Smart Wearables as Silent Witnesses: Privacy Concerns versus Possible Legal Advantages

Abstract

Many smart wearables can collect personal movement data and use these data to provide personalized services. However, data storage may cause privacy concerns among consumers. Thus, when deciding whether to equip their products with such an ability or refrain from doing so, managers must consider potential backfire due to the possibly strong opinions of customers regarding their privacy. While prior studies have shown that benefits of smart products that can be experienced on a regular basis (e.g., more convenience in accomplishing daily routines) can outweigh data privacy concerns, we investigate whether this is also true for a feature of a smart wearable that is of use only in a rare event (or even never). The respective application case is a smart wearable serving as a silent witness that might play a role when being in need of a proof of exoneration (e.g., that its wearer has not been present at a certain crime scene at the time of an alleged offense). Furthermore, we study the difference between customers being directly affected (as the wearer of a smart wristband) or indirectly affected (as the owner of a dog with a smart dog collar).