Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 47 references

SoK: Privacy Personalised -- Mapping Personal Attributes \& Preferences of Privacy Mechanisms for Shoulder Surfing

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 Users prefer alert-style shoulder-surfing shields over screen filters, and privacy-minded, tech-savvy users want them personalised.

desk verdict Useful new survey data on shoulder-surfing protection preferences, but the ATI analysis in §6.6 has a self-contradictory statistical report that must be fixed before the headline claim can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18380 v1 pith:Z4JJZFOX submitted 2024-11-27 cs.HC

Habiba Farzand , Karola Marky , Mohamed Khamis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords shouldersurfingprivacypreferencesprotectionmechanismspersonalattributesout-of-deviceaffinityfortechnologysystematizationofknowledgeusablesecurity
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 maps what different kinds of people want from protections against shoulder surfing, the practice of bystanders reading a phone screen without permission. The authors systematise existing mechanisms into ten categories, show video prototypes to 192 UK participants, and find that people regard the mechanisms as privacy-protective but would rather fall back on non-digital moves such as covering the screen with a hand. Among the device-based options, an icon overlay that alerts the user to a bystander ranks first, followed by haptic, tangible, and screen-brightness mechanisms. The paper's key correlation claim is that people who care strongly about out-of-device privacy and people with high technology affinity favour personalised protection mechanisms, while age, gender, and smartphone operating system make no measurable difference. If these correlations hold, designers can tailor shoulder-surfing protections to user profiles and ship alert-style mechanisms as defaults.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the ten mechanism categories (display color change, screen brightness, selective visibility, distortion, blurry, replacement by protective text, replacement by meaningful text, physical tangible component, icon overlay, haptic, and combination) derived from the literature review, the video prototypes used to present them, the two validated scales called the Out-of-Device Privacy Scale and the Affinity for Technology Interaction scale, and the two-factor principal component solution separating Perceived Usefulness from Personalisation. The categorisation by information display makes comparable mechanisms that come from different papers, and Kendall's tau correlations tie the personal-attribute scales to the preference components. This machinery turns scattered prototypes into a single preference space.

What would settle it

A longitudinal field study that installs a shoulder-surfing protection app on participants' phones and logs whether icon-overlay alerts are actually kept and used, checking whether high out-of-device-privacy and technology-affinity scores predict those choices, would settle the claim; if adoption does not track the stated preferences or the correlations vanish, the central mapping fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a first empirical mapping between personal attributes and preferences for content-based shoulder-surfing protection. After a systematic literature review, the authors classified 27 mechanisms into ten categories by how information is presented on screen, and surveyed N=192 participants with video prototypes. Responses split into two components, which a principal component analysis names Perceived Usefulness and Personalisation. Out-of-device privacy concern correlated positively with both components, and affinity for technology interaction correlated positively with personalisation; no significant differences appeared for age, gender, or operating system. The authors conclude that protection mechanisms should be unobtrusive alerts available by default, and that designers can use privacy profiles to tailor them.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that people's Likert ratings and rankings of video prototypes reflect how they would actually behave with a real mechanism installed, even though the paper itself flags that a privacy paradox could separate stated preferences from real adoption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future shoulder-surfing protections will more likely succeed if they ship pre-installed, since participants said they would not go out of their way to install them.
  • Alert-style mechanisms (icon overlay, haptic, tangible) should be prioritised over content-obfuscation filters, because they were the only categories participants ranked favourably.
  • A user's out-of-device privacy score can flag who will value both usefulness and personalisation in a mechanism, enabling profile-based recommendations.
  • Tech-savvy users form a distinct segment that wants adjustable, customisable mechanisms even though they do not rate usefulness higher.
  • Age, gender, and smartphone operating system do not need to be design variables for these protections, simplifying the design space.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors stop at stated preferences; a step they leave implicit is that an adaptive privacy assistant could use out-of-device privacy and technology-affinity scores to recommend or configure mechanisms, provided real adoption data confirm the stated preferences.
  • The Euclidean distances between mechanism categories suggest several filter-style mechanisms are near-substitutes in users' minds, so designers might consolidate them; the paper does not test whether users would accept such consolidation in an actual choice.
  • Because participants preferred non-digital alternatives overall, the strongest practical competitor to any device mechanism may remain the simplest one, a hand or screen cover, and designs should complement that habit rather than try to replace it.
  • The UK-only, content-only scope leaves open whether the same attribute mapping holds for authentication shoulder surfing or in other cultures, which a direct replication survey could test.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. This SoK paper presents a systematic literature review that identifies ten categories of content-based shoulder surfing protection mechanisms, and then reports an online survey (N=192 UK participants) that measured users' perceptions of video prototypes of these mechanisms. The paper correlates personal attributes (age, gender, smartphone OS, out-of-device privacy scale (ODPS), and affinity for technology interaction (ATI)) with two components derived from the perception responses: Perceived Usefulness and Personalisation. The main claims are that users perceive the mechanisms as protective but prefer non-digital alternatives, that icon overlay is the most preferred mechanism, that ODPS correlates positively with both components (strongly with Personalisation, weakly with Perceived Usefulness), and that ATI correlates with Personalisation but not Perceived Usefulness. The paper concludes with design takeaways for future shoulder surfing protection mechanisms.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper contributes a structured taxonomy of shoulder surfing mechanisms and an initial empirical mapping of personal attributes to preferences, which is valuable for designing user-tailored privacy mechanisms. The use of an externally validated ODPS scale and video-based prototypes to improve participant comprehension are strengths. The ODPS correlations are clearly reported and large in effect size (τ = 0.549 and τ = 0.300), and the paper's acknowledgment of the privacy paradox limitation in Section 7.3 is appropriate. However, the ATI correlations in Section 6.6 are internally inconsistent in both direction and significance, and the effect sizes are small, which undermines one of the two personal-attribute correlations highlighted in the abstract. The paper's central design takeaways therefore require a corrected re-analysis of the ATI results.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.6] The ATI results are internally inconsistent. The text calls τ = 0.105 a 'strong positive correlation' between Personalisation and ATI, but a Kendall's tau of 0.105 is conventionally weak. It then reports 'a weak association was observed with Perceived Usefulness which was not found to be statistically significant (τ = .109, p = 0.032)', yet p = 0.032 is below the conventional 0.05 threshold. This contradicts the next sentence 'the ATI score does not impact Perceived Usefulness' and also contradicts the Introduction's claim that high-ATI users scored low on perceived usefulness. Because the abstract highlights ATI as a predictor of personalisation, the direction and significance of these correlations must be corrected and re-reported.
  2. [§6.6] No multiple-comparison correction is reported for the many Kendall's tau correlations computed (ODPS, ATI, age, gender, OS, each against Personalisation and Perceived Usefulness). With roughly ten correlations, a Bonferroni threshold would be about 0.005, which would make the ATI-personalisation p = 0.037 non-significant. The authors should report corrected p-values or explicitly justify why uncorrected tests are appropriate.
  3. [§6.5] The PCA factor scores for 'Perceived Usefulness' and 'Personalisation' are used in the correlations, but the paper does not state how the scores were computed (e.g., regression, Bartlett, or summed items) or whether the factor structure was stable across the ten mechanism categories. This information is needed to interpret the magnitude and reproducibility of the reported correlations with ODPS and ATI.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§5.1] The reference to the survey platform is missing: 'Qualtrics [ ?]' should be resolved to a proper citation or removed.
  2. [§6.5] 'Principle component analysis' should be 'Principal component analysis' throughout.
  3. [§6.6] In the ODPS results, 'τ = 0.300, = p < 0.001' contains an extraneous '='; it should read 'τ = 0.300, p < 0.001'.
  4. [§6.4] In the post hoc analysis, items (1) and (4) list the same comparisons for icon overlay; one of them is redundant and should be removed.
  5. [Table 5] The table displays empty cells in the Personalisation column and includes a statement highlighted as removed; the formatting should be cleaned to show the final factor loadings only.
  6. [§6.1] The exclusion threshold of 'less than half the average time' is arbitrary; a brief justification or sensitivity analysis would strengthen the reporting of data quality.
  7. [§7.2] In the bullet 'Increased Personalisation with Increased Affinity for Technology Interaction', the phrase 'technology-preferred mechanisms' is awkward and likely a typo; consider rephrasing to 'preferred mechanisms' or 'technology-oriented mechanisms'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported preferences are empirical correlations between externally validated instruments and survey-derived factors; no output is defined as its own input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: structured literature review -> mechanism categorisation -> online survey -> PCA of general perception items -> correlations with ODPS and ATI. None of these steps defines a predicted quantity as a fitted parameter. The PCA factors (Perceived Usefulness and Personalisation) are descriptive summaries of the current Likert items; they are not used to predict those same items, and the subsequent correlations use independent instruments. ODPS [30] is the authors' own scale, but the cited prior work is a scale-design-and-validation paper, not a result fitted to this sample; the paper also reports current Cronbach's alpha (0.918) as a reliability check. ATI [40] is an external published scale with alpha 0.891 here. The correlation results are therefore empirical findings, not constructions. Section 7.3's acknowledgement that 'running studies in the wild would also help to overcome the potential presence of privacy paradox in users' responses' is an honest external-validity limitation, and the Section 6.6 statistical reporting inconsistency (tau=0.105 called 'strong' while p=0.032 is called non-significant) is a correctness concern; neither makes the derivation circular. No equation forces a result to equal its input, so no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the validity of the ODPS scale (developed by the same authors), the accuracy of a subjective ten-category mechanism taxonomy, and the transferability of self-reported preferences to real behavior. No physical constants or fitted numerical targets are involved; PCA factor selection and data-quality thresholds are the main researcher degrees of freedom.

free parameters (2)
  • Number of PCA factors retained = 2
    A three-factor solution was rejected due to poor reliability; all correlations use the two retained components, Perceived Usefulness and Personalisation.
  • Minimum completion time for inclusion = Half the average completion time (about 12.5 minutes)
    Nine participants were removed for completing the survey too quickly; threshold chosen by the authors, not from an independent rule.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Out-of-Device Privacy Scale (ODPS) is a valid measure of users' importance for protecting information from out-of-device threats.
    ODPS is taken from prior work by the same authors [30]; current paper reports alpha=0.918 but does not revalidate predictive validity.
  • domain assumption Self-reported Likert ratings and rankings of video-based mechanism prototypes reflect real preferences and likely adoption.
    All outcomes are hypothetical; paper acknowledges a potential privacy paradox in Section 7.3.
  • domain assumption The ten mechanism categories derived from 27 extracted mechanisms are an accurate, non-overlapping representation of the design space.
    Categorization was done by one researcher and reviewed by two others; no inter-rater reliability metric reported (Section 4.1).
  • standard math Standard statistical assumptions for Kendall's tau and Friedman tests are met.
    Nonparametric tests used for ordinal Likert data; reasonable but not formally checked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SoK: Privacy Personalised -- Mapping Personal Attributes \& Preferences of Privacy Mechanisms for Shoulder Surfing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z4JJZFOX

@misc{pith2026241118380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SoK: Privacy Personalised -- Mapping Personal Attributes \& Preferences of Privacy Mechanisms for Shoulder Surfing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z4JJZFOX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18380}
}
read the original abstract

Shoulder surfing is a byproduct of smartphone use that enables bystanders to access personal information (such as text and photos) by making screen observations without consent. To mitigate this, several protection mechanisms have been proposed to protect user privacy. However, the mechanisms that users prefer remain unexplored. This paper explores correlations between personal attributes and properties of shoulder surfing protection mechanisms. For this, we first conducted a structured literature review and identified ten protection mechanism categories against content-based shoulder surfing. We then surveyed N=192 users and explored correlations between personal attributes and properties of shoulder surfing protection mechanisms. Our results show that users agreed that the presented mechanisms assisted in protecting their privacy, but they preferred non-digital alternatives. Among the mechanisms, participants mainly preferred an icon overlay mechanism followed by a tangible mechanism. We also found that users who prioritized out-of-device privacy and a high tendency to interact with technology favoured the personalisation of protection mechanisms. On the contrary, age and smartphone OS did not impact users' preference for perceived usefulness and personalisation of mechanisms. Based on the results, we present key takeaways to support the design of future protection mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18380 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Figure shows participants’ feedback on each protection mechanism category. Participants could select from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The figure shows the ranking of protection mechanism categories. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Global smartphone penetration rate as share of population from 2016 to 2023,

    Statista, “Global smartphone penetration rate as share of population from 2016 to 2023,” 2024

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Number of smartphone users in the uk 2020-2029,

    Statista, “Number of smartphone users in the uk 2020-2029,” 2024

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    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

  4. [4]

    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

    work page 2017

  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, pp. 1–24, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Gazetouchpin: protecting sensitive data on mobile devices using secure multimodal authentication,

    M. Khamis, M. Hassib, E. v. Zezschwitz, A. Bulling, and F. Alt, “Gazetouchpin: protecting sensitive data on mobile devices using secure multimodal authentication,” in Proceedings of the 19th acm international conference on multimodal interaction , pp. 446–450, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    I hate when people do this; there’sa lot of sensitive content for me

    H. Farzand, K. Marky, and M. Khamis, “I hate when people do this; there’sa lot of sensitive content for me”: A typology of perceived privacy-sensitive content in shoulder surfing scenarios,” in Proceed- ings of the Eighteenth USENIX Conference on Usable Privacy and Security. USENIX Association, USA , 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    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

    work page 2021

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    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

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    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

  4. [12]

    Cooper, R

    A. Cooper, R. Reimann, D. Cronin, and C. Noessel, About face: the essentials of interaction design . John Wiley & Sons, 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    Permission vs. app limiters: profiling smart- phone users to understand differing strategies for mobile privacy management,

    A. Alsoubai, R. Ghaiumy Anaraky, Y . Li, X. Page, B. Knijnenburg, and P. J. Wisniewski, “Permission vs. app limiters: profiling smart- phone users to understand differing strategies for mobile privacy management,” in Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in C...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Reconciling mobile app privacy and usability on smartphones: Could user privacy profiles help?,

    B. Liu, J. Lin, and N. Sadeh, “Reconciling mobile app privacy and usability on smartphones: Could user privacy profiles help?,” in Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web, pp. 201–212, 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Stangor and J

    C. Stangor and J. Walinga, Introduction to psychology . BCcampus, 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    A systematic literature review of empirical methods and risk representation in usable privacy and se- curity research,

    V . Distler, M. Fassl, H. Habib, K. Krombholz, G. Lenzini, C. Lalle- mand, L. F. Cranor, and V . Koenig, “A systematic literature review of empirical methods and risk representation in usable privacy and se- curity research,” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOC...

