FTC 2016 - Future Technologies Conference 2016
6-7 December 2016 | San Francisco, United States
Privacy Risk Awareness and the Behavior of
Smartwatch Users: A Case Study of Indiana
University Students
Emmanuel Sebastian Udoh
School of Informatics and Computing
Indiana University, Bloomington
eudoh@indiana.edu
Abstract—The next big entrant into the interconnected family
of the Internet of Things (IoT) is the smartwatch, which brings
together a range of functionalities hitherto provided separately
by traditional watch and the smartphone. While a lot of studies
have focused on the technical/security aspects of the smartwatch,
not much attention has been given to the user and privacy aspects
of the smartwatch. In this work, we begin an exploratory user
study aimed at assessing the privacy-awareness of American
College students, their attitude towards privacy, and how that
level of awareness and their privacy attitudes factor into their
smartwatch-related privacy-enhancing behavior. For this study,
we focus on the IUB student community as a starting point.
This study has far-reaching implications for the evaluation of
smartwatch-related privacy issues, as it highlights the importance
and significance of the role of the user. The user perspectives
highlighted will also better serve the needs of the smartwatch
design community.
Keywords—Privacy Concerns; Risk Awareness; Smartwatch;
Wearable Technology
I. I NTRODUCTION
Since its debut in 1982 with Casio’s Seiko calculator
watch, smartwatch technology has undergone massive
advancements in design, hardware, applications and capability
[1]. Beneath the pomp and pageantry heralding the entry
of smartwatches into the interconnected family of the
Internet of Things (IoT), however, lie questions regarding
their susceptibility to privacy and security breaches. So far,
current studies [2,3,4] have addressed applications of the
smartwatch in a number of areas, especially health (e.g.
heart-rate, steps, sleep and general health monitoring), in
geolocation, continuous audio and video capture, and so
on. While no major privacy flaws have yet been discovered
with most smartwatch manufacturers, their incorporation
of a host of new tracking and location functionalities, in
addition to their accelerometer and Bluetooth technologies,
open the door for numerous privacy violations, including
eavesdropping, data aggregation, and possible harm to the
user. Smartwatches typically contain multiple sensors for
performing data detection based on motion and physical
activity, in addition to ensuring social network interactions.
The smartwatch uses both an accelerometer and gyroscope
sensors to detect the position and orientation of an object.
Studies have so far focused on the extensive adaptabilities of
smartwatches. Privacy violations can portend a whole range
978-1-5090-4171-8/16/$31.00 c 2016 IEEE
Abdulwahab Alkharashi
School of Informatics and Computing
Indiana University, Bloomington
aalkhara@indiana.edu
of harm, including the sharing of the personal data of a user
with a third party such as health insurance companies, for
business purposes [5]. One key issue yet to be addressed by
the plethora of literature on the subject, is how aware the
smartwatch user is about the privacy risks inherent in the use
of the device. In this exploratory study, we assess the privacy
risk awareness of smartwatch users in Indiana University-
Bloomington, and how this relates to their attitudes towards
privacy, as well as their privacy-enhancing behavior. The
goal of this investigation is to seek answers to three major
questions:
R1: How does the user rate his/her awareness of the
technical capabilities of the smartwatch? We seek to identify
the uses, as well as different levels of awareness of how the
smartwatch works, among users.
R2: What is the user’s attitude towards privacy, and
what are the privacy expectations and concerns of the user?
We seek to understand what privacy concerns that users have,
and how users rate those concerns.
R3: What specific privacy-enhancing behavior types do users
exhibit? We seek to investigate the range of precautionary
practices which smartwatch users employ to protect their
privacy.
To answer these questions, we conducted an exploratory
case study, using semi-structured personal interviews with
smartwatch users at IUB. We address our initial findings from
the interviews based on our observation. We then discuss the
implications of our findings for smartwatch users, for the
smartwatch design community, and for future research.
II. M ETHOD
Since recent and current studies on privacy-related issues
with smartwatches tend to focus on the technical components
of the device, we are motivated to explore the human side
of the conversation, particularly the awareness of potential
privacy risks from the smartwatch, and how that awareness
factors into the privacy behavior of the user. Herein lies the
novelty and merit of our method, an obviously qualitative one
that takes the form of semi-structured personal interviews. In
this pilot study, we seek feedback from IUB students who
either use or are familiar with smartwatch technology, as its
926 | P a g e

