A questionnaire study found that trust, regulation and understanding shaped acceptance more than sensing ability alone.
The study considered two possible uses of sensing-enabled networks: monitoring people at home to support assisted living, and monitoring human movement in public spaces for safety. Respondents were generally more accepting of assistive and care-related uses than public-space safety monitoring, which produced more varied views.
People were more willing to accept the technology when they understood how it worked and had clear information about sensing activities. The researchers also identified transparency and user control, including the ability to opt in or out, as design requirements for making such systems more acceptable.
What shaped acceptance
Acceptance was strongly dependent on the use case rather than being determined by sensing performance alone. Assistive and care-oriented applications were viewed more positively than public-space safety applications.
Trustworthiness and regulation were the two values measured directly as quantitative indicators. Respondents consistently expected clear and accessible rules, while trust that sensing networks would behave impartially and avoid manipulation was less firmly established. The results also linked greater understanding of how the systems work with greater willingness to accept them.
The questionnaire suggested that feeling sensed does not automatically lead to discomfort or rejection. Privacy was the main concern, while fears focused specifically on safety or governance were less often reported on their own. The study also found differences associated with geographical origin and education level, while perceptions were largely similar across the two age groups examined.
Why trust and control matter
Networks that can sense people without making that activity obvious raise questions about who is being observed, what information is collected and how it is used. The findings suggest that public acceptance of these systems will depend not only on what they can detect, but also on whether people receive clear explanations, can exercise meaningful control and trust the rules governing the technology.
The researchers argue that these concerns should be considered during system design rather than only after deployment. Their framework is intended to give designers and policymakers indicators for issues such as trust and regulation, alongside conventional technical measures.
Evidence and caveats
The study used a questionnaire-based, exploratory analysis of 146 respondents. Researchers analyzed Likert-scale answers with independent-sample t-tests and effect-size measures, and calculated direct indicators for trustworthiness and regulation from single questionnaire items. Other answers were used to identify design requirements and provide context rather than being combined into indicators.
The sample was not intended to represent the general population, and some demographic groups were combined for analysis. Several complex ideas were measured with only one item. Because the systems were still under development and not widely deployed, respondents were judging prospective scenarios rather than drawing on experience with fully deployed sensing networks. The study also covered only a limited set of human-centered use cases.
// Source
Ethics and Information Technology · 2026 · DOI: 10.1007/s10676-026-09923-z
Authors: Maria Gardano, Antonio Nocera, Michela Raimondi, Ennio Gambi
Institutions: Marche Polytechnic University
