CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 152

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Safety vs. Surveillance: What Children Have to Say about Mobile Apps for Parental Control

Ghosh, Arup Kumar, Badillo-Urquiola, Karla, Guha, Shion, LaViola Jr, Joseph J., Wisniewski, Pamela J.·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3173574.3173698
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Mobile applications ("apps") developed to promote online safety for children are underutilized and rely heavily on parental control features that monitor and restrict their child's mobile activities. This asymmetry in parental surveillance initiates an interesting research question -- how do children themselves feel about such parental control apps? We conducted a qualitative analysis of 736 reviews of 37 mobile online safety apps from Google Play that were publicly posted and written by children (ages 8-19). Our results indicate that child ratings were significantly lower than that of parents with 76% of the child reviews giving apps a single star. Children felt that the apps were overly restrictive and invasive of their personal privacy, negatively impacting their relationships with their parents. We relate these findings with HCI literature on mobile online safety, including broader literature around privacy and surveillance, and outline design opportunities for online safety apps.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3173574.3173698

Cites

8 of 8 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 60

  1. Monica Anderson. 2016. Parents, Teens and Digital Monitoring. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved July 12, 2016 from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/01/07/parents-teens-and-digital-monitoring/
  2. 10.1145/2858036.2858548 · DOI
  3. 10.1145/2675133.2675275 · DOI
  4. 10.1145/2470654.2466446 · DOI
  5. 10.1002/cd.23219873706 · DOI
  6. Diana Baumrind. 2005. Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 2005, 108: 61--69.
  7. 10.1145/2818048.2819928 · DOI
  8. 10.1145/1864349.1864382 · DOI
  9. 10.5555/2584525 · DOI
  10. 10.1177/1461444808101620 · DOI
  11. Lorrie Faith Cranor, Adam L. Durity, Abigail Marsh, and Blase Ur. 2014. Parents' and Teens' Perspectives on Privacy In a Technology-Filled World. In Proceedings of the Tenth Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security.
  12. 10.1145/1837110.1837130 · DOI
  13. 10.5539/ies.v6n4p29 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.dss.2008.04.001 · DOI
  15. 10.1145/2675133.2675135 · DOI
  16. 10.1002/asi.23450 · DOI
  17. 10.1145/2935334.2935369 · DOI
  18. 10.1145/2487575.2488202 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.013 · DOI
  20. Daniel Gerdes and James H. Conn. 2001. A User-Friendly Look at Qualitative Research Methods. Physical Educator 58, 4: 183.
  21. 10.1177/1461444814567986 · DOI
  22. 10.1145/2493190.2493209 · DOI
  23. 10.1145/2750858.2804281 · DOI
  24. 10.1145/2675133.2675179 · DOI
  25. 10.1145/2930674.2930680 · DOI
  26. 10.1145/2818048.2819940 · DOI
  27. 10.1145/2541016.2541067 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.dss.2011.11.002 · DOI
  29. 10.1145/1134707.1134743 · DOI
  30. 10.1145/1562764.1562800 · DOI
  31. 10.1504/IJBPIM.2008.024982 · DOI
  32. 10.1145/2675133.2675287 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1080/08934215.2015.1048477 · DOI
  34. 10.1145/2750858.2804283 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/j.elerap.2011.10.003 · DOI
  36. 10.1100/2012/809578 · DOI
  37. 10.1111/jcpp.12197 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.24908/ss.v9i4.4342 · DOI
  39. 10.1177/1461444814543995 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Karsten Nebe and Dirk Zimmermann. 2007. Aspects of Integrating User Centered Design into Software Engineering Processes. In Human-Computer Interaction. Interaction Design and Usability 194--203. · DOI
  41. Helen Nissenbaum. 2004. PRIVACY AS CONTEXTUAL INTEGRITY. Washington Law Review 79, 119.
  42. 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.014 · DOI
  43. 10.1145/2370216.2370224 · DOI
  44. R. Pain. 2006. Paranoid parenting? Rematerializing risk and fear for children. Social & cultural geography. 7 2: 221--243. · DOI
  45. Sandra Petronio. 1994. Privacy binds in family interactions: The case of parental privacy invasion. In The dark side of interpersonal communication, W. R. Cupach B. H. Spitzberg (ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale, NJ, England, 241--257.
  46. Sandra Sporbert Petronio. 2002. Boundaries of Privacy: Dialects of Disclosure. SUNY Press.
  47. 10.1145/2485760.2485766 · DOI
  48. 10.1348/026151008X388413 · DOI
  49. 10.5555/1671011.1671041 · DOI
  50. 10.1145/1772690.1772781 · DOI
  51. 10.1177/003803850203600409 · DOI
  52. Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks.
  53. 10.1145/2632048.2632107 · DOI
  54. 10.1145/2414536.2414577 · DOI
  55. 10.1145/2556288.2557413 · DOI
  56. 10.1007/s10964-008-9374-8 · DOI
  57. 10.1145/2702123.2702240 · DOI
  58. Pamela Wisniewski, Heng Xu, Jack Carroll, and Mary Beth Rosson. 2013. Grand Challenges of Researching Adolescent Online Safety: A Family Systems Approach. AMCIS 2013 Proceedings. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2013/SocialTechnicalIssues/GeneralPresentations/10
  59. 10.1145/2858036.2858317 · DOI
  60. 2013. Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule ("COPPA"). Federal Trade Commission. Retrieved August 1, 2017 from https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 152

Metadata

Authors
Ghosh, A. K., Badillo-Urquiola, K., Guha, S., LaViola Jr, J. J., & Wisniewski, P. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
  • Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, USA
  • The University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2018-04-19
Pages
1-14
DOI
10.1145/3173574.3173698
Cited by
152
References
8
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)

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