Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 73 references

"What you think is private is no longer" -- Investigating the Aftermath of Shoulder Surfing on Smartphones in Everyday Life through the Eyes of the Victims

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Shoulder surfing is a high privacy risk with an aftermath for victims, a survey of 91 UK smartphone users argues.

desk verdict Useful qualitative dataset on shoulder surfing aftermath, but the abstract and conclusion overclaim frequency and risk relative to what self-selected retrospective reports can support. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18265 v1 pith:CKDSRTB3 submitted 2024-11-27 cs.HC

Habiba Farzand , Shaun Macdonald , Karola Marky , Mohamed Khamis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords shouldersurfingsmartphoneprivacyperceptionsdeviceinteractionuser-centredmitigationsurveystudyusablesecurityvictimperspectives
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

This paper tries to establish that shoulder surfing, someone looking at a smartphone screen without permission, leaves measurable traces on victims' privacy perceptions and device habits. Surveying 91 UK adults who had been shoulder surfed, the authors argue that the experience is widely seen as unavoidable, frequent, and privacy-violating, and that it slows task completion, reduces phone use, and pushes people to restrict sensitive apps. A central further claim is that victims worry not only about their own data but about other people's data seen on their screens, and that they are willing to adopt protective software if it is effective, affordable, reliable, and available. The stakes are practical: if shoulder surfing genuinely changes everyday behaviour, mitigation should be designed around user-centred criteria rather than purely technical defences.

What carries the argument

The central instrument is a two-stage online survey: a short screening study identified self-reported victims of smartphone shoulder surfing, and a second questionnaire captured Likert-scale agreement plus open-ended explanations of their most recent incident, privacy perceptions, device usage, concerns, and training. The open-ended responses were analysed through open coding and grouped into themes by two researchers, with disagreements resolved in discussion. This machinery turns individual anecdotes into recurring themes about aftermath: the Likert items supply rates such as 58.24% affected privacy perceptions and 62.63% slowed task completion, while the coded quotes supply the mechanisms, such as situational awareness, restricted app access, and protective repositioning.

What would settle it

An experience-sampling study in which participants log shoulder surfing moments as they happen and are asked immediately about task completion, mood, and privacy concern would settle whether the retrospective pattern holds; if real-time logs show no slowing, no avoidance, and no change in concern, the central claim of an aftermath would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that shoulder surfing is not a transient nuisance but a privacy violation with an aftermath: it alters how victims perceive the safety of their information and how they use their smartphones afterwards. Most participants (58.24%) agreed that shoulder surfing affected their privacy perceptions, 62.63% said it slowed or prevented task completion, and 67.39% continued using the phone in the same setting but changed what they did there, such as avoiding sensitive apps or waiting for private spaces. Victims described shoulder surfing as a gateway to more serious threats, including identity theft, device theft, stalking, and blackmail, and about half explicitly named privacy as a top concern. The authors also report that almost no participants had received training or education about shoulder surfing, and that willingness to adopt protective measures is conditional on effectiveness, cost, reliability, and availability.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions rest on the assumption that people who say they were shoulder surfed remember the incident and its effects accurately enough for their reports to reflect real impact rather than memory bias or overinterpretation of ordinary glances.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If shoulder surfing is as prevalent and unavoidable as participants report, privacy protection cannot rely on users avoiding public settings; mitigation must work in the places people actually use phones.
  • Because victims slow down and restrict apps after being observed, shoulder surfing has a measurable productivity cost as well as an emotional one.
  • Concern for other people's data means shoulder surfing can damage trust in the victim, not just expose the victim's own information.
  • Adoption of protective software will be low unless the tools meet user-defined criteria: proven effectiveness, ease of use, low interruption, and acceptable cost.
  • The near-total absence of training or education points to a gap that user-centred mitigation could fill.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step, which the authors call for but do not perform, is to verify these retrospective reports with in-the-wild logging: having participants record shoulder surfing incidents as they happen and measuring task time and mood immediately, which would separate true impact from memory bias.
  • If the findings hold, designers of privacy-preserving screen filters and gaze-based defences should benchmark against the user criteria named here, effectiveness, cost, and interruption, rather than only against attack success rates.
  • The authors' observations about children suggest a testable research programme: measuring whether shoulder surfing by minors is more common in home settings and whether age-adaptive mitigation, such as gaze-based bystander age estimation, reduces parents' reported anxiety.
  • The UK sample and the paper's citation of stronger reported consequences in other cultures imply that the aftermath might be more severe in lower-socioeconomic or non-Western contexts; replicating this survey there would tell.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports an online survey of 91 UK smartphone users who self-identified as victims of shoulder surfing. Participants were screened in a first stage and then asked in a second stage to recall their most recent shoulder surfing incident and to respond to Likert items and open-ended questions about how the experience affected their privacy perceptions and device interaction. The authors report that participants perceived shoulder surfing as frequent and unavoidable, that it often slowed task completion, that it raised concerns about their own and others' privacy, and that participants were conditionally willing to adopt protective measures. The paper concludes with discussion themes and future research directions. The authors acknowledge limitations including recall bias, the UK-only sample, and the self-selected recruitment channel.

