Author
Listed:
- Ana Cassia Cruz
(Computer Science and Communication Research Center (CIIC), Escola Superior de Tecnologia e Gestão (ESTG), Polytechnic University of Leiria, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal)
- Rogério Luís de C. Costa
(Computer Science and Communication Research Center (CIIC), Escola Superior de Tecnologia e Gestão (ESTG), Polytechnic University of Leiria, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal)
- Leonel Santos
(Computer Science and Communication Research Center (CIIC), Escola Superior de Tecnologia e Gestão (ESTG), Polytechnic University of Leiria, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal)
- Carlos Rabadão
(Computer Science and Communication Research Center (CIIC), Escola Superior de Tecnologia e Gestão (ESTG), Polytechnic University of Leiria, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal)
- Anabela Marto
(Computer Science and Communication Research Center (CIIC), Escola Superior de Tecnologia e Gestão (ESTG), Polytechnic University of Leiria, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal)
- Alexandrino Gonçalves
(Computer Science and Communication Research Center (CIIC), Escola Superior de Tecnologia e Gestão (ESTG), Polytechnic University of Leiria, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal)
Abstract
As augmented reality (AR) technologies become increasingly integrated into everyday life, privacy-maintenance concerns about their capacity to capture and process sensitive visual data also increase. Visual data sanitization and obfuscation may effectively increase the privacy protection level. This study examines user perceptions of privacy protection strategies within AR environments. We developed and disseminated a questionnaire to assess users’ preferences, experiences, and concerns related to visual obfuscation techniques, namely masking, pixelation, and blurring. We collected and analyzed the responses using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The results indicate that user perceptions varied based on the AR context and individual preferences. Participants identified blurring as a versatile option that provides the best aesthetic appeal. Users recognized masking as the most secure method but less visually appealing. This study also revealed that demographic factors, such as age, education, and occupation, influenced privacy concerns and the acceptance of obfuscation methods. These findings enhance the understanding of user preferences and the effectiveness of obfuscation techniques in AR. These insights can guide the development of privacy-preserving AR applications tailored to accommodate diverse user needs.
Suggested Citation
Ana Cassia Cruz & Rogério Luís de C. Costa & Leonel Santos & Carlos Rabadão & Anabela Marto & Alexandrino Gonçalves, 2025.
"Assessing User Perceptions and Preferences on Applying Obfuscation Techniques for Privacy Protection in Augmented Reality,"
Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-18, January.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jftint:v:17:y:2025:i:2:p:55-:d:1576972
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:17:y:2025:i:2:p:55-:d:1576972. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.