Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Continuous improvement process (CIP)-based privacy-preserving framework for smart connected toys

  • regular contribution
  • Published:
International Journal of Information Security Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Advances within the toy industry and interconnectedness have resulted in the rapid and pervasive development of smart connected toys (SCTs), built with the capacity to collect terabytes of personal identifiable information, device context data, and play data. Any compromise of data stored, process, or transit can introduce privacy concerns, financial fraud concerns, and safety concerns, such as location identification, which can put child physical safety at risk. This work provides an overview of the SCT privacy problem and the landscape based on previous work to address privacy and safety concerns. We further investigate technical and legislative-related privacy issues in SCT and present a confirmatory study on developers’ privacy views based on the privacy calculus theory. Finally, we present an abstract continuous improvement process-based privacy preservation framework using Plan-Do-Check-Act, which can be adopted and used during the SCT design to minimize privacy breaches and serve as a foundation for the deployment of continuous privacy control improvement in a complex SCT development context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

(Source Adapted from [13])

Fig. 2

(Source Adapted from [22])

Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fAwTxwBd1CczpdeW4yzlLsjS2s0NGYzy/view?usp=sharing.

  2. https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ytcrAYTaWMph6T0HAty3e5-xovZ2DNm/view?usp=sharing.

References

  1. Madden, M., Henhart, A., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., Duggan, M., Smith, A.: Teens, Social Media, and Privacy, Pewresearch.org, (2013). https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2013/05/PIP_TeensSocialMediaandPrivacy_PDF.pdf. Accessed 11 Jun 2019

  2. Shop, F.T.: Forgotten Toy Shop—History of toys and games. https://www.theforgottentoyshop.co.uk/pages/history-of-toys-game. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  3. Auster, C.J., Mansbach, C.S.: The gender marketing of toys: an analysis of color and type of toys on the Disney store website. Sex Roles 67(7–8), 375–388 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blakemore, J.E.O., Centers, R.E.: Characteristics of Boys’ and Girls’ toys. Sex Roles 53(9–10), 619–630 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Yankson, B., Iqbal, F., Hung, P.C.K.: Privacy Preservation Framework for Smart Connected Toys. Computing in Smart Toys, pp. 149–164. Springer, Berlin (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Anikweze, G.U.: The relevance of fabric toys in childhood. Am. Int. J. Res. Human. Art Soc. Sci. 1–3(6), 55–62 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Smith, R.: family online safety institute-connected toys and privacy: what good digital parents should know. https://www.fosi.org/good-digital-parenting/connected-toys-and-privacy-what-parents-should/-know. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  8. Toy Industry Association.: Toy Trends. (2019). http://www.toyassociation.org/ta/research/reports/trends/toys/research-and-data/reports/trend-spotting.aspx. Accessed 6 May 2019

  9. LaMonica, M.: Mobile apps reshape toys and learning. (2012). http://www.cnet.com/news/mobile-apps-reshape-toys-and-learning/. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  10. Kara, N.C.: Investigating the activities of children toward a smart storytelling toy. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 16(1), 28–43 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rafferty, L.: Toy Computing Background: Mobile Services for Toy Computing. Springer International Publishing, Berlin (2015)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Mahmoud, M.: An Experimental Evaluation of Smart Toys Security and Privacy practices, Masters Thesis, Concordia Institute for Information Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada, (2018)

  13. Hung, P.C.K.: Children privacy protection engine for smart anthropomorphic toys proposal. (2015)

  14. Smart2Zero.: Google patents connected smart toys that listen, speak, Smart2.0. (2019). https://www.smart2zero.com/news/google-patents-connected-smart-toys-listen-speak. Accessed 19 May 2019

  15. NIST.: Guide for security-focused configuration management of information systems. http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-128.pdf. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  16. FTC.: Protecting children’s privacy under COPPA: a survey on compliance. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/rules/children%E2%80%99s-online-privacy-protection-rule-coppa/coppasurvey.pdf. [Accessed: 30-Jul-2019]

  17. PIPEDA.: The personal information protection and electronic documents act (PIPEDA). https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/the-personal-information-protection-and-/electronic-documents-act-pipeda/. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  18. COPPA.: COPPA-Children’s online privacy protection act. http://www.coppa.org/coppa.htm. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  19. Federal Trade Commission.: Children’s online privacy protection rule: a six-step compliance plan for your business. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule-six/-step-compliance. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  20. Hung, P.C.K., Fantinato, M., Rafferty, L.: A study of privacy requirements for smart toys. In: The 20th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2016), Chiayi, Taiwan, (June 27–July 1, 2016)

