Search for: All records

Recent privacy laws have strengthened data subjects’ right to access personal data collected by companies. Prior work has found that data exports companies provide consumers in response to Data Subject Access Requests (DSARs) can be overwhelming and hard to understand. To identify directions for improving the user experience of data exports, we conducted an online study in which 33 participants explored their own data from Amazon, Facebook, Google, Spotify, or Uber. Participants articulated questions they hoped to answer using the exports. They also annotated parts of the data they found confusing, creepy, interesting, or surprising. While participants hoped to learn either about their own usage of the platform or how the company collects and uses their personal data, these questions were often left unanswered. Participants’ annotations documented their excitement at finding data records that triggered nostalgia, but also shock about the privacy implications of other data they saw. Having examined their data, many participants hoped to request the company erase some, but not all, of the data. We discuss opportunities for future transparency-enhancing tools and enhanced laws. 

Advertising companies and data brokers often provide consumers access to a dashboard summarizing attributes they have collected or inferred about that user. These attributes can be used for targeted advertising. Several studies have examined the accuracy of these collected attributes or users’ reactions to them. However, little is known about how these dashboards, and the associated attributes, change over time. Here, we report data from a week-long, longitudinal study (𝑛=158) in which participants used a browser extension automatically capturing data from one dashboard, Google Ads Settings, after every fifth website the participant visited. The results show that Ads Settings is frequently updated, includes many attributes unique to only a single participant in our sample, and is approximately 90% accurate when assigning age and gender. We also find evidence that Ads Settings attributes may dynamically impact browsing behavior and may be filtered to remove sensitive interests. 

Consumers who use Internet-connected products are often exposed to security and privacy vulnerabilities that they lack time or expertise to evaluate themselves. Can professional product reviewers help by evaluating security and privacy on their behalf? We conducted 17 interviews with product reviewers about their procedures, incentives, and assumptions regarding security and privacy. We find that reviewers have some incentives to evaluate security and privacy, but they also face substantial disincentives and challenges, leading them to consider a limited set of relevant criteria and threat models. We recommend future work to help product reviewers provide useful advice to consumers in ways that align with reviewers' business models and incentives. These include developing usable resources and tools, as well as validating the heuristics they use to judge security and privacy expediently. 

One of the biggest privacy concerns of smart home users is enforcing limits on household members' access to devices and each other's data. While people commonly express preferences for intricate access control policies, in practice they often settle for less secure defaults. As an alternative, this paper investigates "optimistic access control" policies that allow users to obtain access and data without pre-approval, subject to oversight from other household members. This solution allows users to leverage the interpersonal trust they already rely on in order to establish privacy boundaries commensurate with more complex access control methods, while retaining the convenience of less secure strategies. To evaluate this concept, we conducted a series of surveys with 604 people total, studying the acceptability and perceptions of this approach. We found that a number of respondents preferred optimistic modes to existing access control methods and that interest in optimistic access varied with device type and household characteristics. 

Although researchers have characterized the bug-bounty ecosystem from the point of view of platforms and programs, minimal effort has been made to understand the perspectives of the main workers: bug hunters. To improve bug bounties, it is important to understand hunters’ motivating factors, challenges, and overall benefits. We address this research gap with three studies: identifying key factors through a free listing survey (n=56), rating each factor’s importance with a larger-scale factor-rating survey (n=159), and conducting semi-structured interviews to uncover details (n=24). Of 54 factors that bug hunters listed, we find that rewards and learning opportunities are the most important benefits. Further, we find scope to be the top differentiator between programs. Surprisingly, we find earning reputation to be one of the least important motivators for hunters. Of the challenges we identify, communication problems, such as unresponsiveness and disputes, are the most substantial. We present recommendations to make the bug-bounty ecosystem accommodating to more bug hunters and ultimately increase participation in an underutilized market. 

As consumers adopt new Internet-connected devices, apps, and other software, they are often exposed to security and privacy vulnerabilities that they likely do not have time, exper- tise, or incentive to evaluate themselves. Can professionals and institutions help by evaluating the security and privacy of these products on behalf of consumers? As a first step, we interview product reviewers about their work, specifically whether and how they incorporate security and privacy. To inform our interview design, we conduct content analysis on published product reviews to identify security- or privacy-relevant content. 

Rust is a general-purpose programming language that is both type-and memory-safe. Rust does not use a garbage collector, but rather achieves these properties through a sophisticated, but complex, type system. Doing so makes Rust very efficient, but makes Rust relatively hard to learn and use. We designed Bronze, an optional, library-based garbage collector for Rust. To see whether Bronze could make Rust more usable, we conducted a randomized controlled trial with volunteers from a 633--person class, collecting data from 428 students in total. We found that for a task that required managing complex aliasing, Bronze users were more likely to complete the task in the time available, and those who did so required only about a third as much time (4 hours vs. 12 hours). We found no significant difference in total time, even though Bronze users re-did the task without Bronze afterward. Surveys indicated that ownership, borrowing, and lifetimes were primary causes of the challenges that users faced when using Rust.