skip to main content
10.1145/3025453.3025673acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Where is the Digital Divide?: A Survey of Security, Privacy, and Socioeconomics

Published: 02 May 2017 Publication History

Abstract

The behavior of the least-secure user can influence security and privacy outcomes for everyone else. Thus, it is important to understand the factors that influence the security and privacy of a broad variety of people. Prior work has suggested that users with differing socioeconomic status (SES) may behave differently; however, no research has examined how SES, advice sources, and resources relate to the security and privacy incidents users report. To address this question, we analyze a 3,000 respondent, census-representative telephone survey. We find that, contrary to prior assumptions, people with lower educational attainment report equal or fewer incidents as more educated people, and that users' experiences are significantly correlated with their advice sources, regardless of SES or resources.

Supplementary Material

PDF File (pn2124-paper.pdf)
suppl.mov (pn2124p.mp4)
Supplemental video

References

[1]
2013. Anonymity Omnibus Dataset. (2013). http://www.pewinternet.org/datasets/july-2013-anonymity-omnibus/
[2]
2014. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. (2014). http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/news/data-releases/2014/release.html
[3]
2015. National Cybersecurity Alliance. (2015). https://staysafeonline.org/
[4]
2016. Chesapeake IRB. (2016). https://www.chesapeakeirb.com/
[5]
2016a. Pew American Trends Panel. (2016). http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/american-trends-panel/
[6]
2016b. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2016). http://www.pewinternet.org/
[7]
2016. Reason-Rupe Surveys. (2016). http://reason.com/poll
[8]
H. Akaike. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control (1974).
[9]
boyd, D., Levy, K., and Arwick, A. 2013. The Networked Nature of Algorithmic Discrimination. Data and Discrimination: Collected Essays. (2013). http://newamerica.org/downloads/OTI-Data-an-Discrimination-FINAL-small.pdf
[10]
C. Ciampa. 2013. A comparison of password feedback mechanisms and their impact on password entropy. Information Management & Computer Security (2013).
[11]
E. Hargittai. 2002. Second-Level Digital Divide: Mapping Differences in People's Online Skills. First Monday (2002). http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.CY/0109068
[12]
E. Hargittai. 2003. The Digital Divide and What to Do About It. http://www.eszter.com/research/pubs/hargittai-digitaldivide.pdf
[13]
E. Hargittai. 2007. Whose Space? Differences Among Users and Non-Users of Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13, 1 (2007), 276--297.
[14]
E. Hargittai and Y.P. Hsieh. 2012. Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. (2012).
[15]
T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman. 2009. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, Second Edition. Springer New York. http://www.springer.com/us/book/9780387848570
[16]
C. Herley. 2016. The Unfalsifiability of Security Claims. (2016). https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity16/technical-sessions/presentation/herley
[17]
A. L. Holbrook, M. C. Green, and J. A. Krosnick. 2003. Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires: Comparisons of Respondent Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias. Public Opinion Quarterly (2003). http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/citmgr?gca=pubopq; 67/1/79.
[18]
A. E. Howe, I. Ray, M. Roberts, M. Urbanska, and Z. Byrne. 2012. The Psychology of Security for the Home Computer User. In IEEE S&P. http://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2012/papers/4681a209.pdf
[19]
J. Jerome. 2013. Buying and Selling Privacy: Big Data's Different Burdens and Benefits. Stanford Law Review (2013). http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-and-big-data/buying-and-selling-privacy
[20]
L. Kish. 1965. Survey sampling. http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471109495.html
[21]
J. A. Krosnick. 2010. Handbook of Survey Research. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780125982269
[22]
T. Lumley. 2016. R 'survey': Analysis of Complex Survey Samples. (2016). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/survey/survey.pdf
[23]
M. Micheli. 2016. Social networking sites and low-income teenagers: between opportunity and inequality. Information, Communication & Society (2016).
[24]
E. Rader, R. Wash, and B. Brooks. 2012. Stories As Informal Lessons About Security. In SOUPS.
[25]
E.M. Redmiles, S. Kross, and M. L. Mazurek. 2016a. How I Learned to be Secure: a Census-Representative Survey of Security Advice Sources and Behavior. In CCS. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2978307
[26]
E.M. Redmiles, A. R. Malone, and M. L. Mazurek. 2016b. I Think They're Trying to Tell Me Something: Advice Sources and Selection in Digital Security. In IEEE S&P. http://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2016/papers/0824a272.pdf
[27]
E.M. Redmiles, S. Silverstein, W. Bai, and M. L. Mazurek. 2016c. More Skilled Internet Users Behave (A Little) More Securely. In SOUPS. https://www.usenix.org/sites/default/files/SOUPS16poster20-redmiles.pdf
[28]
R. E. Rice. 2006. Influences, usage, and outcomes of Internet health information searching: Multivariate results from the Pew surveys. International J. Medical Informatics (2006).
[29]
N.C. Schaeffer and S. Presser. 2003. The Science of Asking Questions. Annual Review of Sociology (2003).
[30]
A. J. Scott and J. N. K. Rao. 1984. On Chi-squared Tests For Multiway Contingency Tables with Proportions Estimated From Survey Data. Annals of Statistics (1984). https://www.jstor.org/stable/2241033
[31]
S. Sheng, M. Holbrook, P. Kumaraguru, L. F. Cranor, and J. Downs. 2010. Who Falls for Phish? A Demographic Analysis of Phishing Susceptibility and Effectiveness of Interventions. In CHI. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1753326.1753383
[32]
L. D. Stanley. 2003. Beyond Access: Psychosocial Barriers to Computer Literacy Special Issue: ICTs and Community Networking. The Information Society (2003).
[33]
J. van Dijk and K. Hacker. 2003. The Digital Divide as a Complex and Dynamic Phenomenon. The Information Society (2003).
[34]
R. Wash and E. Rader. 2015. Too Much Knowledge? Security Beliefs and Protective Behaviors Among USA Internet Users. In SOUPS. https://www.usenix.org/conference/SOUPS2015/proceedings/presentation/wash

