Privacy – Intimacy
The robot's constant presence invades private spaces, causing discomfort and a panopticon effect.
Intimacy, in the context of human-robot interaction, refers to how the persistent presence of a robot in a person's personal space can shape feelings of exposure, comfort, and personal boundaries. It is not only about physical proximity, but also about the psychological experience of being "with" a system that may be continuously attentive or responsive. In everyday settings, this raises a subtle but important question: what does it mean to share a private environment with a machine that is always present, even when it is not actively doing anything?
A central concern is that constant robotic presence can shift how users experience their own private spaces. Even when the robot is not explicitly monitoring, its ability to observe or react can create a feeling of being watched. This can lead to discomfort or self-regulation of behaviour, where users adjust what they do because they assume they might be observed. The effect is similar to a persistent awareness of surveillance, where intimacy is reduced not through direct intrusion but through the mere possibility of observation. This becomes especially relevant in domestic environments, where expectations of privacy are typically higher and more nuanced than in public settings.
This concern is repeatedly reflected in HRI literature. Programmed responsiveness to user behaviour can make individuals feel as if they are never truly alone, even when no one else is physically present, affecting their sense of privacy. Some users instead prefer clear boundaries, such as requiring a robot to "knock" or explicitly request permission before entering their personal space, reinforcing the idea of consent in interaction. Others highlight the difference between occasional interaction and continuous cohabitation, noting that sharing an environment with a robot around the clock fundamentally changes the experience of living in that space. Focus group findings also suggest that people may need guaranteed private moments without a robot's presence, even if the robot can be deactivated when desired, as this contributes to a sense of control and emotional security. Finally, concerns about remote monitoring underline the extent of potential intrusion, where users may feel uncomfortable with the idea that an operator could visually access highly private moments within the home.
Excerpts from the paper:
About the value "Privacy"
The value of privacy is the one encompassing the largest amount of topics as highlighted in both the scoping review and the focus groups. It includes – among others – the right to be informed, to access and share the data collected, and the issues related to being continuously under the watchful eye of a robot. The focus groups participants have also highlighted that this value is strongly related to where, how and in which context the robot is used. Using a robot at home is completely different from using it in a public space. The experts emphasised that privacy should be maintained even when users do not want others to know they are using the robot.
About "Intimacy"
The constant presence of a robot in a user's personal space can lead to feelings of discomfort and a sense of being constantly observed that can violate the value of intimacy. Furthermore, this can lead to an unconscious change in the users' actions, behaving in ways they think will be acceptable to potential observers, rather than acting naturally. This resembles the effects of the panopticon, as noted by one of the focus groups participants. Even when the robot is not actively monitoring the environment, its presence alone is enough to influence the user's behaviour.