  21. McReynolds, E.H.S.: Toys that listen: a study of parents, children, and internet-connected toys. In: CHI, (2017)

  22. Allclearid.: Child identity theft report 2012: what to know. https://www.allclearid.com/personal/2012/05/child-id-theft-report-2012/. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  23. Weitzner, D.J.: Free speech and child protection on the web. IEEE Internet Comput. 11(3), 86–89 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rafferty, L., L., Hung, P.C.K., Fantinato, M., Peres, S.M., Iqbal, F., Kuo, S.Y., Huang, S.C.: Towards a privacy rule conceptual model for smart toys. In: Computing in Smart Toys, p. 85, (2017)

  25. Department Of Justice.: Sex Offender registry. https://www.nsopw.gov/en/Registry. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  26. Salomon, D.: Privacy and Trust, Elements of Computer Security, Undergraduate Topics in Computer Science, pp. 273–290. Springer, Berlin (2010)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Hung, P.C.K.: Mobile Services for Toy Computing, The Springer International Series on Applications and Trends in Computer Science. Springer International Publishing, Berlin (2015)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Espinosa-Aranda, J.L., Vallez, N., Rico-Saavedra, J.M., Parra-Patino, J., Bueno, G., Sorci, M., Moloney, D., Pena, D., Deniz, O.: Smart doll: emotion recognition using embedded deep learning. Symmetry 10(9), 1–18 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Toy Industry Association Inc.: Economic Impact of the Toy Industry 2018 Summary Report. (2018). https://www.toyassociation.org/ta/research/data/impact/toys/research-and-data/data/economic-impact-data.aspx. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  30. WeLiveSecurity.: 5 of the most devastating data breaches of 2015. (2016). https://www.welivesecurity.com/2016/01/07/5-devastating-data-breaches-2015/. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  31. Mihalcik, C.: Hack of toy maker VTech exposes 5 million customers. (2015). https://www.cnet.com/au/news/hack-of-toy-maker-vtech-exposes-families/. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  32. Tavani, H.: Privacy online. SIGCAS Comput. Soc. 29(4), 11–19 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1145/572199.572203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rafferty, L., Hung, P.C.K., Fantinato, M., Peres, S.M., Iqbal, F., Kuo, S.Y., Huang, S.C.: Towards a privacy rule model for smart toy. In: the IEEE 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-50), Big Island, Hawaii, USA, January 4–7, (2017)

  34. Felt, A., Ha, E., Egelman, S., Haney, A., Chin, E., Wagner, D.: Android permissions: user attention, comprehension, and behavior. In: The 8th symposium on usable privacy and security, p. 14 (2012)

  35. Yankson, B., Iqbal, F., Lu, Z., Wang, X., Hung, P.C.K., P.: Modelling privacy preservation in smart connected toys by Petri-Nets. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1696-1705, (January 8–12, 2019)

  36. Federal Trade Commission.: Child identity theft. (2012). https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0040-child-identity-theft. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  37. Federal Trade Commission.: Prepared statement of federal trade commission on protecting the privacy of the social security number from identity theft. http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/prepared-statement-federal-trade-commission/-protecting-privacy-social-security-number-/identity-theft/p065409socsectest.pdf/. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  38. ID Analytics.: New Study from ID analytics finds when children’s data is exposed, it is misused more frequently. http://www.idanalytics.com/press-release/140000-children-victims-identity-fraud-year/. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  39. Carnegie Mellon CyLab.: Child identity theft. https://www.cylab.cmu.edu/files/pdfs/reports/2011/child-identity-theft.pdf. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  40. Hung, P.C.K., Cheng, V.S.Y.: Privacy, Encyclopedia of Database Systems, pp. 2136–2137. Springer, Berlin (2009)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Kosa, T.: Towards Measuring Privacy, Ph. D. dissertation, Faculty of Science, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada, (2015)

  42. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Gorzig, A., Olafsson, K.: Risks and Safety on the Internet: The Perspective of European Children, Full findings and policy implications from the EU Kids Online survey of 9–16 year old and their parents in 25 countries. London School of Economics and Political Science, London (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Fantinato, M., Albuquerque, O., De Albuquerque, A., Kelner, J., Yankson, B.: A literature survey on smart toy-related children’s privacy risks, Hdl.handle.net. (2020). http://hdl.handle.net/10125/63921. Accessed 28 Feb 2020

  44. Yankson, B., Iqbal, F., Aleem, S., Shah, B., Hung, P.C.K., de Albuquerque, A.P.: a privacy-preserving context ontology (PPCO) for smart connected toys. In: 12th CMI Conference on Cybersecurity and Privacy (CMI), Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 1–6 (2019)