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Towards privacy and security in private cloudsProceedings of the 33rd USENIX Conference on Security Symposium10.5555/3698900.3699239(6057-6074)Online publication date: 14-Aug-2024
  • (2024)Exploring digital security and privacy in relative poverty in Germany through qualitative interviewsProceedings of the 33rd USENIX Conference on Security Symposium10.5555/3698900.3699014(2029-2046)Online publication date: 14-Aug-2024
  • (2024)"I chose to fight, be brave, and to deal with it"Proceedings of the 33rd USENIX Conference on Security Symposium10.5555/3698900.3698902(19-36)Online publication date: 14-Aug-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Where is the Digital Divide?: A Survey of Security, Privacy, and Socioeconomics

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CHI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    May 2017
    7138 pages
    ISBN:9781450346559
    DOI:10.1145/3025453
    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 the author(s) 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].

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 02 May 2017

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. computer science education
    2. digital divide
    3. usable security

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    • Data&Society
    • Maryland Procurement Office

    Conference

    CHI '17
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    CHI '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 600 of 2,400 submissions, 25%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

    Upcoming Conference

    CHI 2025
    ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    April 26 - May 1, 2025
    Yokohama , Japan

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)158
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)23
    Reflects downloads up to 13 Feb 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Towards privacy and security in private cloudsProceedings of the 33rd USENIX Conference on Security Symposium10.5555/3698900.3699239(6057-6074)Online publication date: 14-Aug-2024
    • (2024)Exploring digital security and privacy in relative poverty in Germany through qualitative interviewsProceedings of the 33rd USENIX Conference on Security Symposium10.5555/3698900.3699014(2029-2046)Online publication date: 14-Aug-2024
    • (2024)"I chose to fight, be brave, and to deal with it"Proceedings of the 33rd USENIX Conference on Security Symposium10.5555/3698900.3698902(19-36)Online publication date: 14-Aug-2024
    • (2024)"I feel physically safe but not politically safe"Proceedings of the 33rd USENIX Conference on Security Symposium10.5555/3698900.3698901(1-18)Online publication date: 14-Aug-2024
    • (2024)"Say I'm in public...I don't want my nudes to pop up."Proceedings of the Twentieth USENIX Conference on Usable Privacy and Security10.5555/3696899.3696922(433-451)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2024
    • (2024)The artificial intelligence divide: Who is the most vulnerable?New Media & Society10.1177/14614448241232345Online publication date: 26-Feb-2024
    • (2024)Digital Security — A Question of Perspective A Large-Scale Telephone Survey with Four At-Risk User Groups2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)10.1109/SP54263.2024.00027(697-716)Online publication date: 19-May-2024
    • (2024)Hello, You’ve been hacked: a study of victim notification preferencesJournal of Crime and Justice10.1080/0735648X.2024.234055448:1(56-72)Online publication date: 10-Apr-2024
    • (2024)Fraudsters target the elderly: Behavioural evidence from randomised controlled scam-baiting experimentsSecurity Journal10.1057/s41284-023-00410-437:4(1173-1196)Online publication date: 18-Jan-2024
    • (2023)Who comes up with this stuff? interviewing authors to understand how they produce security adviceProceedings of the Nineteenth USENIX Conference on Usable Privacy and Security10.5555/3632186.3632202(283-299)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media