Significance. As an exploratory study of perceived aftermath, the paper addresses a genuine gap in the usable-privacy literature and offers useful qualitative material. The strengths include a non-student, gender-balanced UK sample; a two-stage screening procedure that anchors participants to a concrete incident; dual coding of a 25% subset with discussion-based resolution (Section 3.7); and a candid limitations section (Section 3.6). The value of the contribution, however, lies in characterizing victims' perceptions rather than in establishing an objective risk level. If the authors reframe the claims accordingly, the paper can serve as a solid foundation for future, more ecologically valid studies.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6 (Conclusion)] The concluding statement that shoulder surfing "is a high privacy risk that violates the user's and other people's privacy when data is being observed" is stronger than the evidence supports. The design (Section 3.2) recruited only participants who self-identified as victims after reading a definition, and then asked them to recall their most recent incident and rate its impact; there is no baseline or control group, and the outcome measures are retrospective self-reports. The data can justify claims about perceived impact, e.g., "participants perceived shoulder surfing as a high privacy risk," but not an objective risk statement. Please temper the conclusion and the abstract to match the evidence level and carry the acknowledged limitations (Section 3.6) into the framing of the main findings.
  2. [Sections 3.2 and 4.1] The screening definition of shoulder surfing and the reported incidents include observations by children, partners, colleagues, and friends. This inclusive definition may conflate deliberate adversarial glances with incidental or benign looks. Because the paper's headline claim concerns "high privacy risk," the authors should explicitly discuss how the breadth of the category affects interpretation, and ideally analyse whether the Likert responses differ for incidents involving strangers versus known observers. At minimum, the discussion should acknowledge that a child reading a parent's screen and a stranger covertly observing a PIN entry are different events.
  3. [Section 3.1] The full survey instrument is not included in the paper, so readers cannot see the exact wording of the Likert items behind the percentages in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.3.2 or the precise definition of shoulder surfing that was shown to participants. This limits reproducibility and makes it difficult to assess whether items were leading (e.g., "experiencing shoulder surfing prevented or slowed me down"). Please provide the complete questionnaire as an appendix or supplementary material.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1] The statistic that the smartphone user base in the UK will reach 9.72 million is implausibly low (the current figure is on the order of tens of millions); please verify the source and the number.
  2. [Section 2.3] "Zezschwitz et al. resented three image distortion techniques" should read "presented."
  3. [Section 4.4.1] The sentence "The following quotes from participants reflect the concerns. The following quotes from participants narrate the concerns of participants:" is duplicated; please remove one.
  4. [Section 5.3] "Considering the workaround and the success of training" is unclear; likely "work done" or "work around" was intended.
  5. [Section 5.2] The phrase "protect children from unwanted device observations" is ambiguous because the preceding paragraph discusses children as observers rather than as victims; please clarify who is being protected.
  6. [Section 3.7] Figure 1 defines qualifier-to-frequency mappings, but the precise mapping (e.g., "some," "a few") should also be stated in the caption, and providing exact code counts in a table would improve transparency if the journal permits it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a descriptive survey whose conclusions summarize participants' self-reported experiences; no fitted parameters, equations, or self-citation chains make the central claim equivalent to its inputs.

full rationale

This paper makes no formal derivation or prediction. It reports a qualitative and quantitative survey of 91 self-identified shoulder-surfing victims, and its central conclusion — that shoulder surfing is a high privacy risk affecting perceptions and device interaction — is a thematic summary of Likert responses and open-ended codes. These outputs are not constructed to equal the inputs by definition: participants were first screened for victimhood, then asked about impact, and the reported percentages are empirical aggregates of their responses. The acknowledged recall bias (Section 3.6) and the absence of a control group are methodological validity limitations, not circularity. Self-citations (e.g., [1], [5], [10], [73]) support background and discussion points but are not the sole or load-bearing evidence for the main empirical claim; they are corroborated by independent prior work such as [2] and are not invoked to forbid alternatives. No equation, fitted parameter, or uniqueness theorem appears anywhere in the paper, and no 'prediction' is derived from fitted inputs. Therefore the paper is self-contained as a descriptive, interview-style study and receives a circularity score of 0.

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

This qualitative study has no free parameters or invented entities. Its central claims rest on assumptions about self-report validity, coding reliability, sample representativeness, and question validity.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Participants accurately recall and report shoulder surfing incidents and their impacts.
    The entire analysis relies on retrospective self-reports; the authors acknowledge recall bias in Section 3.6, and this assumption is load-bearing for all conclusions.
  • domain assumption Thematic coding by one researcher with 25% verification by a second yields reliable themes.
    The authors refrained from computing inter-rater reliability (Section 3.7), following some qualitative guidelines, but this leaves the stability of the coding unverified.
  • domain assumption The UK Prolific sample of 91 represents the broader population of shoulder surfing victims.
    Recruitment was via an online self-selection platform and limited to the UK, with a skew toward full-time employees; the authors note this in Section 3.6 but still generalize to 'users'.
  • domain assumption The questionnaire items and Likert scales validly operationalize the research questions.
    The survey was piloted with two researchers, but no validation or cognitive pretesting is reported, so construct validity is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of "What you think is private is no longer" -- Investigating the Aftermath of Shoulder Surfing on Smartphones in Everyday Life through the Eyes of the Victims." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CKDSRTB3

@misc{pith2026241118265,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: "What you think is private is no longer" -- Investigating the Aftermath of Shoulder Surfing on Smartphones in Everyday Life through the Eyes of the Victims},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CKDSRTB3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18265}
}
read the original abstract

Shoulder surfing has been studied extensively, however, it remains unexplored whether and how it impacts users. Understanding this is important as it determines whether shoulder surfing poses a significant concern and, if so, how best to address it. By surveying smartphone users in the UK, we explore how shoulder surfing impacts a) the privacy perceptions of victim users and b) their interaction with smartphones. We found that the impact of being shoulder surfed is highly individual. It is perceived as unavoidable and frequently occurring, leading to increased time for task completion. Individuals are concerned for their own and other peoples privacy, seeing shoulder surfing as a gateway to more serious threats like identity or device theft. Participants expressed a willingness to alter their behaviour and use software based protective measures to prevent shoulder surfing, yet, this comes with a set of user defined criteria, such as effectiveness, affordability, reliability, and availability. We discuss future work directions for user-centred shoulder surfing mitigation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18265 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Figure shows the overview of the qualifiers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Figure shows the boxplots for the responses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. High-level summary of the key findings of the impact of shoulder surfing. (The image uses figures by Deivid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Shoulder surfing through the social lens: A longitudinal investigation & insights from an exploratory diary study,

    H. Farzand, K. Marky, and M. Khamis, “Shoulder surfing through the social lens: A longitudinal investigation & insights from an exploratory diary study,” in Proceedings of the 2022 European Sym- posium on Usable Security , pp. 85–97, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Understanding shoulder surfing in the wild: Stories from users and observers,

    M. Eiband, M. Khamis, E. V on Zezschwitz, H. Hussmann, and F. Alt, “Understanding shoulder surfing in the wild: Stories from users and observers,” in Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pp. 4254–4265, 2017

