media & society 11, 3 (2009), 395-416.
  6. Jianping He, Bin Liu, Deguang Kong, Xuan Bao, Na Wang, Hongxia Jin, and George Kesidis. 2016. Puppies: Transformation-supported personalized privacy preserving partial image sharing. In 46th annual IEEE/IFIP international conference on dependable systems and networks (DSN '16). IEEE, 359-370.
  7. Abhishek Kumar, Tristan Braud, Young D Kwon, and Pan Hui. 2020. Aquilis: Using contextual integrity for privacy protection on mobile devices. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 4, 4 (2020), 1-28.
  8. Kelly Moore and James C McElroy. 2012. The influence of personality on Facebook usage, wall postings, and regret. Computers in human behavior 28, 1 (2012), 267-274.
  9. Philip J Reed, Emma S Spiro, and Carter T Butts. 2016. Thumbs up for privacy?: Differences in online self-disclosure behavior across national cultures. Social science research 59 (2016), 155-170.
  10. Jiayu Shu, Rui Zheng, and Pan Hui. 2018. Cardea: Context-aware visual privacy protection for photo taking and sharing. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference. 304-315.
  11. Julian Steil, Marion Koelle, Wilko Heuten, Susanne Boll, and Andreas Bulling. 2019. Privaceye: privacy-preserving head-mounted eye tracking using egocentric scene image and eye movement features. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM symposium on eye tracking research & applications. 1-10.
  12. Anran Xu, Zhongyi Zhou, Kakeru Miyazaki, Ryo Yoshikawa, Simo Hosio, and Koji Yatani. 2023. DIPA: An Image Dataset with Cross-cultural Privacy Concern Annotations. In Companion Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 259-266.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xu, A., Zhou, Z., Miyazaki, K., Yoshikawa, R., Hosio, S., & Yatani, K.
Affiliations
  • The University of Tokyo (JP)
  • University of Oulu (FI)
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies
Published
2023-12-19
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
1-30
ISSN
2474-9567 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4390798746
Cited by
15
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9
FWCI
6.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
Keywords
image privacy, perceived privacy risk, online social networking, cross-cultural comparison, cyber hygiene

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review