可用隐私与安全研究中的实证方法与风险表征的系统文献综述

Verena Distler, Matthias Fassl, Hana Habib, Katharina Krombholz, G. Lenzini, Carine Lallemand, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Vincent Koenig
{"title":"可用隐私与安全研究中的实证方法与风险表征的系统文献综述","authors":"Verena Distler, Matthias Fassl, Hana Habib, Katharina Krombholz, G. Lenzini, Carine Lallemand, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Vincent Koenig","doi":"10.1145/3469845","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Usable privacy and security researchers have developed a variety of approaches to represent risk to research participants. To understand how these approaches are used and when each might be most appropriate, we conducted a systematic literature review of methods used in security and privacy studies with human participants. From a sample of 633 papers published at five top conferences between 2014 and 2018 that included keywords related to both security/privacy and usability, we systematically selected and analyzed 284 full-length papers that included human subjects studies. Our analysis focused on study methods; risk representation; the use of prototypes, scenarios, and educational intervention; the use of deception to simulate risk; and types of participants. We discuss benefits and shortcomings of the methods, and identify key methodological, ethical, and research challenges when representing and assessing security and privacy risk. We also provide guidelines for the reporting of user studies in security and privacy.","PeriodicalId":322583,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)","volume":"130 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Methods and Risk Representation in Usable Privacy and Security Research\",\"authors\":\"Verena Distler, Matthias Fassl, Hana Habib, Katharina Krombholz, G. Lenzini, Carine Lallemand, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Vincent Koenig\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3469845\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Usable privacy and security researchers have developed a variety of approaches to represent risk to research participants. To understand how these approaches are used and when each might be most appropriate, we conducted a systematic literature review of methods used in security and privacy studies with human participants. From a sample of 633 papers published at five top conferences between 2014 and 2018 that included keywords related to both security/privacy and usability, we systematically selected and analyzed 284 full-length papers that included human subjects studies. Our analysis focused on study methods; risk representation; the use of prototypes, scenarios, and educational intervention; the use of deception to simulate risk; and types of participants. We discuss benefits and shortcomings of the methods, and identify key methodological, ethical, and research challenges when representing and assessing security and privacy risk. We also provide guidelines for the reporting of user studies in security and privacy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":322583,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)\",\"volume\":\"130 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3469845\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3469845","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

可用的隐私和安全研究人员已经开发了各种方法来向研究参与者表示风险。为了了解这些方法是如何使用的,以及每种方法何时最合适,我们对人类参与者在安全和隐私研究中使用的方法进行了系统的文献回顾。从2014年至2018年期间在五个顶级会议上发表的633篇论文样本中,包括与安全/隐私和可用性相关的关键词,我们系统地选择并分析了284篇包含人类受试者研究的全文论文。我们的分析集中在研究方法上;风险表征;使用原型、场景和教育干预;使用欺骗手段来模拟风险;参与者的类型。我们将讨论这些方法的优点和缺点,并在表示和评估安全和隐私风险时确定关键的方法、伦理和研究挑战。我们还为报告用户在安全和隐私方面的研究提供指导方针。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Methods and Risk Representation in Usable Privacy and Security Research
Usable privacy and security researchers have developed a variety of approaches to represent risk to research participants. To understand how these approaches are used and when each might be most appropriate, we conducted a systematic literature review of methods used in security and privacy studies with human participants. From a sample of 633 papers published at five top conferences between 2014 and 2018 that included keywords related to both security/privacy and usability, we systematically selected and analyzed 284 full-length papers that included human subjects studies. Our analysis focused on study methods; risk representation; the use of prototypes, scenarios, and educational intervention; the use of deception to simulate risk; and types of participants. We discuss benefits and shortcomings of the methods, and identify key methodological, ethical, and research challenges when representing and assessing security and privacy risk. We also provide guidelines for the reporting of user studies in security and privacy.
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