    2017

  3. [3]

    ” i hate when people do this; there’s a lot of sensitive content for me

    H. Farzand, K. Marky, and M. Khamis, “” i hate when people do this; there’s a lot of sensitive content for me”: A typology of perceived privacy-sensitive content in shoulder surfing scenarios,” 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    ”... it’s very unacceptable for someone to peek into your privacy

    H. Farzand, K. Marky, and M. Khamis, “”... it’s very unacceptable for someone to peek into your privacy.” chronicles of shoulder surfing: Exploring deep into a longitudinal diary study,” 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    A systematic deconstruction of human-centric privacy & security threats on mobile phones,

    H. Farzand, M. Abraham, S. Brewster, M. Khamis, and K. Marky, “A systematic deconstruction of human-centric privacy & security threats on mobile phones,” International Journal of Human–Computer Inter- action, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Visual data security white paper,

    E. A. for Visual Data Security, “Visual data security white paper,” 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    The zzzzivil servant who fell asleep on the train with laptop secrets in full view,

    DailyMail, “The zzzzivil servant who fell asleep on the train with laptop secrets in full view,” 2008

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    {It’s} a hard lock life: A field study of smartphone ( {Un) Locking} behavior and risk perception,

    M. Harbach, E. V on Zezschwitz, A. Fichtner, A. De Luca, and M. Smith, “{It’s} a hard lock life: A field study of smartphone ( {Un) Locking} behavior and risk perception,” in 10th symposium on usable privacy and security (SOUPS 2014) , pp. 213–230, 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Vulnerability & blame: Making sense of unauthorized access to smartphones,

    D. Marques, T. Guerreiro, L. Carric ¸o, I. Beschastnikh, and K. Beznosov, “Vulnerability & blame: Making sense of unauthorized access to smartphones,” in Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems , pp. 1–13, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    The interplay between personal relationships & shoulder surfing mitigation,

    H. Farzand, K. Bhardwaj, K. Marky, and M. Khamis, “The interplay between personal relationships & shoulder surfing mitigation,” in Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2021 , pp. 338–343, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    ” privacy is not for me, it’s for those rich women

    N. Sambasivan, G. Checkley, A. Batool, N. Ahmed, D. Nemer, L. S. Gayt´an-Lugo, T. Matthews, S. Consolvo, and E. Churchill, “” privacy is not for me, it’s for those rich women”: Performative privacy practices on mobile phones by women in south asia,” in Fourteenth Symposium on ...

    2018

  4. [12]

    Under- standing shoulder surfer behavior and attack patterns using virtual reality,

    Y . Abdrabou, S. R. Rivu, T. Ammar, J. Liebers, A. Saad, C. Liebers, U. Gruenefeld, P. Knierim, M. Khamis, V . Makela, et al. , “Under- standing shoulder surfer behavior and attack patterns using virtual reality,” in Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Advanced...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Under- standing shoulder surfer behavior using virtual reality,

    Y . Abdrabou, R. Rivu, T. Ammar, J. Liebers, A. Saad, C. Liebers, U. Gruenefeld, P. Knierim, M. Khamis, V . M ¨akel¨a, et al. , “Under- standing shoulder surfer behavior using virtual reality,” in 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Wor...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Evaluating attack and defense strategies for smartphone pin shoulder surfing,

    H. Khan, U. Hengartner, and D. V ogel, “Evaluating attack and defense strategies for smartphone pin shoulder surfing,” in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’18, (New York, NY , USA), Association for Computing Machinery, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Analysis of the effects of privacy filter use on horizontal deviations in posture of vdt operators,

    G. Probst, “Analysis of the effects of privacy filter use on horizontal deviations in posture of vdt operators,” Master’s thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2000

    2000

  8. [16]

    Communicating shoulder surfing attacks to users,

    A. Saad, M. Chukwu, and S. Schneegass, “Communicating shoulder surfing attacks to users,” in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia , pp. 147–152, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Eyespot: Leveraging gaze to protect private text content on mobile devices from shoulder surfing,