population, and ten members of that population as its sample.
The interviews will provide participants with more freedom to
provide deeper and broader answers than a questionnaire can
allow. Additionally, in compliance with the IRB, participation
in the interview would be entirely voluntary, with each partic-
ipant reserving the freedom to opt out of the exercise at any
point if need be. Because of the human subject implications
of the study, we secured an IRB approval.
A. Interview protocol
To facilitate the successful completion of this phase of
the study, participants were asked a broad range of questions
including, but not limited to the following:
Q1: Do you own a smartwatch? If no, why not?
Q2: What functions does your smartwatch provide you?
Q3: Do you ever worry about the privacy or safety of the
health information on your smartwatch?
Q4: How often do you use your smartwatch for fitness
tracking or health-related monitoring?
Q5: If your health related information were to be leaked,
which ones would you consider most serious or sensitive?
Q6: Are you aware that some of the information can actually
leak without your knowing it?
Q7: How worried are you that some of your personal/private
information could end up in the wrong hands?
Q8: Did you know that every photo you take has GPS
coordinates, making it easy for an attacker to track your
location?
Q9: Are you aware of the fact that your smartwatch has a
sensors which can allow an attacker to listen to key-presses?
Q10: What precautions are you taking to make your
smartwatch communications private and safe?
B. Participants and sampling
We used a non-probability convenience sampling, by seek-
ing out and recruiting students who either use the smartwatch,
or are familiar with the technology. The sampling was inten-
tionally made to reflect as much as possible the diversity of the
IUB student community. (N = 10) students were interviewed,
each of them either users of smartwatches or at least people
who know about the technology. The diverse IUB student sam-
ple was based on study level (undergraduate/graduate), gender,
and race/ethnicity. We interviewed five males and five females,
five graduates and five undergraduates, two Europeans, two
Asians, one Middle Eastern, one African, one Latin American
and three Americans.
C. Data collection
As a prelude to collating and analyzing our data, we
first designed a coding system based on appropriate metrics.
As Table I shows, our data cover the background of the
interviewees as well as their responses to the questions asked.
We employed Likert-type rating scales [6] to rate the level of
each users technical familiarity of how the smartphone works
and the privacy/security vulnerabilities aspects. We employed
simple enumeration for some responses, as well as simple (yes
or no), for responses to other questions. Fig. 1 describes the
smartwatch applications used by the participants. At a glance,
the metrics are as follows:
978-1-5090-4171-8/16/$31.00 c 2016 IEEE
FTC 2016 - Future Technologies Conference 2016
6-7 December 2016 | San Francisco, United States
• Ethnicity: European (EU), Asian (AS), North Amer-
ican (NA), Middle Eastern (ME), African (AF), and
Latin American (LAT).
• Technical Familiarity:(1 not familiar) to (5 very famil-
iar).
• Privacy Concern: (1 Unaware, don’t care) ; (2 Un-
aware, concerned) ; (3 Aware, don’t care); (4 Aware,
concerned).
Fig. 1. Smartwatch applications used by participants
III. I NITIAL F INDINGS
Our exploratory study yielded very interesting findings,
In spite of the sample size. As can be gleaned from Table
I, participants used a variety of smartwatches based on the
manufacturer, but some brands seem to be more popular among
users, e.g. the Apple Watch. Nevertheless, only a larger sample
would better determine and/or explain any trend of popularity.
In statistical form, the data from our sample shows that half
of our participants (N = 5) own and use Apple Watches; some
participants (N = 4) use the Samsung smartwatch, while one
participant owned a Fit-bit smartwatch before, and knows a lot
about how the watch works, as well as the vulnerabilities it
carries. In the same way, participants tend to know more about
how the specific apps work, than the full technical capabilities
of the smartwatch. Particularly, the idea that sensors, the Wi-Fi,
and the Bluetooth can make for even unintended connections
to other devices was a bit of a surprise to some participants.
A. Seeming popularity of some manufacturers than others
The seeming preference of some manufacturers over others
by some participants was down to their belief that their
preferred brands offer them a higher expectation of privacy
than others. There seems to be a trust element here. For
example, this is what P9 had to say when quizzed on his
preference for the Apple watch:
Recently, you see Apple-FBI battle about the encryption.
If you connect that with the information I have on my Apple
Watch, if Apple really gets the pressure from the FBI to give
the information, then I would not consider buying any products
from Apple any more. Since I know that the FBI comes and
demand an information they will give it to right away.
This seems to resonate with the fact that so far, no
major privacy vulnerabilities have been associated with the
Apple smartwatch, whereas any of the older brands, especially
Samsung, HP, FitBit, etc, have been demonstrated to have a
number of security vulnerabilities.
927 | P a g e
 FTC 2016 - Future Technologies Conference 2016
6-7 December 2016 | San Francisco, United States

TABLE I. S UMMARY OF DATA

ID Gender Ethnicity Manufacturer Technical Familiarity Connectivity Management Password Manager Privacy Concern Precaution Behavior
P1 M EU Apple 2 No Yes 1 None
P2 F NA Apple 1 No Yes 3 None
P3 M NA Fit-Bit 2 Yes No 2 Review privacy policy
P4 F AF Samsung 2 Yes Yes 4 Strong password
P5 F AS Samsung 4 Yes Yes 1 None
P6 M ME Apple 3 No No 2 None
P7 F LAT Samsung 1 Yes Yes 2 Avoid malicious applications
P8 M NA Apple 1 No No 2 None
P9 M EU Apple 1 No No 1 None
P10 F AS Samsung 3 Yes No 3 Avoid malicious applications

B. Functionalities and needs
Participants were specifically asked to enumerate the affor-
dances they derive from the smartwatch, as a way to gauge
how much each participant knows about the functionalities
or features provided in the smartwatch, and how the smart-
watch typically works. We find that apart from the participant
with a computer science background, most participants only
know about the particular applications they prioritize on the
smartwatch, but not the full capabilities of the smartwatch.
Most participants obviously use the smartwatch for health
monitoring, fitness tracking and driving directions.
frightening to think about, but it is not something that I worry
about in every day bias, just because I feel pretty safe in my
surroundings.
We utilized a word cloud (Table II) to capture users ranking
of their privacy concerns [7]. In general, the majority of partic-
ipants (male/female) admitted to being concerned about their
privacy, whether they were aware of the smartwatch-related
privacy risks or not. Since we transcribed each interview, We
used first a word cloud platform.
TABLE II. T OP P RIVACY C ONCERNS

Despite our limited sample, it is clear that the smartwatch
is relatively underused by many, (as shown in Fig. 1) our
respondents tended to use the watch for just a handful of
applications only. In the course of the interviews, one had the
sense that the fact that users also have the smartphone tended
to limit the use of the smartwatch to just a few applications. It
makes sense not to want to do with the smartwatch what one
can do with the smartphone as well, like exchanging messages,
answering phone calls, or using the GPS functionality. One
participant (P6) had this to say:
It [smartwatch] provides a lot of functions but, not as many
as a lot of people think. Obviously, it is a watch, so it does
time and the date. It has a calendar function, which is very
helpful. It is quiet in public settings, and allows me to stay
connected without being distracted. But, I also like the fact
that I can use CNN app, for example, to receive an alert and
it will give me an option to read the whole story if I wanted
to.
It is no surprise therefore, that a number of our participants
(N=3) thought that the reason why many people do not
consider owning the watch is because of the limited knowledge
of what the smartwatch is capable of, and even how to use it.
C. Privacy concerns
Rank Privacy Concern
1 Identity theft
2 Financial information
3 Health information
5 GPS tracking
6 Password breach
7 Photos
8 Private messages
D. Identity theft ranked highest among the privacy concerns
It is also not surprising that identity theft ranked highest
among participants privacy concerns, followed by theft of
financial information, health information, location information,
password breaches, private photos and private messages. It
was significant that private messages ranked lowest. Perhaps,
considering the fact that our respondents were between the
ages of nineteen and twenty-six, this is not really surprising,
as the social media generation tend to put it all out there
on the web. In the next, wider phase of our study, it would
be interesting to know what older users would be concerned
about, and how they would rank those concerns as well.
E. Privacy concerns do not necessarily follow level of aware-
ness

At the beginning, and towards the end of the interview,
each participant was asked about any privacy concerns he/she
has while using the smartwatch. The question was repeated
to compare the participants initial response to the response
towards the end of the interview, when the privacy risks of the
smartwatch would have become more apparent. P3 share his
thought regards privacy concerns:
I am not aware, but I am also not surprised. I do not think
that I would use the watch any differently, either. I will just
know that this will be on the back of my mind, but I think
that is a potential that I already think about when I use my
computer or my phone anyway (sic). That is something very
978-1-5090-4171-8/16/$31.00 c 2016 IEEE
As our results show, while a relative number of participants
tended to acknowledge privacy concerns toward the end of the
interviews, an almost equal number of them still maintained
their “I dont care” attitude at the end. The point is that privacy
concerns have a lot to do with ones attitude to privacy in
general. Among our participants, it was no surprise that a
number of the nothing-to-hide crew are people who have a
lot of presence on social media as well.
F. Privacy-enhancing behaviors
Most participants argue that data that is stored in the smart-
watch can be categorized into different levels of sensitivity. For
928 | P a g e

example, password and financial information are both consid-
ered sensitive data that should not be accessed by a third-
party for commercial or any other purposes. Some participants
believe that sharing fitness record is inspiring when it comes
to wellness competition among the users. However, P8 shared
the following thoughts in privacy-enhancement behavior:
Generally, once you buy something and it gets basic health
information from you, the rest of what the device tracks going
forward, i.e., heart rates, calories etc, is your responsibility. So,
any information that you put into this specific device it is yours-
that is what I believe. It should not be taken away from you. It
should not be exposed to the public. If my health information
gets to a third-party, I would not be concerned. But, if there
is an application that collects my password information and
gains access to, my Keeper App where I store my password
and other information, then I would be very concerned.
G. Cultural effects
We found that the geo-cultural background of our partici-
pants factored significantly into their attitude towards privacy.
Apart from the North American participants, other participants
were not finicky about privacy issues of the smartwatch, except
towards the end of the interview, when those risks became
more apparent. P1 from Greece shared the following:
I do not put major personal information on the watch itself.
I keep my information away from technology, i.e., I write things
down on notebooks just to keep the information away for my
own interest. In Greece, privacy is not such an issue and we
do not really see cyber attacks or any advertisement that aims
to keep your information for any other purposes. Here in the
US, things are very different, but thats why it is important to
create good policy for privacy.
H. Cost and ownership
Socioeconomic factors also seemed to factor into the own-
ership of smartwatches. For instance, respondents took issue
with the exorbitant cost of the smartwatch as an obstacle to
their acquisition, Instructively, more than half of participants
received their smartwatches as gifts, and indicated they would
not have purchased them otherwise. Only a few others bought
them, ostensibly because they are not only a social statement
of class, but they also have aesthetic value. P2 had this to say:
My smartwatch was a gift from an Apple employee, oth-
erwise, I wouldnt afford it. As a fitness freak and an outdoor
person, I like the health monitoring, the driving directions,
especially the gentle vibration when I make the wrong turn.
And, it is just pretty cool, you know? I have nothing to hide,
so, no privacy worries.
On the other hand, P5 bared his frustration with the
exhorbitant cost of smartwatches thus:
Most high tech devices have direct use cases, but they are
kind of luxury electronics or experimental (sic). They fall in
either side of growing class divide in the United States, where
you have people with disposable income who are playing
around with the stuff, and other people who go to work every
day and have no direct need for this stuff. Because of that
it is not in their budget, since they cannot afford buying the
smartwatch.
978-1-5090-4171-8/16/$31.00 c 2016 IEEE
FTC 2016 - Future Technologies Conference 2016
6-7 December 2016 | San Francisco, United States
IV. D ISCUSSION AND I MPLICATIONS
The privacy concerns expressed do not seem to correlate
with the level of awareness of the smartwatch privacy risks. As
a matter of fact, while some participants who are aware of the
risks said they do not care about potential privacy violations,
there were also others who are unaware, yet very concerned
about possible privacy violations. As Table II indicates, among
the privacy concerns raised, participants ranked identity theft
highest, while private messages ranked lowest. Privacy con-
cerns seem to vary by smartwatch brand. Apart from Apple
watch users who seemed to have a higher expectation of
privacy protection, users of other manufacturer brands tended
to express more privacy concerns. Again, only a larger sample
size can offer a clearer picture of this. Our data indicates that
the smartwatch is used predominantly for health monitoring,
fitness tracking and driving directions. This indicates applica-
tions offering more services than the traditional watch.
The majority of our participants seemed not to be engaging
in any particular privacy-enhancing behavior or precaution,
despite some relative awareness of the potential privacy issues
with the smartwatch. This attitude characterized not only the
nothing-to-hide respondents, but also those who were particu-
larly concerned about their privacy. Again, without prejudice to
the sample size, there seems to be some indication of cultural
variations on the perception of and sensitivity to privacy issues,
as the respondents outside the USA, tended to view issues of
privacy with less severity.
A. The nothing to hide argument
A number of participants began the interview with the
nothing-to-hide argument and attitude, but as the interview
progressed, and the inherent privacy risks of the smartwatch
became more apparent, they ended up voicing out particular
concerns towards the end. This was not surprising, as one
could readily notice from their subsequent responses an early
reluctance to admit to some need for privacy.
B. Privacy Precaution and behavior
When asked about their lack of any privacy-enhancing
behavior practices, many participants could not offer any
reason or explanation, other than they did not think that they
could fall victim to any serious privacy violation through
their smartwatch. Many participants would rather guard their
smartphones more than the smartwatch. P3 had this to say:
Actually, I do not store much of my personal information
on the [smart] watch, but on my smartphone. My smartphone
is the one I mostly care about; if I should lose that one,
whew...that would be brutal.
C. Limitations of study: sampling size.
As has been observed a number of times, already, despite
the interesting early results from our study, we recognize the
fundamental limitations of our sample size. In statistical terms,
it is only with a larger sample size that these early results
and observations can be further determined and substantiated,
and more definite patterns and trends identified. For now,
every observation and discussion of same, are based solely
on this observed sample. We look forward to removing those
limitations in the next phase of our study.
929 | P a g e

