skip to main content
10.1145/1978942.1979245acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Exploring reactive access control

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 May 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

As users store and share more digital content at home, access control becomes increasingly important. One promising approach for helping non-expert users create accurate access policies is reactive policy creation, in which users can update their policy dynamically in response to access requests that would not otherwise succeed. An earlier study suggested reactive policy creation might be a good fit for file access control at home. To test this, we conducted an experience-sampling study in which participants used a simulated reactive access-control system for a week. Our results bolster the case for reactive policy creation as one mode by which home users specify access-control policy. We found both quantitative and qualitative evidence of dynamic, situational policies that are hard to implement using traditional models but that reactive policy creation can facilitate. While we found some clear disadvantages to the reactive model, they do not seem insurmountable.

References

  1. M. S. Ackerman. The intellectual challenge of CSCW: the gap between social requirements and technical feasibility. Hum.-Comput. Inter., September 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. S. Ahern, D. Eckles, N. S. Good, S. King, M. Naaman, and R. Nair. Over-exposed? privacy patterns and considerations in online and mobile photo sharing. In Proc. CHI, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. L. Bauer, L. F. Cranor, M. K. Reiter, and K. Vaniea. Lessons learned from the deployment of a smartphone-based access-control system. In Proc. SOUPS, July 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. A. Brush and K. Inkpen. Yours, mine and ours? Sharing and use of technology in domestic environments. In Proc. UbiComp. 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. S. Consolvo, I. E. Smith, T. Matthews, A. LaMarca, J. Tabert, and P. Powledge. Location disclosure to social relations: why, when, & what people want to share. In Proc. CHI, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. M. Csikszentmihalyi and R. Larson. Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. J Nerv Ment Dis, September 1987.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. S. Egelman, A. Brush, and K. Inkpen. Family accounts: A new paradigm for user accounts within the home environment. In Proc. CSCW, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. B. W. Lampson. Dynamic protection structures. In Proc. AFIPS, 1969. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. R. A. Maxion and R. W. Reeder. Improving user-interface dependability through mitigation of human error. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud., 63, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. M. L. Mazurek, J. P. Arsenault, J. Bresee, N. Gupta, I. Ion, C. Johns, D. Lee, Y. Liang, J. Olsen, B. Salmon, R. Shay, K. Vaniea, L. Bauer, L. F. Cranor, G. R. Ganger, and M. K. Reiter. Access control for home data sharing: Attitudes, needs and practices. In Proc. CHI, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. J. S. Olson, J. Grudin, and E. Horvitz. A study of preferences for sharing and privacy. In Proc. CHI, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. D. Povey. Optimistic security: A new access control paradigm. In Proc. NSPW, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. M. N. Razavi and L. Iverson. A grounded theory of information sharing behavior in a personal learning space. In Proc. CSCW, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. L. Richards. Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide. Sage Publications, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. L. Richards and J. M. Morse. Readme First for a User's Guide to Qualitative Methods. Sage Publications, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. S. Voida, W. K. Edwards, M. W. Newman, R. E. Grinter, and N. Ducheneaut. Share and share alike: exploring the user interface affordances of file sharing. In Proc. CHI, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Exploring reactive access control
          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 Conferences
            CHI '11: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
            May 2011
            3530 pages
            ISBN:9781450302289
            DOI:10.1145/1978942

            Copyright © 2011 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 ACM 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: 7 May 2011

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            CHI '11 Paper Acceptance Rate410of1,532submissions,27%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader