skip to main content
10.1145/1774088.1774151acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Transparency versus security: early analysis of antagonistic requirements

Published:22 March 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Information systems designers have been increasingly convinced about the importance of dealing with quality issues at early stages of development. Over the landscape of quality issues, several proposals have been published as to help with respect to security. On the other hand, designers do also need to care about other quality issues; for instance, transparency. Transparency is the quality of having open information to the public. At first, the general intuition is that security and transparency conflict, but how should designers deal with these antagonistic issues? Departing from the use of the Non-Functional Requirements Framework we propose a process, based on Personal Construct Theory, to perform early analysis of antagonistic design issues. Having early analysis of antagonistic quality issues makes it possible for informed decision to be taken early on during IS design. We use the election domain to illustrate the application of our proposal.

References

  1. Holzner B., Holzner L., Transparency in Global Change: The Vanguard of the Open Society. University of Pittsburgh Press; 1 edition (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Henriques A., Corporate Truth The Limits to Transparency, EARTHSCAN, UK (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. European Union - Data Protection, http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/index_en.htm (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Brazilian Law N° 9.507, 12 th, November 1997, http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil/Leis/L9507.htm (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. United States Department of Justice, http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/index.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Cappelli, C., Oliveira, A. P., Leite, J. C. S. P, Exploring Business Process Transparency Concepts, RE 2007, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 389--390 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Bishop, M. Wagner, D., Risks of e-voting. Communications of ACM 50, 11, 120--120, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1297797.1297827 (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Camp L. J., Varieties of Software and their Implications for Effective Democratic Government. Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. 135, pp. 183--185, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Matulevicius, R.; Mayer, N.; Mouratidis, H.;, Dubois, E.;, Heymans, P.; Genon, N. Adapting Secure Tropos for Security Risk Management in the Early Phases of Information Systems Development. CAiSE 2008: 541--555 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Liu, L.; Yu. E.; Mylopoulos, J. Security and Privacy Requirements Analysis within a Social Setting. Proceedings of the International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'03). Monterey, California, September 2003. Pags. 151--161. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. R Prieto-Diaz, Requirements Engineering in the Information Assurance Domain: The Common Criteria Evaluation Process. In Perspectives on Software Requirements, 2004 - pages 139--168 Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Devanbu, P.; Stubblebine, S. Software Engineering for Security: a Roadmap. The Future of Software Engineering. Special volume of the proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering - ICSE 2000, (2000). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. CERT, http://www.cert.org/stats/cert_stats.html, (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Cunha, H.; "Uso de estratégias orientadas a metas para modelagem de requisitos de segurança", Dissertação (Mestrado em Informática) - Departamento de Informática Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro - 2007 - 145 f.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Cysneiros, L. M.; Leite, J. C. S. P., Nonfunctional Requirements: From Elicitation to Conceptual Models. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 30(5): 328--350 (2004). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Barry Boehm, Hoh In, "Identifying Quality-Requirement Conflicts" IEEE Software, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 25--35, Mar., 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Chung, L.; Nixon, B.; Yu, E.; Mylopoulos, J. Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston/Dordrecht/London. 2000Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Kelly, G. A., The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton, 1955.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. González-Baixauli, B., Laguna, M., Leite, J. C. S. P.: "Aplicación de la Teoría de Constructos Personales a la Elicitación de Requisitos" Revista IEEE América Latina Vol. 3(1), 2005. Avail. at http://www.ewh.ieee.org/reg/9/etrans/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Ford, K. M., Petry, F. E., Adams-Webber, J. R., and Chang, P. J.: "An Approach to Knowledge Acquisition Based on the Structure of Personal Construct Systems," IEEE Trans. Knowledge and Data Eng., 3(1), pp. 78--88. 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Gonzalez-Baixauli, B.; Leite, J. C. S. P.; Laguna, M. A., "Eliciting Non-Functional Requirements Interactions Using the Personal Construct Theory," Requirements Engineering, 14th IEEE International Conference, vol., no., pp. 347--348, 11--15 Sept. 2006 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J., Nicchiarelli, E., and Sebastiani, R., "Reasoning with Goal Models," In: 21st Intl. Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 02), pp. 167--181. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Leite, J. C. S. P.; Yu, Y.; Liu, L.; Yu, E.; Mylopoulos, J., Quality-Based Software Reuse. CAiSE 2005: 535--550 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Mussbacher, G.; Whittle, J.; Amyot, D., Semantic-Based Interaction Detection in Aspect-Oriented Scenarios. 17th IEEE Requirements Engineering Conference, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 203--212, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Transparency versus security: early analysis of antagonistic requirements

    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
      SAC '10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing
      March 2010
      2712 pages
      ISBN:9781605586397
      DOI:10.1145/1774088

      Copyright © 2010 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: 22 March 2010

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      SAC '10 Paper Acceptance Rate364of1,353submissions,27%Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader