Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 49Privacy, Security, and Data ProtectionUser Authentication and Security SystemsUsability and User Interface Design

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Studying the effectiveness of android application permissions requests

Benton, Kevin, Camp, L. Jean, Garg, Vaibhav·2013·2013 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PERCOM Workshops)
DOI 10.1109/percomw.2013.6529497
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Popular platforms including Android and Facebook have adopted a permissions-based model. Under this model applications (apps) are required to declare specific access to user information required for functionality. We conducted two user studies on Amazon's Mechanical Turk to test the efficacy of these permissions requests on the Android platform. We found permissions were ineffective, even with the addition of an additional text warning. Conversely, we found that an app's download count had a strong effect on app installations. In order to determine if it was a failure of our text-based warning, we ran a second experiment with a previously proven visual indicator.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/percomw.2013.6529497

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. 10.1145/1837110.1837127 · DOI
  2. 10.1145/2046707.2046780 · DOI
  3. jensen, 2004, Privacy policies as decision-making tools: An evaluation of online privacy notices, Proc of CHI, 471
  4. 10.1007/978-3-540-77366-5_31 · DOI
  5. hochheiser, 2002, The platform for privacy preference as a social protocol: An examination within the U.S. Policy context, ACM Trans Internet Technol, 2, 276, 10.1145/604596.604598 · DOI
  6. 10.1145/1073001.1073006 · DOI
  7. good, 2007, Noticing notice: A large-scale experiment on the timing of software license agreements, PROC of CHI CHI '07, 607, 10.1145/1240624.1240720 · DOI
  8. 10.1145/1999732.1999740 · DOI
  9. 10.1145/1572532.1572539 · DOI
  10. 10.1145/1753326.1753561 · DOI
  11. 10.1145/1572532.1572538 · DOI
  12. 10.1145/2078827.2078843 · DOI
  13. mulligan, 2007, Information disclosure as a light-weight regulatory mechanism, Workshop on Economics and Information Security, 18
  14. nauman, 2010, Apex: Extending android permission model and enforcement with user-defined runtime constraints, Asia Computer and Communications Security, 328
  15. 10.1145/2078827.2078846 · DOI
  16. sipior, 2005, A united states perspective on the ethical and legal issues of spyware, PROC of ICEC ICEC '05, 738, 10.1145/1089551.1089684 · DOI
  17. tam, 2010, I'm Allowing What? Disclosing the Authority Applications Demand of Users As A Condition of Installation
  18. vidas, 2011, Curbing Android permission creep, Proc W2SP
  19. vila, 2003, Why we can't be bothered to read privacy policies models of privacy economics as a lemons market, Proc ICECS, 403
  20. 10.1109/ICSNC.2006.62 · DOI
  21. 10.1145/1753326.1753689 · DOI
  22. felt, 2011, The effectiveness of application permissions, Proceedings of the 2nd USENIX Conference on Web Application Development (WebApps)
  23. 10.1145/1866307.1866317 · DOI
  24. 2007, Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P) Project
  25. enck, 2010, Taintdroid: An information-flow tracking system for realtime privacy monitoring on smartphones, Proc USENIX OSDI Conf, 1
  26. 10.1145/1868470.1868485 · DOI
  27. christin, 2011, It's all about the benjamins: An empirical study on incentivizing users to ignore security advice, Financial Cryptography 97
  28. bonneau, 2009, The privacy jungle: On the market for data protection in social networks, WEIS
  29. 10.1145/2046707.2046779 · DOI
  30. enck, 2011, A study of android application security, Proc Usenix Security Conf, 21

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Benton, K., Camp, L. J., & Garg, V.
Affiliations
Indiana University Bloomington (US)
ORCID
Venue
2013 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PERCOM Workshops)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2013-03
Pages
291-296
DOI
10.1109/percomw.2013.6529497
OpenAlex
W1972642098
Cited by
49
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
21.83
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops) (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › User Authentication and Security Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
permission requests, user privacy awareness, user privacy behavior, mobile privacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.