CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 218Ethics and Social Impacts of AIPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionDigitalization, Law, and Regulation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Emotional AI, soft biometrics and the surveillance of emotional life: An unusual consensus on privacy

Open access
McStay, Andrew·2020·Big Data & Society
DOI 10.1177/2053951720904386
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

By the early 2020s, emotional artificial intelligence (emotional AI) will become increasingly present in everyday objects and practices such as assistants, cars, games, mobile phones, wearables, toys, marketing, insurance, policing, education and border controls. There is also keen interest in using these technologies to regulate and optimize the emotional experiences of spaces, such as workplaces, hospitals, prisons, classrooms, travel infrastructures, restaurants, retail and chain stores. Developers frequently claim that their applications do not identify people. Taking the claim at face value, this paper asks, what are the privacy implications of emotional AI practices that do not identify individuals? To investigate privacy perspectives on soft non-identifying emotional AI, the paper draws upon the following: over 100 interviews with the emotion detection industry, legal community, policy-makers, regulators and NGOs interested in privacy; a workshop with stakeholders to design ethical codes for using data about emotions; a UK survey of 2068 citizens on feelings about emotion capture technologies. It finds a weak consensus among social stakeholders on the need for privacy, this driven by different interests and motivations. Given this weak consensus, it concludes that there exists a limited window of opportunity to societally agree principles of practice regarding privacy and the use of data about emotions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2053951720904386

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Davies W, 2015, The Happiness Industry: How the Government & Big Business Sold Us Wellbeing
  2. Lupton D, 2016, The Quantified Self
  3. McStay A, 2019, First Monday
  4. Nussbaum MC, 1999, Sex and Social Justice
  5. 10.1037/e526112012-054 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–218 of 218

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
McStay, A.
Affiliations
Bangor University (GB)
Corresponding author
McStay, Andrew
ORCID
McStay, Andrew
Venue
Big Data & Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2020-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
205395172090438
ISSN
2053-9517 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/2053951720904386
OpenAlex
W3013109186
Cited by
217
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 3
FWCI
24.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Big Data & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Bangor University Research Portal (Bangor University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/T00696X/1)
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/M006654/1)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/R045178/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
emotional artificial intelligence, soft biometrics, emotion recognition, privacy, stakeholder consensus

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