Privacy – Transparency
The robot's functionalities and monitoring capabilities are clearly stated.
Transparency in human-robot interaction refers to how clearly a robot communicates what it is doing, what it can do, and what happens to the data it collects. In practice, transparency is not just about providing information, but about making the robot's role legible to users in a way that supports informed, safe, and meaningful interaction. Transparency about the robot's capabilities, especially regarding data collection and monitoring, emerges with positive connotations in the scoping review. Users should be fully informed about what the robot is capable of, and what data is being shared, as highlighted by focus group participants. This becomes particularly sensitive depending on context: using a robot at home is different from using it in public, and connectivity with other devices can further complicate data flows. At the same time, transparency is not always straightforward to implement. In some cases, revealing too much about internal functioning or limitations may reduce the effectiveness of the robot itself, for instance in scenarios involving personal disclosure or therapeutic interaction. This creates a recurring tension between openness and functional design.
The literature repeatedly shows that transparency is closely tied to trust, safety, and perceived responsibility. In a study in particular, it is argued that robots must clearly communicate their role and purpose to avoid unintended behavioral effects. Others stress that users should be educated about what, for instance, care robots can do and how they influence or respond to human actions, positioning understanding as a prerequisite for ethical use. In educational contexts, we highlight a related risk: systems that appear more capable than they are can generate misplaced trust and potential harm, making transparency about limitations essential. In care settings, transparency can be framed as awareness of monitoring, where users understand when they are being observed.
Other studies extend this concern into sensitive social and emotional domains, noting that while sharing information can improve support in some cases, it may also damage the perceived confidentiality of the robot-child relationship.
Together, these findings suggest that transparency is necessary but not self-sufficient, it must be carefully integrated with context-aware design and ethical reflection.
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 "Transparency"
Transparency about the robot's capabilities, especially regarding data collection and monitoring, emerges with positive connotations in the scoping review. Users should be fully informed about what the robot is capable of, and what data is being shared, as highlighted by focus groups participants. This can be tricky to implement when transparency would reduce the effectiveness of the robot itself, in the case of personal disclosure for instance.