LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Coles-Kemp, Lizzie; Kani-Zabihi, Elahe (2010)
Publisher: ACM
Languages: English
Types: Unknown
Subjects: psychology, computer_science, philosophy, libraryandinformationsciences
With the move to deliver services on-line, there is a reduction in opportunities for a service user to discuss and agree to the terms of the management of their personal data. As the focus is turned to on-line technologies, the design question becomes one of privacy protection not privacy negotiation and conflict resolution. However, the findings from a large privacy survey and the outputs of several follow-up focus groups reflect a need for privacy systems to also support different types of privacy and consent dialogues. These dialogues are used to support the resolution of privacy dilemmas through the selection of effective privacy protection practices. As the face to face contact between service user and service provider decreases, the potential for these types of dialogues to become increasingly important grows. The work presented in this paper forms the initial part of a study to learn more about the types of privacy dialogue and negotiation that should be deployed in on-line services. In this position paper we outline the types of privacy and consent dialogues that service providers and service users want to have. We also explore how a socio-technical approach should ideally form the basis of the design and implementation of any dialogue system.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [1] Probst, C.W and Hansen, R. R. 2009. Fluid Information Systems. In Proceedings of New Security Paradigms Workshop. http://www.nspw.org/proceedings/2009
    • [2] Laurie, B. and Singer, A. 2009. Choose the Red Pill and the Blue Pill. In Proceedings of New Security Paradigms Workshop. http://www.nspw.org/proceedings/2009
    • [3] Turpe, S., 2009. What is the Shape of Your Security Policy? Security as a Classification Problem. In Proceedings of New Security Paradigms Workshop. http://www.nspw.org/proceedings/2009
    • [4] Shirley, J. and Evans, D. 2009. The User is Not the Enemy: Fighting Malware by Tracking User Intentions. In Proceedings of New Security Paradigms Workshop. http://www.nspw.org/proceedings/2009
    • [5] Church, L. and Whitten, A. 2009. Generative Usability: Security and User Centered Design beyond the Appliance. In Proceedings of New Security Paradigms Workshop. http://www.nspw.org/proceedings/2009
    • [6] Bogdanovic, D. Crawford, C. and Coles-Kemp, L. 2009. The need for enhanced privacy and consent dialogues. Information Security Technical Report, 14(3), p (167-172).
    • [8] Coles-Kemp, L. Lai, Y. Ford, M. 2009. Privacy: Contemporary Developments in Users' Attitudes and Behaviours. http://www.vome.org.uk/index.php/publications/
    • [9] Teltzrow, M. and Kobsa, A. 2004. Impacts of User Privacy Preferences on Personalised Systems. Designing personalised user experiences in eCommerce. Springer, p (315-332).
    • [10] Fox, S., Rainie, L., Horrigan, J., Lenhart, A., Spooner, T., Carter, C. 2000. Trust and Privacy Online: Why Americans Wants to Rewrite the Rules. The Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org
    • [11] Bennett, L. 2009. Reflections on Privacy, Identity and Consent in Online Services. Information Security Technical Report, 14(3), p (119-123).
    • [12] Smith, H., Milberg, S., Bruke, S. 1996. Information Privacy: Measuring individuals' concerns about organisational practices. MIS Quart. 20(2), p (167-196).
    • [13] Malik, N.A. and Tomlinson, A. 2009. Privacy and Consent in Pervasive Networks. Information Security Technical Report, 14(3), p (138-142).
    • [14] W3C. 2010. Platform for Privacy Preferences, Technology and Society domain. http://www.w3.org/P3P
    • [15] PrivacyOS Conference, 12th and 13th April 2010, Oxford, UK. https://www.privacyos.eu/
    • [16] Privacy and Identity Management for Community Services. http://www.picos-project.eu
    • [17] Jensen, C. Potts, C. Jensen, C. Privacy practices of Internet Users: Self-reports Versus Observed Behaviour. 2005. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 63(1-2), p (203-227).
    • [18] Brands, S. 2010. U-Prove Technology Overview. Microsoft Corporation. https://connect.microsoft.com
    • [19] Clique.2010.Privacy. http://clique.primelife.eu/pg/expages/read/Privacy
    • [21] Westin, A.F. 1967. Privacy and Freedom. New York, Atheneum, p (xvi).
    • [22] Allen, A.L. 1988. Uneasy access: Privacy for women in a free society. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.
    • [23] Whitley, E.A. 2009. Informational Privacy, Consent and the “Control” of Personal Data. Information Security Technical Report, 14(3), p (154-159).
    • [24] Barley, S.R. 1988. Technology, power, and the social organization of work: Towards a paradigmatic theory of skilling and deskilling. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 6, p (33-60).
    • [25] Leuthersser, l., Kohli, A, K. 1995. Relational Behaviour in Business Markets - Implications for Relationship Management, Journal of Business Research 34, pp. 221-233
    • [26] Paine, C., Reips, U.-D., Stieger, S., Joinson, A., & Buchanan, T. (2007). Internet users'perceptions of 'privacy concerns' and 'privacy actions'. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(6), 526-536.
    • [27] Norberg, P. A., Horne, D. R., & Horne, D. A. (2007). The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure Intentions versus Behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs,41(1), 100- 126.
    • [28] Bruhn M., Grund M. (2000) Theory, Development and Implementation of National Customer Satisfaction Indices: the Swiss Index of Customer Satisfaction (SWICS) Total Quality Management, Volume 11, Number 7
    • [29] Horn D., Feinberg R., Salvendy, G.(2005) Determinant Elements of Customer Relationshjp Management in eBusiness. Behaviour and Information Technology Volume 24, Number 2
    • [30] Buchanan, Tom, Ulf‐Dietrich Reips, Carina Paine and  Adam N. Joinson, (2007) “Development of measures of  on‐line privacy concern and protection for use on the  Internet.” Journal of the American Society for  Information Science and Technology, Vol. 58, Issue  2, pp. 157 - 165
    • [31] Solove, D.J., 2008. Understanding Privacy. Harvard.
    • [32] Camenisch, J. & Van Herreweghen, E., 2002, Design and implementation of the idemix anonymous credential system, Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, ACM, pp. 30.
    • [33] Information Commissioner's Office (2008) “Privacy by Design” available from: http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/pdb_report_html/i ndex.html (last accessed 5th August 2010)
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article