L Jean Camp

Jennifer Mankoff, Devva Kasnitz, Disability Studies et al.

This response to the RFI considers the potential for biometrics to help or harm disabled people2. Biometrics are already integrated into many aspects of daily life, from airport travel to mobile phone use. Yet many of these systems are not accessible to people who experience different kinds of disability exclusion . Different personal characteristics may impact any or all of the physical (DNA, fingerprints, face or retina) and behavioral (gesture, gait, voice) characteristics listed in the RFI as examples of biometric signals.

Behnood Momenzadeh, Shakthidhar Gopavaram, Sanchari Das et al.

In the age of ubiquitous technologies, security- and privacy-focused choices have turned out to be a significant concern for individuals and organizations. Risks of such pervasive technologies are extensive and often misaligned with user risk perception, thus failing to help users in taking privacy-aware decisions. Researchers usually try to find solutions for coherently extending trust into our often inscrutable electronic networked environment. To enable security- and privacy-focused decision-making, we mainly focused on the realm of the mobile marketplace, examining how risk indicators can help people choose more secure and privacy-preserving apps. We performed a naturalistic experiment with N=60 participants, where we asked them to select applications on Android tablets with accurate real-time marketplace data. We found that, in aggregate, app selections changed to be more risk-averse in the presence of user risk-perception-aligned visual indicators. Our study design and research propose practical and usable interactions that enable more informed, risk-aware comparisons for individuals during app selections. We include an explicit argument for the role of human decision-making during app selection, beyond the current trend of using machine learning to automate privacy preferences after selection during run-time.