  45. MacAfee.: McAfee Labs 2017 Threats predictions. (2016) https://www.mcafee.com/ca/resources/reports/rp-threats-predictions-2017.pdf. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  46. Whitman, M.E., Mattord, H.J.: Principles of Information Security (4th edn). Chapter 1. Course Technology Press, Boston (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lin, P., Yankson, B., Lu, Z., Hung, P.C.K.: Children privacy identification system in LINE Chatbot for smart toys. In: 2019 IEEE 12th International Conference on Cloud Computing (Cloud), Milan, Italy, pp. 86–90 (2019)

  48. Chu, G., Apthorpe, N., Feamster, N.: Security and privacy analyses of internet of things children’s toys. IEEE Internet of Things J. 6(1), 978–985 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Nelson, S.: Germany bans ’My Friend Cayla’ Doll over spying concerns, NPR . (2017). https://www.npr.org/2017/02/20/516292295/germany-bans-my-friend-cayla-doll-over-/spying-concerns. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  50. Crime in Taichung, Numbeo.com. (2019). https://www.numbeo.com/crime/in/Taichung. Accessed 20 May 2019

  51. Holloway, D., Green, L.: The Internet of toys. Communication Research and Practice 2(4), 506–519 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2016.1266124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. PCWorld.: Internet-connected Hello Barbie Doll can be hacked. (2015). http://www.pcworld.com/article/3012220/security/internet/-connected-hello-barbie-doll-can-be-hacked.html. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  53. Goodin, D.: 9 baby monitors wide open to hacks that expose users’ most private moments. (2015). http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/09/9-baby-monitors-wide-open-to-hacks-that-/expose-users-most-private-moments/. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  54. Tierney, A.: Pwning CCTV cameras. (2016). https://www.pentestpartners.com/blog/pwning-cctv-cameras/. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  55. Karpow, A., Karpow, M.: Watch and be watched: compromising all smart tv generations. In: IEEE 11th Annual Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC)-Security Privacy and Content Protection, Las Vegas, NV, USA, (2014)

  56. Rapid7.: Fisher-Price smart toy\(\textregistered \) hereO GPS platform vulnerabilities. https://blog.rapid7.com/2016/02/02/security-vulnerabilities-within-fisher-price-/smart-toy-hereo-gps-platform. [Accessed: 30-Jul-2019]

  57. Catalin, C.: Germany bans ‘My Friend Cayla’ toys over hacking fears and data collection. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/germany-bans-my-friend-cayla-toys-over-hacking/-fears-and-data-collection/. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  58. Gibbs, S.: Hackers can hijack Wi-Fi Hell. (2015). https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/26/hackers-can-hijack-wi-fi-hello-barbie-to-spy-on/-your-childrenoBarbietospyonyourchildren. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  59. Hunt, T.: Data from connected CloudPets teddy bears leaked and ransomed, exposing kids’ voice messages. https://www.troyhunt.com/data-from-connected-cloudpets-teddy-bears-leaked/-and-ransomed-exposing-kids-voice-messages/. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  60. Rapid7, 10 New Vulnerabilities for Several Video Baby Monitors. [Online]. Available:https://blog.rapid7.com/2015/09/02/iotsec-disclosure-10-new-vulns-for-several-/video-baby-monitors/. [Accessed: 30-Jul-2019]

  61. Riga, S.A.: Two Breaches, two enforcement actions, and a DDOS attack: data security and the rise of the internet of things. J. Internet Law 20(9), 3–7 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Health Canada.: Industry guide to health Canada’s safety requirements for children’s toys and related products. (2012). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/reports-publications/industry-professionals/industry-guide-safety-requirements-children-/toys-related-products-summary.html. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  63. Dobbins, D.L.: Analysis of security concerns and privacy risks of children’s smart toys. (2015). Washington University. https://sever.wustl.edu/degreeprograms/cyber-security-management/SiteAssets/Dobbins%20-%20SmartToy_Security_Final%20Revised%209-28-15.pdf. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  64. OTA.: IoT security and privacy trust framework v2.0. https://otalliance.org/system/files/files/initiative/documents/iot_trust_framework2.1.pdf . Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  65. Jones, M.L., Meurer, K.: Can (and should) Hello Barbie Keep a Secret?, Ethics in engineering, science and technology (ETHICS). In: 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering pp. 1–6, (2016)

  66. Druga, S., Williams, R., Park, H.W., Breazeal, C.: How smart are the smart toys?: Children and parents’ agent interaction and intelligence attribution. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children, p. 231, (2018)

  67. McReynolds, E., Hubbard, S., Lau, T., Saraf, A., Cakmak, M., Roesner, F.: Toys that listen: a study of parents, children, and internet-connected toys. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 519, (2017)

  68. Valente, J., Cardenas, A.: Security and privacy in smart toys. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Workshop on Internet of Things Security and Privacy, p. 19, (2017)

  69. Mahmoud, M., Hossen, M.Z., Barakat, H., Mannan, M., Youssef, A.: Towards a comprehensive analytical framework for smart toy privacy practices. In: Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Socio-Technical Aspects in Security and Trust, p. 64, (2018)

  70. Strei, J., Kenny, O., Das, S., Leeth, A., Camp, L.J.: Who’s watching your child? Exploring home security risks with smart toy bears, internet-of-things design and implementation (IoTDI). In: 2018 IEEE/ACM 3rd International Conference on, p. 285, (2018)

  71. Williams, R., Machado, C.V., Druga, S., Breazeal, C., Maes, P.: My doll says it’s ok: a study of children’s conformity to a talking doll. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children, p. 625, (2018)

  72. Xia, L., Bisong, L., Qian, W., Ya, L.: Analysis of quality and safety of toys for children based on the survey data of Beijing. In: International Conference on Intelligent and Interactive Systems and Applications, p. 880, (2017)

  73. Fantinato, M., Hung, P.C.K., Jiang, Y., Roa, J., Villarreal, P., Melaisi, M., Amancio, F.: A preliminary study of ‘Hello Barbie’ in Brazil and Argentina. Sustain. Cities Soc. 40, 83–90 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Haynes, J., Ramirez, M., Hayajneh, T., Bhuiyan, M.Z.A.: A framework for preventing the exploitation of IoT: Smart Toys for Reconnaissance and Extraction. In: International Conference on Security, Privacy, and Anonymity in Computation, Communication, and Storage. p. 581, (2017)

  75. Hung, P.C.K., Iqbal, F., Huang, S.C., Melaisi, M., Pang, K.: A glance of childs play privacy in smart toys. In: International Conference on Cloud Computing and Security, pp. 217–231, (2016)

  76. Shasha, S., Mahmoud, M., Mannan, M., Youssef, A.: Playing with danger: a taxonomy and evaluation of threats to smart toys. IEEE Internet Things J. 6, 2986–3002 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Kshetri, N., Voas, J.: Cyber threats under the bed. Computer 51(5), 92–95 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. de Carvalho, L.G., Eler, M.M.: Security tests for smart toys. In: ICEIS, p. 111, (2018)

  79. Verdoodt, V., Lievens, E.: Toying with children’s emotions, the new game in town? The legality of advergames in the EU. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 32(4), 599–614 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Ng, G., Chow, M., de Lima Salgado, A.: Toys and mobile applications: current trends and related privacy issues. In: Mobile Services for Toy Computing, p. 51, (2015)

  81. Rapid7.: R7-2015-27 and R7-2015-24: Fisher-Price Smart Toy hereO GPS Platform Vulnerabilities (FIXED). (2016). https://blog.rapid7.com/2016/02/02/security-vulnerabilities-within-fisher-price/-smart-toy-hereo-GPS-platform/

  82. BBC UK.: German parents told to destroy Cayla dolls over hacking fears. (2017). http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39002142

  83. Rapid7.: HACKING IoT: A case study on baby monitor exposures and vulnerabilities. (2015). https://www.rapid7.com/docs/Hacking-IoT-A-Case-Study-on-Baby-Monitor-/Exposures-and-Vulnerabilities.pdf

  84. Hilts, A., Parsons, C., Knockel, J.: Every step you fake: a comparative analysis of fitness tracker privacy and security. Open Effect Rep. 76(24), 31–33 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  85. Forbrukerra, D.: Investigation of privacy and security issues with smart toys. (2016). https://fil.forbrukerradet.no/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2016-11-technical- analysis-of-the-dolls-bouvet.pdf

  86. VTech.: FAQ about Cyber attack on VTech learning lodge. (2016). https://www.vtech.com/ en/press_release/2016/faq-about-cyber-attack-on-VTech-learning-lodge/

  87. Pen Test Partners.: VTech Innotab Max vulnerable to trivial data extraction. (2015). https://www.pentestpartners.com/security-blog/vtech-innotab-max-vulnerable-to-trivial-data/-extraction/

  88. Moini, C.: Mandated ethical hacking-a repackaged solution. Rich. JL Tech., vol. 23(3). (2017). http://jolt.richmond.edu/volume23_annualsurvey_moini/

  89. Burns, E.: Is your IoT teddy bear safe? MondgoDB data breach allegedly leaks and ransoms millions of kid’s voice recording. https://www.cbronline.com/cybersecurity/breaches/iot-teddy-bear-safe-mondgodb-data-breach-leaks/-ransoms-millions-kids-voice-recordings/. Accessed 30 Jul 2019

  90. Taylor, E., Michael, K.: Smart toys that are the stuff of nightmares. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 35(1), 8–10 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Denning, T., Matuszek, C., Koscher, K., Smith, J.R., Kohno, T.: A spotlight on security and privacy risks with future household robots: attacks and lessons. In: The ACM International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 105–114, (2009)

  92. Inc. Somerset Recon.: Hello Barbie initial security analysis. (2016)

  93. United States Federal Bureau of Investigation. Public service announcement. (2017). https://www.ic3.gov/media/2017/170717.aspx

  94. Laughlin, A.: Which? Safety alert: See how easy it is for almost anyone to hack your child’s connected toys. (2017). https://www.which.co.uk/news/2017/11/safety-alert-see-how-easy-it-is-for-almost-/anyone-to-hack-your-child’s-connected-toys/

  95. D’Hooge, H.D.: Smart toys: brave new world? CHI ’00 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 128–126, (2000)

  96. Jones, M.L., Meurer, K.: Can (and should) Hello Barbie keep a secret? IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science and Technology (ETHICS), Vancouver, BC, pp. 1–6, (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/ETHICS.2016.7560047

  97. Han, S., Park, S., Lee, G., Crespi, N.: Extending the devices profile for web services standard using a REST proxy. IEEE Internet Comput. 19(1), 10–17 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/mic.2014.44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Yankson, B.: An Empirical study—privacy and security analysis of companion robot system development. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security, Tennessee Tech University, Cookeville, Tennessee, (2021)

  99. Dinev, T., Hart, P.: An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Inf. Syst. Res. 17(1), 61–80 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Rensel, A.D., Abbas, J.M., Rao, H.R.: Private transactions in public places: an exploration of the impact of the computer environment on public transactional web siteuse. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 7(1), 19–51 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  101. Li, Y.: Theories in online information privacy research: a critical review and an integrated framework. Decis. Support Syst. 54, 471–481 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Culnan, M.J., Armstrong, P.K.: Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: an empirical investigation. Organ. Sci. 10(1), 104–115 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Xu, H., Teo, H.H., Tan, B.C.Y., Agarwal, R.: The role of push-pull technology in privacy calculus: the case of location-based services. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 26, 135–173 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Kim, D., Park, K., Park, Y., Ahn, J.: Willingness to provide personal information: perspective of privacy calculus in IoT services. Comput. Hum. Behav. 92, 273–281 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Bertlno, E., Islam, N.: Botnets and internet of things security. Cybertrust 50(2), 76–79 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  106. Tzezana, R.: Scenarios for crime and terrorist attacks using the internet of things. Eur. J. Futures Res. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40309-016-0107-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Chellappa, R.K., Sin, R.G.: Personalization versus privacy: an empirical examination of the online consumer’s dilemma. Inf. Technol. Manag. 6(2–3), 181–202 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Kumar, S.A., Vealey, T., Srivastava, H.: Security in internet of things: challenges, solutions, and future directions. In: Proceedings of the 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Koloa, HI, pp. 5772–5781, (2016)

  109. Smith, J.H., Dinev, T., Xu, H.: Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS Q. 35(4), 989–1016 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Nawir, M., Amir, A., Yaakob, N., Lynn, O.B.: Internet of Things (IoT): taxonomy of security attacks. In: 2016 3rd International Conference on Electronic Design (ICED), Phuket, Thailand, pp. 321– 326, (2016)

  111. Handbook of Dynamic System Modelling, Taylor and Francis Group. LLC, (2007)

  112. Tague, R.N.: Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. The quality toolbox (2nd ed.). Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press, pp. 390–392. ISBN 978-0873896399. OCLC 57129077. (2005)

Download references

Funding

Author declares that he has no funding source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University at Albany - SUNY, 1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY, 12222, USA

    Benjamin Yankson

Authors
  1. Benjamin Yankson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Yankson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yankson, B. Continuous improvement process (CIP)-based privacy-preserving framework for smart connected toys. Int. J. Inf. Secur. 20, 849–869 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-020-00535-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-020-00535-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation