评估识别隐私策略的遵从性需求

J. Schmidt, A. Antón, J. Earp
{"title":"评估识别隐私策略的遵从性需求","authors":"J. Schmidt, A. Antón, J. Earp","doi":"10.1109/RELAW.2012.6347806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the United States, organizations can be held liable by the Federal Trade Commission for the statements they make in their privacy policies. Thus, organizations must include their privacy policies as a source of requirements in order to build systems that are policy-compliant. In this paper, we describe an empirical user study in which we measure the ability of requirements engineers to effectively extract compliance requirements from a privacy policy using one of three analysis approaches-CPR (commitment, privilege, and right) analysis, goal-based analysis, and non-method-assisted (control) analysis. The results of these three approaches were then compared to an expert-produced set of expected compliance requirements. The requirements extracted by the CPR subjects reflected a higher percentage of requirements that were expected compliance requirements as well as a higher percentage of the total expected compliance requirements. In contrast, the goal-based and control subjects produced a higher number of synthesized requirements, or requirements not directly derived from the policy than the CPR subjects. This larger number of synthesized requirements may be attributed to the fact that these two subject groups employed more inquiry-driven approaches than the CPR subjects who relied primarily on focused and direct extraction of compliance requirements.","PeriodicalId":444010,"journal":{"name":"2012 Fifth IEEE International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law (RELAW)","volume":"240 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing identification of compliance requirements from privacy policies\",\"authors\":\"J. Schmidt, A. Antón, J. Earp\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/RELAW.2012.6347806\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the United States, organizations can be held liable by the Federal Trade Commission for the statements they make in their privacy policies. Thus, organizations must include their privacy policies as a source of requirements in order to build systems that are policy-compliant. In this paper, we describe an empirical user study in which we measure the ability of requirements engineers to effectively extract compliance requirements from a privacy policy using one of three analysis approaches-CPR (commitment, privilege, and right) analysis, goal-based analysis, and non-method-assisted (control) analysis. The results of these three approaches were then compared to an expert-produced set of expected compliance requirements. The requirements extracted by the CPR subjects reflected a higher percentage of requirements that were expected compliance requirements as well as a higher percentage of the total expected compliance requirements. In contrast, the goal-based and control subjects produced a higher number of synthesized requirements, or requirements not directly derived from the policy than the CPR subjects. This larger number of synthesized requirements may be attributed to the fact that these two subject groups employed more inquiry-driven approaches than the CPR subjects who relied primarily on focused and direct extraction of compliance requirements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":444010,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2012 Fifth IEEE International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law (RELAW)\",\"volume\":\"240 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2012 Fifth IEEE International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law (RELAW)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/RELAW.2012.6347806\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2012 Fifth IEEE International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law (RELAW)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/RELAW.2012.6347806","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

在美国,组织可能会被联邦贸易委员会(Federal Trade Commission)追究其在隐私政策中所做声明的责任。因此,为了构建符合策略的系统,组织必须将其隐私策略作为需求源。在本文中,我们描述了一项经验用户研究,在该研究中,我们测量了需求工程师使用以下三种分析方法之一——cpr(承诺、特权和权利)分析、基于目标的分析和非方法辅助(控制)分析——有效地从隐私策略中提取遵从性需求的能力。然后将这三种方法的结果与专家产生的预期遵从性需求集进行比较。由CPR受试者提取的需求反映了更高比例的预期遵从性需求,以及更高比例的总预期遵从性需求。相反,基于目标和控制的受试者比CPR受试者产生了更多的综合需求,或者不是直接从策略派生的需求。这种大量的综合需求可能归因于这样一个事实,即这两个主题组比主要依赖于集中和直接提取遵从性需求的CPR主题使用了更多的查询驱动方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing identification of compliance requirements from privacy policies
In the United States, organizations can be held liable by the Federal Trade Commission for the statements they make in their privacy policies. Thus, organizations must include their privacy policies as a source of requirements in order to build systems that are policy-compliant. In this paper, we describe an empirical user study in which we measure the ability of requirements engineers to effectively extract compliance requirements from a privacy policy using one of three analysis approaches-CPR (commitment, privilege, and right) analysis, goal-based analysis, and non-method-assisted (control) analysis. The results of these three approaches were then compared to an expert-produced set of expected compliance requirements. The requirements extracted by the CPR subjects reflected a higher percentage of requirements that were expected compliance requirements as well as a higher percentage of the total expected compliance requirements. In contrast, the goal-based and control subjects produced a higher number of synthesized requirements, or requirements not directly derived from the policy than the CPR subjects. This larger number of synthesized requirements may be attributed to the fact that these two subject groups employed more inquiry-driven approaches than the CPR subjects who relied primarily on focused and direct extraction of compliance requirements.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信