V. R ELATED W ORK
A wide range of studies have also been done on the privacy
concerns and issues with wearable devices in general [8,9,10].
Particularly, one qualitative investigation of online comments
[11] on wearable devices has shown that users have distinct
levels and types of privacy concerns based on the type of
wearable they use. Generally, studies on smartphone privacy
tend to emphasize multiple aspects of application security
which applies to the smartwatch applications as well.
Previous research work discussed the security issues in the
smartwatch. ConTest is an application developed to allow stu-
dents to cheat on multiple choice exams through a cloud- based
service [12]. Some researchers have studied the smartwatch
sensors and proposed methods for monitoring the users daily
activities [13] such as smoking, coffee drinking and eating
schedule, in order to improve wellness. One research group
presented a model to predict eating activities thorough gesture
movements, i.e., eating with spoon, hand or chopsticks [14].
Another research has also proposed the use of sensors in the
smartwatch to detect driver drowsiness, in order to forestall
traffic accidents [3,15]. In the ubiquitous computing domain,
Li et. al. [14] have presented a model to enhance users’ privacy
awareness based on the privacy implications of the discovery
of channel policies.
Apart from the privacy issues and behavior enhancement,
much of the research on smartwatches has focused exten-
sively on the technical (security) vulnerabilities inherent in
the smartwatch technology, and how the security breaches
can be forestalled or at least mitigated. Several attack models
have been proposed to demonstrate the possible leakage of
information or data through sensor access in wearable systems
[16,17,18,19]. One possible attack in a smartwatch is to sense
a hand motion while typing on a keyboard by collecting
gyroscope and accelerometer [20] readings, and then generate
a data model to transform the victim’s data using the Bayesian
inference approach to monitor number, location and time
interval when a key is pressed. Generally, smartwatch security
risks might range from deficient encryption, vulnerable web-
based interface, software and firmware [21].
In this study, we focus specifically on the user aspects
of smartwatch use, particularly user awareness of the privacy
risks, and how that informs attitude to privacy, and privacy
behavior. Our study brings a new perspective to the complexity
of wearable privacy evaluations.
VI. C ONCLUSION AND F UTURE W ORK
The findings from our exploratory study definitely indicate
- inter alia - that any evaluation of privacy and security issues
about smartwatches is a lot more complicated than usually
assumed. While the attention tends to be focused almost
entirely on the inherent vulnerabilities of the smartwatch,
the human factor tends to receive almost no attention. We
expect our findings to initiate that conversation about how
much the users awareness of the privacy risks factors into the
evaluation itself . In the next phase of our work, we intend
to utilize statistical tools in trying to find any relationship
between awareness of smartwatch privacy risks and the users
attitude towards privacy, as well as the possible correlation of
awareness and attitude with Privacy-enhancing behavior.
978-1-5090-4171-8/16/$31.00 c 2016 IEEE
FTC 2016 - Future Technologies Conference 2016
6-7 December 2016 | San Francisco, United States
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to Prof. Apu Kapadia for his
guidance, and to the IU Bloomington interviewees for their
valuable comments and time.
R EFERENCES
[1] Doensen, Pieter. ”Q.5 Watches with Memory and Database”. WATCH.
History of the modern wrist watch.
[2] P. Hilts, and J. Knockel, A Comparative Analysis of Fitness Tracker
Privacy and Security.
[3] Rios,Aguilar, S., J. L. Merino, A.M. Sanchez, A. S. Valdivieso. Vari-
ation of the Heartbeat and Activity as an Indicator of Drowsiness at
the Wheel Using a Smartwatch. International Journal of Interactive
Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 96-100, 2015.
[4] Kumar, P., & Lee, H. J. (2011). Security issues in healthcare applications
using wireless medical sensor networks: A survey. Sensors, 12(1), 55-
91.
[5] Vagias, Wade M. (2006). Likert-type scale response anchors. Clem-
son International Institute for Tourism and Research Development,
Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management. Clemson
University.
[6] Sheng, H., Nah, F. F. H., & Siau, K. (2008). An Experimental Study on
Ubiquitous commerce Adoption: Impact of Personalization and Privacy
Concerns*. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(6),
344.
[7] Starner, T. (2001). The challenges of wearable computing: Part 1. Ieee
Micro, (4), 44-52.
[8] Martin, T., Jovanov, E., & Raskovic, D. (2000, October). Issues in
wearable computing for medical monitoring applications: a case study
of a wearable ECG monitoring device. In Wearable Computers, The
Fourth International Symposium on (pp. 43-49). IEEE.
[9] Motti, Vivian Genaro, and Kelly Caine. Users Privacy Concerns About
Wearables: impact of form factor, sensors and type of data collected.
[10] Migicovsky, A., Durumeric, Z., Ringenberg, J., & Halderman, J. A.
(2014). Outsmarting proctors with smartwatches: A case study on
wearable computing security. In Financial Cryptography and Data
Security (pp. 89-96). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Shoaib, M., Bosch, S., Scholten, H., Havinga, P. J., & Incel, O. D.
(2015, March). Towards detection of bad habits by fusing smartphone
and smartwatch sensors. In Pervasive Computing and Communication
Workshops (PerCom Workshops), 2015 IEEE International Conference
on (pp. 591-596). IEEE.
[11] Sen, S., Subbaraju, V., Misra, A., Balan, R., Lee, Y. (2015). The case for
smartwatch-based diet monitoring , Workshop on Sensing Systems and
Applications Using Wrist Worn Smart Devices, WristSense’15, 2015.
[12] Li, G., Lee, B. L., & Chung, W. Y. (2015). Smartwatch-Based Wearable
EEG System for Driver Drowsiness Detection. Sensors Journal, IEEE,
15(12), 7169-7180.
[13] Johnston, A. H., & Weiss, G. M. (2015, September). Smartwatch-
based biometric gait recognition. In Biometrics Theory, Applications
and Systems (BTAS), 2015 IEEE 7th International Conference on (pp.
1-6). IEEE.
[14] Ardser, L., Bissig, P., Brandes, P., & Wattenhofer, R. Recognizing Text
Using Motion Data From a Smartwatch.
[15] Maiti, A., Jadliwala, M., He, J., & Bilogrevic, I. (2015, September).
(Smart) watch your taps: side-channel keystroke inference attacks
using smartwatches. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International
Symposium on Wearable Computers (pp. 27-30). ACM.
[16] Xu, Chao, Parth H. Pathak, and Prasant Mohapatra. Finger-writing
with smartwatch: A case for finger and hand gesture recognition using
smartwatch. Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Mobile
Computing Systems and Applications. ACM, 2015.
[17] Darbara, R., Senb, P. K., Dasha, P., & Samantaa, D. Using Hall Effect
Sensors for 3D space Text Entry on Smartwatches.
[18] Wang, He, Ted Tsung, Te Lai, and Romit Roy Choudhury. Mole: Motion
leaks through smartwatch sensors, in Proceedings of the 21st Annual
International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking. ACM,
2015.
930 | P a g e
 FTC 2016 - Future Technologies Conference 2016
6-7 December 2016 | San Francisco, United States

[19] Rawlinson, Kristi (July 22, 2015) HP Study Reveals

Smartwatches Vulnerable to Attack. (2015, July 22). RetrievedJune
10, 2016, from http://www8.hp.com/us/en/hp-news/press-
release.html?id=2037386.VK CBqOZM wQ

978-1-5090-4171-8/16/$31.00 c 2016 IEEE 931 | P a g e