skip to main content
10.1145/3633500.3633508acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnspwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Scalable Inclusive Security Intervention to Center Marginalized & Vulnerable Populations in Security & Privacy Design

Published:22 December 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Research in computer security has increasingly considered the needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups in technology. Through this work, we hope to translate this research movement into practice and, ultimately, cause designers-in-training (and, eventually, designers) to consider a more inclusive range of stakeholders. Thus, we created an educational intervention to center marginalized and vulnerable populations in the context of threat modeling. We find that computer security students are more likely to consider unique threats and vulnerabilities facing marginalized and vulnerable populations after being exposed to an intervention prompting them to think about populations that might often be overlooked. We suggest practical methods to teach designers-in-training inclusive methods in computer security and discuss other possible adoptions of this practice across the field. This work is part of an important shift toward inclusive security that centers marginalized and vulnerable populations both in research and in practice.

References

  1. [1] T. Ahmed, R. Hoyle, P. Shaffer, D. Connelly, K. Crandall, and A. Kapadia. Understanding the physical safety, security, and privacy concerns of people with visual impairments. IEEE Internet Computing, 21(3):56–63, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. [2] T. Ahmed, P. Shaffer, D. Connelly, K. Crandall, and A. Kapadia. Addressing physical safety, security, and privacy for people with visual impairments. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2016), 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [3] T. Akter, T. Ahmed, A. Kapadia, and M. Swaminathan. Shared privacy concerns of the visually impaired and sighted bystanders with camera-based assistive technologies. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 15(2):1–33, 2022.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. [4] T. Akter, B. Dosono, T. Ahmed, A. Kapadia, and B. Semaan. “I am uncomfortable sharing what I can’t see”: Privacy concerns of the visually impaired with camera based assistive applications. In Proceedings of the 29th USENIX Security Symposium, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. [5] J. A. Bargh, R. N. Bond, W. J. Lombardi, and M. E. Tota. The additive nature of chronic and temporary sources of construct accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5):869–878, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. [6] C. Barwulor, A. McDonald, E. Hargittai, and E. M. Redmiles. “Disadvantaged in the American-dominated internet”: Sex, work, and technology. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. [7] R. Bellini. Paying the price: When intimate partners use technology for financial harm. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2023.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. [8] R. Bellini, E. Tseng, N. Warford, A. Daffalla, T. Matthews, S. Consolvo, J. P. Woelfer, P. G. Kelley, M. L. Mazurek, D. Cuomo, N. Dell, and T. Ristenpart. SoK: Safer Digital-Safety Research Involving At-Risk Users. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2024.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. [9] R. Benjamin. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Polity, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. [10] R. Bhalerao, V. Hamilton, A. McDonald, E. M. Redmiles, and A. Strohmayer. Ethical practices for security research with at-risk populations. In 2022 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops, 2022.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. [11] M. Bishop, L. Drevin, L. Futcher, W. Leung, N. Miloslavskaya, E. Moore, J. Ophoff, and S. von Solms. A brief history and overview of WISE. In L. Drevin, N. Miloslavskaya, W. Leung, and S. von Solms, editors, Information Security Education for Cyber Resilience, pages 3–9. Springer, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. [12] M. Blanz. Accessibility and fit as determinants of the salience of social categorizations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29:43–74, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. [13] J. Buolamwini and T. Gebru. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research), 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. [14] P. D. Chowdhury and K. V. Renaud. ‘Ought’ should not assume ‘Can’... Basic Capabilities in Cybersecurity to Ground Sen’s Capability Approach. In Proceedings of the 2023 New Security Paradigms Workshop, 2023.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. [15] J. Cleland-Huang. How well do you know your personae non gratae? IEEE Software, 31(4):28–31, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] S. Costanza-Chock. Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds we Need. The MIT Press, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. [17] K. W. Crenshaw. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine. University of Chicago Legal Forum, pages 139–168, 1989.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. [18] C. Criado Perez. Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. Abrams Books, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. [19] A. Czeskis, I. Dermendjieva, H. Yapit, A. Borning, B. Friedman, B. Gill, and T. Kohno. Parenting from the pocket: Value tensions and technical directions for secure and private parent-teen mobile safety. In Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS), 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. [20] M. del Bosque. Facial Recognition Bias Frustrates Black Asylum Applicants to US, Advocates Say. The Guardian, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/08/us-immigration-cbp-one-app-facial-recognition-bias.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. [21] T. A. Denning, B. Friedman, and T. Kohno. Security Cards: A Security Threat Brainstorming Toolkit. University of Washington, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. [22] J. C. Deska, E. P. Lloyd, and K. Hugenberg. Facing humanness: Facial width-to-height ratio predicts ascriptions of humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(1):75–94, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [23] P. G. Devine, P. S. Forscher, A. J. Austin, and W. T. Cox. Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6):1267–1278, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. [24] P. G. Devine, P. S. Forscher, W. T. Cox, A. Kaatz, J. Sheridan, and M. Carnes. A gender bias habit-breaking intervention led to increased hiring of female faculty in STEMM departments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73:211–215, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. [25] T. Devos and M. R. Banaji. American = white? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3):447–466, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. [26] B. Friedman and D. G. Hendry. Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination. The MIT Press, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. [27] B. Friedman, P. H. Kahn Jr., and A. Borning. Value sensitive design: Theory and methods. Technical report, University of Washington, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. [28] A. Frik, L. Nurgalieva, J. Bernd, J. S. Lee, F. Schaub, and S. Egelman. Privacy and security threat models and mitigation strategies of older adults. In USENIX Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS), 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. [29] C. Geeng, M. Harris, E. M. Redmiles, and F. Roesner. “Like lesbians walking the perimeter”: Experiences of u.s. lgbtq+ folks with online security, safety, and privacy advice. In Proceedings of the 31st USENIX Security Symposium, 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. [30] A. K. Ghosh, K. Badillo-Urquiola, S. Guha, J. J. LaViola Jr, and P. J. Wisniewski. Safety vs. surveillance: What children have to say about mobile apps for parental control. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. [31] E. Goffman. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall, 1963.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. [32] T. Guberek, A. McDonald, S. Simioni, A. H. Mhaidli, K. Toyama, and F. Schaub. Keeping a low profile? technology, risk and privacy among undocumented immigrants. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. [33] E. V. Hall, A. V. Hall, A. D. Galinsky, and K. W. Phillips. MOSAIC: A model of stereotyping through associated and intersectional categories. Academy of Management Review, 44(3):643–672, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. [34] V. Hamilton, H. Barakat, and E. M. Redmiles. Risk, resilience and reward: Impacts of shifting to digital sex work. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2022.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. [35] E. T. Higgins. Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski, editors, Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, pages 133–168. Guilford Press, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. [36] D. Hornung, C. Müller, I. Shklovski, T. Jakobi, and V. Wulf. Navigating relationships and boundaries: Concerns around ict-uptake for elderly people. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. [37] R. Jeong and S. Chiasson. ’Lime’, ’Open Lock’, and ’Blocked’: Children’s perception of colors, symbols, and words in cybersecurity warnings. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. [38] L. Kohnfelder and P. Garg. The Threats to Our Products. Microsoft Interface, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. [39] T. Kohno. Background and Context for the Our Reality Novella. 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. [40] T. Kohno. Our Reality: A Novella. 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. [41] T. Kohno and B. D. Johnson. Science fiction prototyping and security education: Cultivating contextual and societal thinking in computer security education and beyond. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. [42] P. C. Kumar, M. Chetty, T. L. Clegg, and J. Vitak. Privacy and security considerations for digital technology use in elementary schools. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. [43] E. Lastdrager, I. C. Gallardo, P. Hartel, and M. Junger. How effective is anti-phishing training for children? In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2017), 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. [44] A. Lerner, H. Y. He, A. Kawakami, S. C. Zeamer, and R. Hoyle. Privacy and activism in the transgender community. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. [45] G. Liveley. Stories of Cyber Security Combined Report. 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. [46] E. P. Lloyd, K. Hugenberg, A. R. McConnell, J. W. Kunstman, and J. C. Deska. Black and white lies: Race-based biases in deception judgments. Psychological Science, 28(8):1125–1136, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. [47] K. B. Maddox and S. Gray Chase. Manipulating subcategory salience: Exploring the link between skin tone and social perception of Blacks. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34:533–546, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. [48] J. K. Maner, S. L. Miller, J. H. Moss, J. L. Leo, and E. A. Plant. Motivated social categorization: Fundamental motives enhance people’s sensitivity to basic social categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1):70–83, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. [49] A. McDonald, C. Barwulor, M. L. Mazurek, F. Schaub, and E. M. Redmiles. “It’s stressful having all these phones”: Investigating sex workers’ safety goals, risks, and practices online. In Proceedings of the 30th USENIX Security Symposium, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. [50] B. McNally, P. Kumar, C. Hordatt, M. L. Mauriello, S. Naik, L. Norooz, A. Shorter, E. Golub, and A. Druin. Co-designing mobile online safety applications with children. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. [51] A. R. McNeill, L. Coventry, J. Pywell, and P. Briggs. Privacy considerations when designing social network systems to support successful ageing. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. [52] E. McReynolds, S. Hubbard, T. Lau, A. Saraf, M. Cakmak, and F. Roesner. Toys that listen: A study of parents, children, and internet-connected toys. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. [53] N. R. Mead, F. Shull, K. Vemuru, and O. Villadsen. A Hybrid Threat Modeling Method. Carnegie Mellon University, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. [54] J. Mirkovic, M. Dark, W. Du, G. Vigna, and T. Denning. Evaluating cybersecurity education interventions: Three case studies. IEEE Security & Privacy, 13(3):63–69, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. [55] C. Moser, T. Chen, and S. Y. Schoenebeck. Parents’ and children’s preferences about parents sharing about children on social media. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. [56] J. Nicholson, L. Coventry, and P. Briggs. “If it’s important it will be a headline”: Cybersecurity information seeking in older adults. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. [57] K. Owens, A. Alem, F. Roesner, and T. Kohno. Electronic monitoring smartphone apps: An analysis of risks from technical, human-centered, and legal perspectives. In 31st USENIX Security Symposium, 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. [58] K. Owens, C. Cobb, and L. Cranor. “You gotta watch what you say”: Surveillance of communication with incarcerated people. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. [59] E. L. Paluck and D. P. Green. Prejudice reduction: What works? a review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60:339–367, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. [60] Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering. Allen school demographics. 2022. https://www.cs.washington.edu/diversity/demographics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. [61] S. Perkowitz. The bias in the machine: Facial recognition technology and racial disparities. MIT Schwarzman College of Computing, 2021. https://mit-serc.pubpub.org/pub/bias-in-machine/release/1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. [62] J. Petelka, M. Finn, F. Roesner, and K. Shilton. Principles Matter: Integrating an Ethics Intervention into a Computer Security Course. In 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE), 2022.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. [63] V. Purdie-Vaughns and R. P. Eibach. Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59:377–391, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. [64] F. Roesner and T. Kohno. Security and privacy for augmented reality: Our 10-year retrospective. In VR4Sec: 1st International Workshop on Security for XR and XR for Security, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. [65] S. Sannon and A. Forte. Privacy research with marginalized groups: What we know, what’s needed, and what’s next. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW2), Nov. 2022.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. [66] A. K. Sesko and M. Biernat. Prototypes of race and gender: The invisibility of Black women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2):356–360, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. [67] F. Sharevski and A. Zeidieh. “I Just Didn’t Notice It:” Experiences with Misinformation Warnings on Social Media amongst Users Who Are Low Vision or Blind. In Proceedings of the 2023 New Security Paradigms Workshop, 2023.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. [68] N. Shawl and C. Ward. Writing the Other: A Practical Approach. Aqueduct Press, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. [69] L. Simko, A. Lerner, S. Ibtasam, F. Roesner, and T. Kohno. Computer security and privacy for refugees in the united states. In 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. [70] J. Slupska, S. D. Dawson Duckworth, L. Ma, and G. Neff. Participatory threat modeling: Exploring paths to reconfigure cybersecurity. In Extended abstracts of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. [71] K. Thomas, D. Akhawe, M. Bailey, D. Boneh, E. Bursztein, S. Consolvo, N. Dell, Z. Durumeric, P. G. Kelley, D. Kumar, D. McCoy, S. Meiklejohn, T. Ristenpart, and G. Stringhini. SoK: Hate, Harassment, and the Changing Landscape of Online Abuse. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. [72] E. Tseng, M. Sabet, R. Bellini, H. K. Sodhi, T. Ristenpart, and N. Dell. Care infrastructures for digital security in intimate partner violence. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2022.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. [73] N. Warford, T. Matthews, K. Yang, O. Akgul, S. Consolvo, P. G. Kelley, N. Malkin, M. L. Mazurek, M. Sleeper, and K. Thomas. SoK: A Framework for Unifying At-Risk User Research. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. [74] C. Weir, I. Becker, J. Noble, L. Blair, M. A. Sasse, and A. Rashid. Interventions for long-term software security: Creating a lightweight program of assurance techniques for developers. Software: Practice and Experience, 50(3):275–298, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. [75] T. Yip, C. S. L. Cheah, L. Kiang, and G. C. Nagayama Hall. Rendered invisible: Are Asian Americans a model or a marginalized minority? American Psychological Association, 76(4):575–581, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. [76] J. Zhao, G. Wang, C. Dally, P. Slovak, J. Edbrooke-Childs, M. Van Kleek, and N. Shadbolt. ‘I make up a silly name’: Understanding children’s perception of privacy risks online. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. [77] Y. Zou, A. McDonald, J. Narakornpichit, N. Dell, T. Ristenpart, K. A. Roundy, F. Schaub, and A. Tamersoy. The role of computer security customer support in helping survivors of intimate partner violence. In Proceedings of the 30th USENIX Security Symposium, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. [78] M. E. Zurko. User-centered security: Stepping up to the grand challenge. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. [79] M. E. Zurko and R. T. Simon. User-centered security. In New Security Paradigms Workshop, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Scalable Inclusive Security Intervention to Center Marginalized & Vulnerable Populations in Security & Privacy Design
          Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Other conferences
            NSPW '23: Proceedings of the 2023 New Security Paradigms Workshop
            September 2023
            136 pages
            ISBN:9798400716201
            DOI:10.1145/3633500

            Copyright © 2023 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 22 December 2023

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate62of170submissions,36%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format