    M. Khamis, M. Eiband, M. Z ¨urn, and H. Hussmann, “Eyespot: Leveraging gaze to protect private text content on mobile devices from shoulder surfing,” Multimodal Technologies and Interaction , vol. 2, no. 3, p. 45, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Enhancing mobile content privacy with proxemics aware notifications and protection,

    H. Zhou, K. Tearo, A. Waje, E. Alghamdi, T. Alves, V . Ferreira, K. Hawkey, and D. Reilly, “Enhancing mobile content privacy with proxemics aware notifications and protection,” in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pp. 1362–1373, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Is anyone looking? mitigating shoulder surfing on public displays through awareness and protection,

    F. Brudy, D. Ledo, S. Greenberg, and A. Butz, “Is anyone looking? mitigating shoulder surfing on public displays through awareness and protection,” in Proceedings of The International Symposium on Pervasive Displays, pp. 1–6, 2014

    2014

  12. [20]

    Shoulder surfing,

    G. Scholar, “Shoulder surfing,” 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Smartphones in the uk,

    Statista, “Smartphones in the uk,” 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Snooping on mobile phones: Prevalence and trends,

    D. Marques, I. Muslukhov, T. Guerreiro, L. Carric ¸o, and K. Beznosov, “Snooping on mobile phones: Prevalence and trends,” in Twelfth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2016) , pp. 159– 174, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Swipin: Fast and secure pin-entry on smartphones,

    E. V on Zezschwitz, A. De Luca, B. Brunkow, and H. Hussmann, “Swipin: Fast and secure pin-entry on smartphones,” in Proceedings of the 33rd annual acm conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 1403–1406, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    Colorsnakes: Using colored decoys to secure authentica- tion in sensitive contexts,

    J. Gugenheimer, A. De Luca, H. Hess, S. Karg, D. Wolf, and E. Rukzio, “Colorsnakes: Using colored decoys to secure authentica- tion in sensitive contexts,” in Proceedings of the 17th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services, pp. 2...

    2015

  17. [25]

    Increasing the security of gaze- based cued-recall graphical passwords using saliency masks,

    A. Bulling, F. Alt, and A. Schmidt, “Increasing the security of gaze- based cued-recall graphical passwords using saliency masks,” in Pro- ceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 3011–3020, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    Now you see me, now you don’t: protecting smartphone authentication from shoulder surfers,

    A. De Luca, M. Harbach, E. von Zezschwitz, M.-E. Maurer, B. E. Slawik, H. Hussmann, and M. Smith, “Now you see me, now you don’t: protecting smartphone authentication from shoulder surfers,” in Proceedings of the sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 293...

    2014

  19. [27]

    Graphical passwords in the wild: Understanding how users choose pictures and passwords in image-based authentication schemes,

    F. Alt, S. Schneegass, A. S. Shirazi, M. Hassib, and A. Bulling, “Graphical passwords in the wild: Understanding how users choose pictures and passwords in image-based authentication schemes,” in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human- Computer Interaction w...

    2015

  20. [28]

    Biometric authentication on iphone and android: Usability, perceptions, and influences on adoption,

    R. Bhagavatula, B. Ur, K. Iacovino, S. M. Kywe, L. F. Cranor, and M. Savvides, “Biometric authentication on iphone and android: Usability, perceptions, and influences on adoption,” 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    Eyemove-towards mobile authentication using eog glasses,

    K. Ragozin, K. Marky, J. Lu, and K. Kunze, “Eyemove-towards mobile authentication using eog glasses,” in Augmented Humans 2022, pp. 10–14, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Understanding bystanders’ tendency to shoulder surf smartphones using 360-degree videos in virtual reality,

    A. Saad, J. Liebers, U. Gruenefeld, F. Alt, and S. Schneegass, “Understanding bystanders’ tendency to shoulder surf smartphones using 360-degree videos in virtual reality,” in Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction , pp. 1–8, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    It’s a hard lock life: A field study of smartphone (un) locking behavior and risk perception,

    M. Harbach, E. V on Zezschwitz, A. Fichtner, A. De Luca, and M. Smith, “It’s a hard lock life: A field study of smartphone (un) locking behavior and risk perception,” in 10th Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security ( {SOUPS} 2014), pp. 213–230, 2014

    2014

  24. [32]

    A world full of privacy and security (mis) conceptions? findings of a representative survey in 12 countries,

    F. Herbert, S. Becker, L. Schaewitz, J. Hielscher, M. Kowalewski, A. Sasse, Y . Acar, and M. D ¨urmuth, “A world full of privacy and security (mis) conceptions? findings of a representative survey in 12 countries,” in Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in ...

    2023

  25. [33]

    “i’m not a mil- lionaire

    M. Lutaaya, K. Baig, S. Maqsood, and S. Chiasson, ““i’m not a mil- lionaire”: How users’ online behaviours and offline behaviours impact their privacy,” in Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pp. 1–7, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Evaluating attack and defense strategies for smartphone pin shoulder surfing,

    H. Khan, U. Hengartner, and D. V ogel, “Evaluating attack and defense strategies for smartphone pin shoulder surfing,” in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pp. 1–10, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    What about my privacy, habibi? understanding privacy concerns and perceptions of users from differ- ent socioeconomic groups in the arab world,

    M. Saleh, M. Khamis, and C. Sturm, “What about my privacy, habibi? understanding privacy concerns and perceptions of users from differ- ent socioeconomic groups in the arab world,” in Human-Computer Interaction–INTERACT 2019: 17th IFIP TC 13 International Con- ference, Paphos,...

    2019

  28. [36]

    You can’t watch this! privacy-respectful photo browsing on smart- phones,

    E. von Zezschwitz, S. Ebbinghaus, H. Hussmann, and A. De Luca, “You can’t watch this! privacy-respectful photo browsing on smart- phones,” in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pp. 4320–4324, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    {Eye-Shield}:{Real-Time} protection of mobile device screen information from shoulder surfing,

    B. J. Tang and K. G. Shin, “ {Eye-Shield}:{Real-Time} protection of mobile device screen information from shoulder surfing,” in 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23) , pp. 5449–5466, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Blur vs. block: Investigating the effectiveness of privacy-enhancing obfuscation for images,

    N. Vishwamitra, B. Knijnenburg, H. Hu, Y . P. Kelly Caine, et al. , “Blur vs. block: Investigating the effectiveness of privacy-enhancing obfuscation for images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops , pp. 39–47, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    Don’t peek at my chart: Privacy- preserving visualization for mobile devices,

    S. Zhang, D. Ma, and Y . Wang, “Don’t peek at my chart: Privacy- preserving visualization for mobile devices,” in Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 42, pp. 137–148, Wiley Online Library, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Smart privacy-preserving screen based on multiple sensor fusion,

    S. Lian, W. Hu, X. Song, and Z. Liu, “Smart privacy-preserving screen based on multiple sensor fusion,” IEEE Transactions on Con- sumer Electronics, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 136–143, 2013

    2013

  33. [41]

    Balancing image privacy and usability with thumbnail-preserving encryption.,

    K. Tajik, A. Gunasekaran, R. Dutta, B. Ellis, R. B. Bobba, M. Ro- sulek, C. V . Wright, and W.-c. Feng, “Balancing image privacy and usability with thumbnail-preserving encryption.,” IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch., vol. 2019, p. 295, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Prolific — online participant recruitment for surveys and market research,

    Prolific, “Prolific — online participant recruitment for surveys and market research,” 2024. Retrieved May 28, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Qualtrics - leading experience management and survey software,

    Qualtrics, “Qualtrics - leading experience management and survey software,” 2024. Retrieved February 11, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Do you need to touch? exploring correlations between personal attributes and preferences for tangible privacy mechanisms,

    S. Delgado Rodriguez, P. Chatterjee, A. Dao Phuong, F. Alt, and K. Marky, “Do you need to touch? exploring correlations between personal attributes and preferences for tangible privacy mechanisms,” in Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems, p...

    2024

  37. [45]

    Using experience sampling methods/ecological momentary assessment (esm/ema) in clinical as- sessment and clinical research: introduction to the special section.,

    T. J. Trull and U. W. Ebner-Priemer, “Using experience sampling methods/ecological momentary assessment (esm/ema) in clinical as- sessment and clinical research: introduction to the special section.,” 2009

    2009

  38. [46]

    Local standards for sample size at chi,

    K. Caine, “Local standards for sample size at chi,” in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems , pp. 981–992, 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    Qualitative content analysis,

    P. Mayring et al. , “Qualitative content analysis,” A companion to qualitative research, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 159–176, 2004

    2004

  40. [48]

    Committed to trust: A qualitative study on security & trust in open source software projects,

    D. Wermke, N. W ¨ohler, J. H. Klemmer, M. Fourn ´e, Y . Acar, and S. Fahl, “Committed to trust: A qualitative study on security & trust in open source software projects,” in 2022 IEEE symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) , pp. 1880–1896, IEEE, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    A different cup of {TI}? the added value of com- mercial threat intelligence,

    X. Bouwman, H. Griffioen, J. Egbers, C. Doerr, B. Klievink, and M. Van Eeten, “A different cup of {TI}? the added value of com- mercial threat intelligence,” in 29th USENIX security symposium (USENIX security 20) , pp. 433–450, 2020

    2020

  42. [50]

    Reliability and inter- rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for cscw and hci practice,

    N. McDonald, S. Schoenebeck, and A. Forte, “Reliability and inter- rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for cscw and hci practice,” Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction, vol. 3, no. CSCW, pp. 1–23, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Using computer,

    D. Saenz, “Using computer,” 2024. Retrieved August 11, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Abstract,

    S. Salazar, “Abstract,” 2024. Retrieved August 11, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    Canva, “Canva,” 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Examining the adoption and abandonment of security, privacy, and identity theft protection practices,

    Y . Zou, K. Roundy, A. Tamersoy, S. Shintre, J. Roturier, and F. Schaub, “Examining the adoption and abandonment of security, privacy, and identity theft protection practices,” in Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pp. 1–15, 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    Koala hero toolkit: A new approach to inform families of mobile datafication risks,

    G. Wang, J. Zhao, K. Kollnig, A. Zier, B. Duron, Z. Zhang, M. Van Kleek, and N. Shadbolt, “Koala hero toolkit: A new approach to inform families of mobile datafication risks,” in Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pp. 1–18, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    Uncovering privacy and security challenges in k- 12 schools,

    J. Chanenson, B. Sloane, N. Rajan, A. Morril, J. Chee, D. Y . Huang, and M. Chetty, “Uncovering privacy and security challenges in k- 12 schools,” in Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pp. 1–28, 2023

    2023

  49. [57]

    Informing age- appropriate ai: Examining principles and practices of ai for children,

    G. Wang, J. Zhao, M. Van Kleek, and N. Shadbolt, “Informing age- appropriate ai: Examining principles and practices of ai for children,” in Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–29, 2022

    2022

  50. [58]

    Exploring the perspectives of social vr-aware non-parent adults and parents on children’s use of social virtual reality,

    C. Fiani, P. Saeghe, M. McGill, and M. Khamis, “Exploring the perspectives of social vr-aware non-parent adults and parents on children’s use of social virtual reality,” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 8, no. CSCW1, pp. 1–25, 2024

    2024

  51. [59]

    What does your gaze reveal about you? on the privacy implications of eye tracking,

    J. L. Kr ¨oger, O. H.-M. Lutz, and F. M ¨uller, “What does your gaze reveal about you? on the privacy implications of eye tracking,” inIFIP International Summer School on Privacy and Identity Management , pp. 226–241, Springer, 2020

    2020

  52. [60]

    The role of eye gaze in security and privacy applications: Survey and future hci research directions,

    C. Katsini, Y . Abdrabou, G. E. Raptis, M. Khamis, and F. Alt, “The role of eye gaze in security and privacy applications: Survey and future hci research directions,” in Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–21, 2020

    2020

  53. [61]

    Teaching middle schoolers about the privacy threats of tracking and pervasive person- alization: A classroom intervention using design-based research,

    S. Khan, M. Iqbal, O. Osho, K. Singh, K. Derrick, P. Nelson, L. Li, E. Sidnam-Mauch, N. Bannister, K. Caine, et al., “Teaching middle schoolers about the privacy threats of tracking and pervasive person- alization: A classroom intervention using design-based research,” in Proc...

    2024

  54. [62]

    ” i know i’m being observed:

    G. Smith, S. Carson, R. G. Vengurlekar, S. Morales, Y .-C. Tsai, R. George, J. Bedwell, T. Jones, M. Mondal, B. Smith, et al. , “” i know i’m being observed:” video interventions to educate users about targeted advertising on facebook,” in Proceedings of the CHI Conference on ...

    2024

  55. [63]

    A study on designing video tutorials for promoting security features: A case study in the context of two-factor authentication (2fa),

    Y . Albayram, M. M. H. Khan, and M. Fagan, “A study on designing video tutorials for promoting security features: A case study in the context of two-factor authentication (2fa),” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 927–942, 2017

    2017

  56. [64]

    Targeted risk communication for computer security,

    J. Blythe, J. Camp, and V . Garg, “Targeted risk communication for computer security,” in Proceedings of the 16th international confer- ence on Intelligent user interfaces , pp. 295–298, 2011

    2011

  57. [65]

    Smart storytelling: Video and text risk communication to increase mfa acceptability,

    S. Das, S. Mare, and L. J. Camp, “Smart storytelling: Video and text risk communication to increase mfa acceptability,” in 2020 IEEE 6th International Conference on Collaboration and Internet Computing (CIC), pp. 153–160, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  58. [66]

    Charging me and i know your secrets! towards juice filming attacks on smartphones,

    W. Meng, W. H. Lee, S. Murali, and S. Krishnan, “Charging me and i know your secrets! towards juice filming attacks on smartphones,” in Proceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on Cyber-Physical System Security, pp. 89–98, 2015

    2015

  59. [67]

    Boosting the guessing attack performance on android lock patterns with smudge attacks,

    S. Cha, S. Kwag, H. Kim, and J. H. Huh, “Boosting the guessing attack performance on android lock patterns with smudge attacks,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Asia conference on computer and communications security, pp. 313–326, 2017

    2017

  60. [68]

    ispy: automatic reconstruction of typed input from compro- mising reflections,

    R. Raguram, A. M. White, D. Goswami, F. Monrose, and J.-M. Frahm, “ispy: automatic reconstruction of typed input from compro- mising reflections,” in Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Computer and communications security , pp. 527–536, 2011

    2011

  61. [69]

    Find me a safe zone: A countermeasure for channel state information based attacks,

    J. Zhang, Z. Tang, M. Li, D. Fang, X. Chen, and Z. Wang, “Find me a safe zone: A countermeasure for channel state information based attacks,” Computers & Security , vol. 80, pp. 273–290, 2019

    2019

  62. [70]

    Look behind you: the dangers of shoulder surfing,

    W. Goucher, “Look behind you: the dangers of shoulder surfing,” Computer Fraud & Security , vol. 2011, no. 11, pp. 17–20, 2011

    2011

  63. [71]

    Stay cool! understanding thermal attacks on mobile-based user authentication,

    Y . Abdelrahman, M. Khamis, S. Schneegass, and F. Alt, “Stay cool! understanding thermal attacks on mobile-based user authentication,” in Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3751–3763, 2017

    2017

  64. [72]

    Are thermal attacks a realistic threat? investigating the preconditions of thermal attacks in users’ daily lives,

    P. Bekaert, N. Alotaibi, F. Mathis, N. Gerber, A. C. Rafferty, M. Khamis, and K. Marky, “Are thermal attacks a realistic threat? investigating the preconditions of thermal attacks in users’ daily lives,” in Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Conference , pp. 1–9, 2022

    2022

  65. [73]

    Change policy or users? mitigating the security risks of thermal attacks,

    S. A. Macdonald, H. Farzand, N. Alotaibi, M. S. Islam, and M. Khamis, “Change policy or users? mitigating the security risks of thermal attacks,” 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.