Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Fuming Shih

dblp:27/10817 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Network and information security
1 paper
Privacy and data protection · 50% Usable security · 50%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Usable security › usable privacy
privacy decision-making
0.212015
Privacy Tipping Points in Smartphones Privacy Preferences · CHI 2015
Privacy and data protection
privacy preferences
0.212015
Privacy Tipping Points in Smartphones Privacy Preferences · CHI 2015

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

four-week field study · 0.2context gathering · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Privacy Tipping Points in Smartphones Privacy Preferences
abstract
The aim of this research was to understand what affects people's privacy preferences in smartphone apps. We ran a four-week study in the wild with 34 participants. Participants were asked to answer questions, which were used to gather their personal context and to measure their privacy preferences by varying app name and purpose of data collection. Our results show that participants shared the most when no information about data access or purpose was given, and shared the least when both of these details were specified. When just one of either purpose or the requesting app was shown, participants shared less when just the purpose was specified than when just the app name was given. We found that the purpose for data access was the predominant factor affecting users' choices. In our study the purpose condition vary from being not specified, to vague to be very specific. Participants were more willing to disclose data when no purpose was specified. When a vague purpose was shown, participants became more privacy-aware and were less willing to disclose their information. When specific purposes were shown participants were more willing to disclose when the purpose for requesting the information appeared to be beneficial to them, and shared the least when the purpose for data access was solely beneficial to developers.
Fuming Shih, Ilaria Liccardi, Daniel J. Weitzner
CHI1