Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Minoritised Ethnic People's Security and Privacy Concerns and Responses towards Essential Online Services

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that many minoritised ethnic people in the UK treat privacy as their most significant concern when using essential online services, and that fear of racism-driven repercussions leads them to withhold, blur, or…

desk verdict A genuinely useful qualitative study of an understudied group, with prevalence language that overstates what the selective sub-sample can support. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06062 v2 pith:ZKJVZ4LK submitted 2025-06-06 cs.CY cs.CRcs.HC

Aunam Quyoum , Mark Wong , Sebati Ghosh , Siamak F. Shahandashti This is my paper
classification cs.CYcs.CRcs.HC
keywords minoritisedethnicprivacyconcernsessentialonlineservicesdisclosuredilemmaselectiveinconsistentthematicanalysisdigitalinclusion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Drawing on 44 semi-structured interviews with minoritised ethnic people in the UK, this paper argues that privacy is not a secondary issue for many in this group but often their most significant concern when using essential online services in health, social housing, and energy. Interviewees described a high-stakes disclosure dilemma: sharing ethnicity, a surname, or other identifying data could invite discrimination, penalisation, or exclusion, while refusing to share could make them seem evasive or block access to services. The paper documents creative agency tactics — selective disclosure, deliberately vague ethnicity labels, inconsistent answers, self-censorship, and outright withdrawal from services — and traces them to prior experiences of institutional and online racism, the UK's 'hostile environment' policies, and the Windrush scandal. Trust, or its absence, cuts across every theme. If the findings hold, service designers and policymakers need to treat marginalisation-aware, privacy-preserving design as part of digital inclusion, not an add-on.

What carries the argument

The analytic core is a two-round thematic analysis of 44 semi-structured interviews, selected from a wider set of 101 because they substantively discussed security or privacy concerns. Conceptually, the load-bearing mechanism is the disclosure dilemma: a cost-benefit calculation that minoritised ethnic users make whenever a service asks for ethnicity or ethnicity-proxy information. The costs are framed by fear of repercussions — discrimination, penalisation, exclusion, or being seen as evasive — and the benefits include the 'greater good' of enabling equality monitoring and service improvement. The behavioural output of this dilemma is a repertoire of privacy tactics, most notably selective disclosure (choosing when and what to reveal) and inconsistent disclosure (varying the answer across contexts, e.g., 'Black other' instead of 'Black Caribbean', or 'British first' instead of 'Pakistani'). Trust in institutions is the cross-cutting condition that shifts how the dilemma is resolved.

What would settle it

A representative survey of a random sample of minoritised ethnic adults in England and Scotland that asked about their top concerns with essential online services, and found that privacy ranked below accessibility, cost, or convenience, and that rates of inconsistent ethnicity disclosure were no higher than among the general population, would undercut the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central finding is that for the 44 interviewees, privacy concerns and lack of control over personal data are not peripheral frictions but the dominant lens through which essential online services are experienced. In the authors' words, 'privacy concerns and lack of control over personal data emerged as a major theme, with many interviewees considering privacy as their most significant concern when using online services.' The concern is not mainly about abstract identity theft; it is about how data such as ethnicity, name, or surname can be used to identify, stereotype, and penalise them. This produces a disclosure dilemma in which people weigh the risk of being 'othered' against the potential collective benefit of data-led service improvement, sometimes resolving it by disclosing for the 'greater good'. In response, interviewees developed tactics including selective and inconsistent disclosure — choosing the broadest or vaguest ethnicity category, leading with 'British' rather than 'Pakistani', giving different answers across forms, withholding full surnames, and refusing to install smart meters or use online portals. The paper further finds that fear of repercussions, influenced by prior experiences of institutional and online racism, is the core driver, and that trust in institutions is embedded throughout as the basis for adapting behaviour.

