Sai Teja Peddinti

Jiaxun Cao, Yu Dong, Chunxi Zhan et al.

Users increasingly rely on consumer-facing generative AI (GenAI) for tasks ranging from everyday needs to sensitive use cases. Yet, it remains unclear whether and how existing security and privacy (S&P) communications in GenAI tools shape users' adoption decisions and subsequent experiences. Understanding how users seek, interpret, and evaluate S&P information is critical for designing usable transparency that users can trust and act on. We conducted semi-structured interviews and design sessions with 21 U.S. GenAI users. We find that available S&P information rarely drove initial adoption in practice, as participants often perceived it as incomplete, ineffective, or lacking credibility. Instead, they relied on rough proxies, such as popularity, to infer S&P practices. After adoption, uncertainty about S&P practices constrained participants' willingness to use GenAI tools, particularly in high-stakes contexts, and, in some cases, contributed to discontinued use. Participants therefore called for transparency that supports decision-making and use, including trustworthy information (e.g., independent evaluations) and usable interfaces (e.g., on-demand disclosure). We synthesize participants' desired design practices into five dimensions to facilitate systematic future investigation into best practices. We conclude with recommendations for researchers, designers, and policymakers to improve S&P transparency in consumer-facing GenAI.

Sarah Meiklejohn, Sunny Consolvo, Patrick Gage Kelley et al.

This paper introduces HelpBench, a benchmark for assessing whether LLMs are capable of providing accurate help in response to questions about digital privacy, safety, and security. We curated 450 questions representing authentic user situations and developed rubrics for each question to evaluate the factual accuracy and tone of a response. Example questions touch on how to regain access to lost or suspended accounts, how to balance the trade-offs of hardware security keys versus other forms of two-factor authentication, whether a suspicious email is likely a scam, or whether an abuser might be able to track an individual based on their device peripherals. We then developed and applied an auto-rater to evaluate responses from 18 state-of-the-art LLMs. Our results indicate that while models provide high-quality advice (with scores of 82% on average), one in ten responses from models scores less than 65%, reflecting inaccurate and even harmful advice. Addressing these failures is critical for models to serve as trustworthy sources of assistance for digital privacy, safety, and security needs.

Omer Akgul, Sai Teja Peddinti, Nina Taft et al.

We present an analysis of 12 million instances of privacy-relevant reviews publicly visible on the Google Play Store that span a 10 year period. By leveraging state of the art NLP techniques, we examine what users have been writing about privacy along multiple dimensions: time, countries, app types, diverse privacy topics, and even across a spectrum of emotions. We find consistent growth of privacy-relevant reviews, and explore topics that are trending (such as Data Deletion and Data Theft), as well as those on the decline (such as privacy-relevant reviews on sensitive permissions). We find that although privacy reviews come from more than 200 countries, 33 countries provide 90% of privacy reviews. We conduct a comparison across countries by examining the distribution of privacy topics a country's users write about, and find that geographic proximity is not a reliable indicator that nearby countries have similar privacy perspectives. We uncover some countries with unique patterns and explore those herein. Surprisingly, we uncover that it is not uncommon for reviews that discuss privacy to be positive (32%); many users express pleasure about privacy features within apps or privacy-focused apps. We also uncover some unexpected behaviors, such as the use of reviews to deliver privacy disclaimers to developers. Finally, we demonstrate the value of analyzing app reviews with our approach as a complement to existing methods for understanding users' perspectives about privacy

Synthia Wang, Sai Teja Peddinti, Nina Taft et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT can infer personal attributes from seemingly innocuous text, raising privacy risks beyond memorized data leakage. While prior work has demonstrated these risks, little is known about how users estimate and respond. We conducted a survey with 240 U.S. participants who judged text snippets for inference risks, reported concern levels, and attempted rewrites to block inference. We compared their rewrites with those generated by ChatGPT and Rescriber, a state-of-the-art sanitization tool. Results show that participants struggled to anticipate inference, performing a little better than chance. User rewrites were effective in just 28\% of cases - better than Rescriber but worse than ChatGPT. We examined our participants' rewriting strategies, and observed that while paraphrasing was the most common strategy it is also the least effective; instead abstraction and adding ambiguity were more successful. Our work highlights the importance of inference-aware design in LLM interactions.

Alexandra Klymenko, Stephen Meisenbacher, Patrick Gage Kelley et al.

The proliferation of AI has sparked privacy concerns related to training data, model interfaces, downstream applications, and more. We interviewed 25 AI developers based in Europe to understand which privacy threats they believe pose the greatest risk to users, developers, and businesses and what protective strategies, if any, would help to mitigate them. We find that there is little consensus among AI developers on the relative ranking of privacy risks. These differences stem from salient reasoning patterns that often relate to human rather than purely technical factors. Furthermore, while AI developers are aware of proposed mitigation strategies for addressing these risks, they reported minimal real-world adoption. Our findings highlight both gaps and opportunities for empowering AI developers to better address privacy risks in AI.

Sai Teja Peddinti, Keith W. Ross, Justin Cappos

We explore the feasibility of automatically finding accounts that publish sensitive content on Twitter. One natural approach to this problem is to first create a list of sensitive keywords, and then identify Twitter accounts that use these words in their tweets. But such an approach may overlook sensitive accounts that are not covered by the subjective choice of keywords. In this paper, we instead explore finding sensitive accounts by examining the percentage of anonymous and identifiable followers the accounts have. This approach is motivated by an earlier study showing that sensitive accounts typically have a large percentage of anonymous followers and a small percentage of identifiable followers. To this end, we first considered the problem of automatically determining if a Twitter account is anonymous or identifiable. We find that simple techniques, such as checking for name-list membership, perform poorly. We designed a machine learning classifier that classifies accounts as anonymous or identifiable. We then classified an account as sensitive based on the percentages of anonymous and identifiable followers the account has. We applied our approach to approximately 100,000 accounts with 404 million active followers. The approach uncovered accounts that were sensitive for a diverse number of reasons. These accounts span across varied themes, including those that are not commonly proposed as sensitive or those that relate to socially stigmatized topics. To validate our approach, we applied Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic analysis to the tweets in the detected sensitive and non-sensitive accounts. LDA showed that the sensitive and non-sensitive accounts obtained from the methodology are tweeting about distinctly different topics. Our results show that it is indeed possible to objectively identify sensitive accounts at the scale of Twitter.