Load-bearing premise

The 44 interviews analysed were chosen from 101 because those participants already substantively discussed privacy or security concerns, so statements like 'many interviewees consider privacy their most significant concern' may reflect the selection criterion rather than the actual prevalence of such concerns across the wider minoritised ethnic population.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Minimising and clearly explaining ethnicity data collection, with an explicit guarantee of no penalty for non-disclosure, should increase willingness to share data among minoritised ethnic users.
  • Selective and inconsistent disclosure creates a data-quality cost for equality monitoring: anti-discrimination audits that rely on ethnicity labels will work with patchy, systematically biased data unless trust is rebuilt.
  • The documented 'spill-over' effect implies that reducing racist abuse on social media platforms would also improve trust in essential online services, because distrust transfers across online contexts.
  • Designs that allow graded, contextual, self-expressed ethnicity identities — rather than forcing rigid census categories — would match documented privacy tactics and may improve data accuracy.
  • Researchers studying this population should offer flexible consent and recording options, since the decision to decline audio recording was itself a reported privacy-protective behaviour.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: presenting the same ethnicity question with (a) an explanation of purpose, (b) an explicit 'no penalty for declining' assurance, and (c) a fine-grained self-identification field should shift disclosure rates in A/B experiments on real service forms.
  • The paper's prevalence claims rest on a non-random sub-sample, so a latent-class analysis of a larger representative dataset could distinguish a privacy-anxious segment from a convenience-focused segment within minoritised populations.
  • The paper's framing implies a 'minoritised privacy tax': the same online form imposes extra cognitive load, anxiety, and material risk on minoritised users, which could be operationalised through diary studies measuring time, stress, and form-abandonment rates by demographic group.
  • The spill-over effect suggests a natural experiment: if a major social media platform credibly enforced a zero-tolerance racism policy, trust ratings and disclosure behaviour in essential-services apps might shift measurably in the following months.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a thematic analysis of 44 semi-structured interviews drawn from a larger set of 101 interviews with minoritised ethnic people in the UK, focusing on security and privacy concerns in three essential online service sectors: health, social housing, and energy. The authors identify three overarching themes: control over personal data and privacy concerns, the dilemma of disclosing personal information, and fear of repercussions, with trust in institutions embedded throughout. They argue that prior experiences of racism and marginalisation heighten the stakes of online disclosure and lead to tactics such as selective and inconsistent disclosure, withdrawal, and self-censorship. The paper concludes with implications for research and lessons for service designers and policymakers.

Significance. If the findings are read as a qualitative account of the concerns and behaviours voiced by the analysed sub-sample, this is a valuable and under-represented contribution to privacy and security research. The study is transparent about its method: two rounds of thematic analysis, a positionality statement, and appendices with the interview guide and coding themes. It also gives explicit credit to the community partners and participants. However, the paper's central prevalence claims, including the abstract's statement that 'many interviewees considering privacy as their most significant concern', are weakened by the sample-selection procedure, which filtered on the outcome of interest. The thematic insights are plausible and useful for inclusive design, but the prevalence framing needs to be re-based or explicitly restricted before the central claim is fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 and Abstract] The prevalence claims are undermined by selection on the outcome. The paper states in Section 3 that 'From 101 interviews, a sub-sample of 44 were selected for analysis based on their substantive discussion of privacy and security concerns.' Under this inclusion criterion, every analysed participant necessarily discussed privacy or security in depth, so statements such as 'Privacy concerns and lack of control over personal data emerged as a major theme, with many interviewees considering privacy as their most significant concern' (Abstract) and 'Many participants in the sample highlighted privacy as their most significant online concern' (Section 4.1) cannot provide evidence about how common such concerns are among minoritised ethnic people generally, nor even among the full set of 101 interviewees. The paper should either re-base prevalence statements on the full 101 (and report exact counts/denominators) or explicitly restrict all such claims to the 44 participants who already voiced these concerns.
  2. [Section 5.1] The Limitations section directly contradicts the unqualified prevalence framing in the Abstract and Section 4.1. It concedes that 'there were some interviewees who expressed little concern' and that the wider group of 101 'were relatively more concerned about the risk of scams, financial fraud or data leakage compared to racial profiling in general.' These qualifications are load-bearing because they indicate that the salience of racial-profiling-related privacy concerns is not as universal as the Abstract suggests. This limitation should be integrated into the main results and abstract, not confined to a late discussion subsection, so that the central claim accurately reflects the evidence.
  3. [Section 4.3, 'The Spill-over Effect'] The 'spill-over' theme is presented as a core finding, yet the evidence described is thin: 'While few of the interviewees drew a direct link between their negative experiences of racism on social media and their perceptions of online services, many people were, nonetheless, hyper-aware of how other users may interact with them.' The Summary then concludes that negative experiences of social media 'strongly suggests' a spill-over effect. Given the paper's own admission that few interviewees made the link directly, this inference needs a more cautious formulation or additional supporting evidence from the interview data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B] There is a typo in the organisation name: 'Council of Ethnic Minority V oluntary Organisations' should read 'Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Organisations'.
  2. [Appendix C, Figure 1] The phrase 'accuracty' in the thematic mapping figure appears to be a typo for 'accuracy'.
  3. [Section 4.1] The paper uses quantifiers such as 'most', 'many', 'some', and 'a few' without providing counts or a clear rule for their assignment. Given the selection-on-outcome concern, adding the number of interviews supporting each theme would strengthen transparency and help readers calibrate the strength of each claim.
  4. [Section 3] The sentence 'This addresses important and empirical gaps as few existing studies have focused on the lived experiences of minoritised ethnic communities in the UK' could be more precise: the paper addresses a gap in privacy and security research specifically, rather than in all studies of lived experience, and the introduction already makes this distinction.
  5. [Section 5.3] The discussion of 'declining audio recording' as a privacy-protective behaviour is interesting, but the supporting quote comes from a participant speaking via a translator about another person. This should be acknowledged more explicitly so that the reader knows the quote is second-hand.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are grounded in interview data, and its subsample selection is disclosed as a limitation rather than a circular premise.

full rationale

This paper is a qualitative thematic analysis; it contains no mathematical derivation, fitted parameters, or predictions whose values are forced by construction. The central claims—privacy concerns, disclosure dilemmas, and fear of repercussions—are supported by direct interview quotations and interpreted themes. The most plausible circularity concern is the subsample selection: the authors analysed 44 of 101 interviews selected 'based on their substantive discussion of privacy and security concerns' (Section 3). This means that statements like 'privacy concerns ... emerged as a major theme' describe the selected subsample, not a random sample of all minoritised ethnic people. However, the paper is transparent about this: Section 4.1 phrases the claim as 'Many participants in the sample highlighted privacy as their most significant online concern,' and Section 5.1 explicitly notes that 'there were some interviewees who expressed little concern' and that the wider group of 101 'were relatively more concerned about the risk of scams, financial fraud or data leakage compared to racial profiling in general.' The selection criterion does not force the specific thematic content, such as inconsistent disclosure or fear of penalisation; those are empirical findings from the interviews. Thus the selection is a sampling and generalisability limitation, not a circular derivation. The only self-citation identified is [43], used to motivate the research gap, and it is not load-bearing for the analytical results. Accordingly, the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities apply to this qualitative study. The central claims rest on interpretive assumptions about self-report validity, the analytic method, and the meaningfulness of grouping participants by minoritised ethnicity. These are stated or at least partially acknowledged in the methodology and limitations sections.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Thematic analysis of interview transcripts is an appropriate method for identifying shared privacy and security concerns and behaviours.
    The central claims are built from the authors' thematic interpretation of interviews; the method is standard in qualitative HCI but is an interpretive choice rather than a formal proof.
  • domain assumption Participants' stated concerns and behaviours during interviews reflect their actual experiences and practices.
    The analysis relies on self-report data. Some participants refused audio recording, and interview notes were used in those cases, so there is potential for omission or reconstruction.
  • domain assumption The 44-interview sub-sample, selected for substantive discussion of privacy or security, is sufficient to identify recurring themes among minoritised ethnic people.
    This sampling assumption underpins the generalising language in the findings, even though the paper acknowledges the sample is not representative.
  • domain assumption Grouping diverse self-identified ethnicities into broad census-like categories does not erase the shared experiences of racialisation that the analysis depends on.
    The paper uses broad groups such as Group A and Group B to summarise demographics while explicitly cautioning against homogenisation; the analysis still treats 'minoritised ethnic people' as a meaningful analytical category.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Minoritised Ethnic People's Security and Privacy Concerns and Responses towards Essential Online Services." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZKJVZ4LK

@misc{pith2026250606062,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Minoritised Ethnic People's Security and Privacy Concerns and Responses towards Essential Online Services},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZKJVZ4LK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06062}
}
read the original abstract

Minoritised ethnic people are marginalised in society, and therefore at a higher risk of adverse online harms, including those arising from the loss of security and privacy of personal data. Despite this, there has been very little research focused on minoritised ethnic people's security and privacy concerns, attitudes, and behaviours. In this work, we provide the results of one of the first studies in this regard. We explore minoritised ethnic people's experiences of using essential online services across three sectors: health, social housing, and energy, their security and privacy-related concerns, and responses towards these services. We conducted a thematic analysis of 44 semi-structured interviews with people of various reported minoritised ethnicities in the UK. Privacy concerns and lack of control over personal data emerged as a major theme, with many interviewees considering privacy as their most significant concern when using online services. Several creative tactics to exercise some agency were reported, including selective and inconsistent disclosure of personal data. A core concern about how data may be used was driven by a fear of repercussions, including penalisation and discrimination, influenced by prior experiences of institutional and online racism. The increased concern and potential for harm resulted in minoritised ethnic people grappling with a higher-stakes dilemma of whether to disclose personal information online or not. Furthermore, trust in institutions, or lack thereof, was found to be embedded throughout as a basis for adapting behaviour. We draw on our results to provide lessons learned for the design of more inclusive, marginalisation-aware, and privacy-preserving online services.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06062 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Thematic mapping Online Online services Service improvement Lack of trust Feeling powerless Frustrations at profit driven nature of... Offline Data collection Forced to comply Context of racism Experiences of racism Lack of choice Withdrawal from online services Selectively sharing/incons istently providing Information refused/refuse to use services Lack of transparency Engage in self￾censorship Data labels do not m… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. PrivacyMotiv: Vulnerability-Centered Persona Journeys for Empathic Privacy Reviews in UX Design

    cs.CR 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PrivacyMotiv generates LLM-created speculative personas and traceable journey stories to raise UX designers' empathy and motivation for privacy, yielding 59% more privacy issues found and 70% more redesign ideas in a ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Digital privacy challenges with shared mobile phone use in Bangladesh

    Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Md Romael Haque, Jay Chen, and Nicola Dell. Digital privacy challenges with shared mobile phone use in Bangladesh. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction, 1(CSCW):1–20, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Privacy concerns and be- haviors of people with visual impairments

    Tousif Ahmed, Roberto Hoyle, Kay Connelly, David Crandall, and Apu Kapadia. Privacy concerns and be- haviors of people with visual impairments. In Proceed- ings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 3523–3532, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Online security attack experience and worries of young adults in the United Kingdom

    Najla Aldaraani, Helen Petrie, and Siamak F Shahan- dashti. Online security attack experience and worries of young adults in the United Kingdom. In International Symposium on Human Aspects of Information Security and Assurance, pages 300–309. Springer, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Toward a sociology of privacy

    Denise Anthony, Celeste Campos-Castillo, and Christine Horne. Toward a sociology of privacy. Annual Review of Sociology, 43(1):249–269, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Consumer attitudes and perceptions on mhealth privacy and security: find- ings from a mixed-methods study

    Audie A Atienza, Christina Zarcadoolas, Wendy Vaughon, Penelope Hughes, Vaishali Patel, Wen- Ying Sylvia Chou, and Joy Pritts. Consumer attitudes and perceptions on mhealth privacy and security: find- ings from a mixed-methods study. Journal of Health Communication, 20(6):673–679, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Thematic analysis: A practical guide

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE publications Ltd, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Toward good prac- tice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing researcher

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. Toward good prac- tice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing researcher. International Journal of Transgender Health, 24(1):1–6, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Hostile environments: Housing and asylum policies as drivers of energy deprivation among UK refugee communities

    Manon Burbidge, Stefan Bouzarovski, Karen Lucas, and Saskia Warren. Hostile environments: Housing and asylum policies as drivers of energy deprivation among UK refugee communities. Housing, Theory and Society, pages 1–17, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Securing online privacy: An empirical test on internet scam victimization, online privacy concerns, and privacy protection behaviors

    Hongliang Chen, Christopher E Beaudoin, and Traci Hong. Securing online privacy: An empirical test on internet scam victimization, online privacy concerns, and privacy protection behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 70:291–302, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Chen, Angela D

    Yiqun T. Chen, Angela D. R. Smith, Katharina Reinecke, and Alexandra To. Why, when, and from whom: consid- erations for collecting and reporting race and ethnicity data in HCI. In CHI, pages 395:1–395:15. ACM, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Usage patterns of privacy- enhancing technologies

    Kovila PL Coopamootoo. Usage patterns of privacy- enhancing technologies. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communi- cations Security, pages 1371–1390, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Un- Equal Online Safety?

    Kovila PL Coopamootoo and Magdalene Ng. “Un- Equal Online Safety?” A gender analysis of security and privacy protection advice and behaviour patterns. In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium , pages 5611–5628, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Vulnerability, sharing, and pri- vacy: Analyzing art therapy for older adults with de- mentia

    Raymundo Cornejo, Robin Brewer, Caroline Edasis, and Anne Marie Piper. Vulnerability, sharing, and pri- vacy: Analyzing art therapy for older adults with de- mentia. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pages 1572...

    2016

  6. [14]

    Big data and due pro- cess: Toward a framework to redress predictive privacy harms

    Kate Crawford and Jason Schultz. Big data and due pro- cess: Toward a framework to redress predictive privacy harms. Boston College Law Review, 55:93, 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Data scores as governance: Investigating uses of citizen scoring in public services project report

    Lina Dencik, Arne Hintz, Joanna Redden, and Harry Warne. Data scores as governance: Investigating uses of citizen scoring in public services project report. Cardiff University: Open Society Foundations, 2018. https: //orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/117517

    2018

  8. [16]

    ‘Too Gay for Facebook’: Presenting LGBTQ+ identity throughout the personal social me- dia ecosystem

    Michael A DeVito, Ashley Marie Walker, and Jeremy Birnholtz. ‘Too Gay for Facebook’: Presenting LGBTQ+ identity throughout the personal social me- dia ecosystem. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW):1–23, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Inequalities and privacy in the context of social media

    Matías Dodel. Inequalities and privacy in the context of social media. In The Routledge handbook of privacy and social media, pages 204–214. Routledge, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    I’m Stuck!

    Bryan Dosono, Jordan Hayes, and Yang Wang. “I’m Stuck!”: A contextual inquiry of people with visual im- pairments in authentication. In Eleventh Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2015) , pages 151–168, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Pardis Emami-Naeini, Janarth Dheenadhayalan, Yuvraj Agarwal, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. Which privacy and security attributes most impact consumers’ risk percep- tion and willingness to purchase iot devices? In 2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) , pages 519–536. IE...

    2021

  12. [20]

    Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory, volume 2

    Philomena Essed. Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory, volume 2. Sage, 1991

    1991

  13. [21]

    Big data and discrimination: perils, promises and solutions

    Maddalena Favaretto, Eva De Clercq, and Bernice Si- mone Elger. Big data and discrimination: perils, promises and solutions. a systematic review. Journal of Big Data, 6(1):1–27, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Privacy, anonymity, and perceived risk in open collabora- tion: A study of Tor users and Wikipedians

    Andrea Forte, Nazanin Andalibi, and Rachel Greenstadt. Privacy, anonymity, and perceived risk in open collabora- tion: A study of Tor users and Wikipedians. In Proceed- ings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Sup- ported Cooperative Work and Social Computing , pages 1800–1...

    2017

  15. [23]

    Settler gover- nance and privacy: Canada’s Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement and the mediation of state-based violence

    Lara Fullenwieder and Adam Molnar. Settler gover- nance and privacy: Canada’s Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement and the mediation of state-based violence. International Journal of Communication , 12:1332–1349, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    The downside of digital in- clusion: Expectations and experiences of privacy and surveillance among marginal internet users

    Seeta Peña Gangadharan. The downside of digital in- clusion: Expectations and experiences of privacy and surveillance among marginal internet users. New Media & Society, 19(4):597–615, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Keeping a low profile? technology, risk and privacy among undocumented immigrants

    Tamy Guberek, Allison McDonald, Sylvia Simioni, Abraham H Mhaidli, Kentaro Toyama, and Florian Schaub. Keeping a low profile? technology, risk and privacy among undocumented immigrants. In Proceed- ings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–15, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Minority ethnic vul- nerabilities in the use of digital housing services across age groups

    Sacha Hasan and Yingfang Yuan. Minority ethnic vul- nerabilities in the use of digital housing services across age groups. In The European Network for Housing Research (ENHR) Conference 2023. The European Net- work for Housing Research (ENHR), 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Cooperative privacy and security: Learning from people with visual impairments and their allies

    Jordan Hayes, Smirity Kaushik, Charlotte Emily Price, and Yang Wang. Cooperative privacy and security: Learning from people with visual impairments and their allies. In Fifteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2019), pages 1–20, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Digitalised primary care in the UK: a qualitative study of the expe- riences of minoritised ethnic communities

    Farjana Islam, Sara Bailey, and Gina Netto. Digitalised primary care in the UK: a qualitative study of the expe- riences of minoritised ethnic communities. The British Journal of General Practice, 74(749):e823, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    UK Poverty 2025: The essential guide to understanding poverty in the UK

    Joseph Rowntree Foundation. UK Poverty 2025: The essential guide to understanding poverty in the UK. Re- port, 2025. https://www.jrf.org.uk/uk-poverty -2025-the-essential-guide-to-understanding -poverty-in-the-uk

    2025

  22. [30]

    Latinx immigrant youth’s indirect and direct disclosures about their family-undocumented experiences, received emotional support, and depressive symptoms

    Jennifer A Kam, Andy J Merolla, and Andrew C High. Latinx immigrant youth’s indirect and direct disclosures about their family-undocumented experiences, received emotional support, and depressive symptoms. Commu- nication Research, 47(4):599–622, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Would you give the same priority to the bank and a game? I do not!

    Sabrina Klivan, Sandra Höltervennhoff, Nicolas Hua- man, Yasemin Acar, and Sascha Fahl. “Would you give the same priority to the bank and a game? I do not!” Ex- ploring credential management strategies and obstacles during password manager setup. In Nineteenth Sympo- sium on U...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Privacy and activism in the transgender community

    Ada Lerner, Helen Yuxun He, Anna Kawakami, Sil- via Catherine Zeamer, and Roberto Hoyle. Privacy and activism in the transgender community. In Proceed- ings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–13, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Understanding ios privacy nutrition labels: An exploratory large-scale analysis of app store data

    Yucheng Li, Deyuan Chen, Tianshi Li, Yuvraj Agarwal, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Jason I Hong. Understanding ios privacy nutrition labels: An exploratory large-scale analysis of app store data. In CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts , pages 1–7, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Understanding the privacy protection disengagement behaviour of contact- less digital service users: The roles of privacy fatigue and privacy literacy

    Tu Lyu, Yulin Guo, and Hao Chen. Understanding the privacy protection disengagement behaviour of contact- less digital service users: The roles of privacy fatigue and privacy literacy. Behaviour & Information Technol- ogy, 43(10):2007–2023, 2024

    2007

  27. [35]

    Privacy, security, and digital inequality

    Mary Madden. Privacy, security, and digital inequality. Data & Society Research Institute, Report, 2017.https: //datasociety.net/library/privacy-securit y-and-digital-inequality

    2017

  28. [36]

    Tracking sex: The implications of widespread sexual data leakage and tracking on porn websites

    Elena Maris, Timothy Libert, and Jennifer R Henrichsen. Tracking sex: The implications of widespread sexual data leakage and tracking on porn websites. New Media & Society, 22(11):2018–2038, 2020

    2018

  29. [37]

    Compara- tive privacy research: Literature review, framework, and research agenda

    Philipp K Masur, Dmitry Epstein, Kelly Quinn, Carsten Wilhelm, Lemi Baruh, and Christoph Lutz. Compara- tive privacy research: Literature review, framework, and research agenda. The Information Society, pages 1–22, 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    The illusion of choice in dis- cussing cybersecurity safeguards between older adults with mild cognitive impairment and their caregivers

    Helena M Mentis, Galina Madjaroff, Aaron Massey, and Zoya Trendafilova. The illusion of choice in dis- cussing cybersecurity safeguards between older adults with mild cognitive impairment and their caregivers. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Inter- action, 4(CSCW2):1–...

    2020

  31. [39]

    Studying up machine learning data: Why talk about bias when we mean power? Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(GROUP):1–14, 2022

    Milagros Miceli, Julian Posada, and Tianling Yang. Studying up machine learning data: Why talk about bias when we mean power? Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(GROUP):1–14, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Racism, policy and politics

    Karim Murji. Racism, policy and politics . Policy Press, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Nobody’s happy

    Sunyup Park, Anna Lenhart, Michael Zimmer, and Jes- sica Vitak. “Nobody’s happy”: Design insights from privacy-conscious smart home power users on enhanc- ing data transparency, visibility, and control. In SOUPS. USENIX Association, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Protecting Minority Ethnic Communites Online (PRIME) Project, Technical Toolkit

    PRIME Technical Toolkit. Protecting Minority Ethnic Communites Online (PRIME) Project, Technical Toolkit. https://primetoolkit.co.uk/

  35. [43]

    Valuing lived experi- ence and co-design solutions to counter racial inequality in data and algorithmic systems in UK’s digital services

    Aunam Quyoum and Mark Wong. Valuing lived experi- ence and co-design solutions to counter racial inequality in data and algorithmic systems in UK’s digital services. Information, Communication & Society , pages 1–17, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Race, class, and privacy: A critical histor- ical review

    Matt Reichel. Race, class, and privacy: A critical histor- ical review. International Journal of Communication , 11(0), 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    Privacy versus relatedness: managing device use in Australia’s remote Aboriginal communities

    Ellie Rennie, Tyson Yunkaporta, and Indigo Holcombe- James. Privacy versus relatedness: managing device use in Australia’s remote Aboriginal communities. In- ternational Journal of Communication [online] , pages 1291–1310, 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    Privacy research with marginalized groups: What we know, what’s needed, and what’s next

    Shruti Sannon and Andrea Forte. Privacy research with marginalized groups: What we know, what’s needed, and what’s next. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW2):1–33, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Computer security and privacy for refugees in the United States

    Lucy Simko, Ada Lerner, Samia Ibtasam, Franziska Roesner, and Tadayoshi Kohno. Computer security and privacy for refugees in the United States. In IEEE Sym- posium on Security and Privacy , pages 409–423. IEEE Computer Society, 2018

    2018

  40. [48]

    A taxonomy of privacy

    Daniel J Solove. A taxonomy of privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(3):477, 2006

    2006

  41. [49]

    The poverty of privacy: Under- standing privacy trade-offs from identity infrastructure users in India

    Janaki Srinivasan, Savita Bailur, Emrys Schoemaker, and Sarita Seshagiri. The poverty of privacy: Under- standing privacy trade-offs from identity infrastructure users in India. International Journal of Communication, 12:1228–1247, 2018

    2018

  42. [50]

    Distrust of big tech and a desire for privacy: Understanding the motivations of people who have vol- untarily adopted secure email

    Warda Usman, Jackie Hu, McKynlee Wilson, and Daniel Zappala. Distrust of big tech and a desire for privacy: Understanding the motivations of people who have vol- untarily adopted secure email. In Nineteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2023) , pages 473–490, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Localised trust in a globalised knot: Designing information pri- vacy for Digital-ID

    Stefanus Van Staden and Nicola J Bidwell. Localised trust in a globalised knot: Designing information pri- vacy for Digital-ID. ACM Journal on Computing and Sustainable Societies, 2(1):1–37, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Moving be- yond ’one size fits all’ research considerations for work- ing with vulnerable populations

    Ashley Marie Walker, Yaxing Yao, Christine Geeng, Roberto Hoyle, and Pamela Wisniewski. Moving be- yond ’one size fits all’ research considerations for work- ing with vulnerable populations. Interactions, 26(6):34– 39, 2019

    2019

  45. [53]

    The online pri- vacy divide: testing resource and identity explanations for racial/ethnic differences in privacy concerns and privacy management behaviors on social media

    Laurent H Wang and Miriam J Metzger. The online pri- vacy divide: testing resource and identity explanations for racial/ethnic differences in privacy concerns and privacy management behaviors on social media. Com- munication Research, 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    Inclusive security and privacy

    Yang Wang. Inclusive security and privacy. IEEE Secu- rity & Privacy, 16(4):82–87, 2018

    2018

  47. [55]

    Windrush Lessons Learned Review

    Wendy Williams. Windrush Lessons Learned Review. Report, House of Commons, UK Government, 2020

    2020

  48. [56]

    Mi- noritised ethnic people’s code of practice for equitable digital services

    Mark Wong, Aunam Quyoum, and Ankita Mishra. Mi- noritised ethnic people’s code of practice for equitable digital services. Protecting Minority Ethnic Commu- nites Online (PRIME) Project, Report, 2024. https: //www.primecommunities.online/code-of-pra ctice

    2024

  49. [57]

    shall I do it? shall I not do it?

    Kitty Worthing, Marta Mojarrieta Galaso, Johanna Kel- lett Wright, and Jessica Potter. Patients or passports? the ‘hostile environment’in the NHS. Future Healthcare Journal, 8(1):28–30, 2021. A Interview Guide (Simplified to Topics) Introductions and Consent Interviewee’s Char...

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.