    2021

  9. [17]

    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

  10. [18]

    Cashtags: Protecting the input and display of sensitive data,

    M. Mitchell, A.-I. A. Wang, and P. Reiher, “Cashtags: Protecting the input and display of sensitive data,” in 24th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 15) , pp. 961–976, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    Privacy indexes: a survey of westin’s studies,

    P. Kumaraguru and L. F. Cranor, “Privacy indexes: a survey of westin’s studies,” 2005

    2005

  14. [22]

    Would a privacy fundamentalist sell their dna for $1000 nothing bad happened as a result? the westin categories, behavioral intentions, and consequences,

    A. Woodruff, V . Pihur, S. Consolvo, L. Brandimarte, and A. Acquisti, “Would a privacy fundamentalist sell their dna for $1000 nothing bad happened as a result? the westin categories, behavioral intentions, and consequences,” in 10th Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security (S...

    2014

  15. [23]

    Location disclosure to social relations: why, when, & what people want to share,

    S. Consolvo, I. E. Smith, T. Matthews, A. LaMarca, J. Tabert, and P. Powledge, “Location disclosure to social relations: why, when, & what people want to share,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems , pp. 81–90, 2005

    2005

  16. [24]

    Privacy personas: Clustering users via attitudes and behaviors toward security practices,

    J. L. Dupree, R. Devries, D. M. Berry, and E. Lank, “Privacy personas: Clustering users via attitudes and behaviors toward security practices,” in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pp. 5228–5239, 2016

    2016

  17. [25]

    Users’ expectations about and use of smartphone privacy and security settings,

    A. Frik, J. Kim, J. R. Sanchez, and J. Ma, “Users’ expectations about and use of smartphone privacy and security settings,” in Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys- tems, pp. 1–24, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Modeling {Users’} mobile app privacy preferences: Restoring usability in a sea of permission set- tings,

    J. Lin, B. Liu, N. Sadeh, and J. I. Hong, “Modeling {Users’} mobile app privacy preferences: Restoring usability in a sea of permission set- tings,” in 10th Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2014), pp. 199–212, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    Making privacy personal: Profiling social network users to inform privacy education and nudging,

    P. J. Wisniewski, B. P. Knijnenburg, and H. R. Lipford, “Making privacy personal: Profiling social network users to inform privacy education and nudging,” International Journal of human-computer studies, vol. 98, pp. 95–108, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Internet users’ informa- tion privacy concerns (iuipc): The construct, the scale, and a causal model,

    N. K. Malhotra, S. S. Kim, and J. Agarwal, “Internet users’ informa- tion privacy concerns (iuipc): The construct, the scale, and a causal model,” Information systems research , vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 336–355, 2004

    2004

  21. [29]

    A psychometric scale to measure individuals’ value of other people’s privacy (vopp),

    R. Hasan, R. Weil, R. Siegel, and K. Krombholz, “A psychometric scale to measure individuals’ value of other people’s privacy (vopp),” in Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–14, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Out-of-device privacy unveiled: Designing and validating the out-of-device privacy scale (odps),

    H. Farzand, K. Marky, and M. Khamis, “Out-of-device privacy unveiled: Designing and validating the out-of-device privacy scale (odps),” in Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–15, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Users are not the enemy,

    A. Adams and M. A. Sasse, “Users are not the enemy,” Communica- tions of the ACM , vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 40–46, 1999

    1999

  24. [32]

    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

  25. [33]

    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

  26. [34]

    Keep others from peeking at your mobile device screen!,

    C.-Y . Chen, B.-Y . Lin, J. Wang, and K. G. Shin, “Keep others from peeking at your mobile device screen!,” in The 25th Annual Interna- tional Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking , pp. 1–16, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    {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

  28. [36]

    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

  29. [37]

    Privacy protection against shoulder surfing in mobile environments,

    D. Darling, Y . Liu, and Q. Li, “Privacy protection against shoulder surfing in mobile environments,” in International Conference on Mo- bile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing, Networking, and Services , pp. 133–152, Springer, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    iscreen: A pure software-based screen privacy protection system for mobile devices,

    H. Lei, D. Wang, Z. Pan, Y . Zou, and K. Wu, “iscreen: A pure software-based screen privacy protection system for mobile devices,” in 2021 IEEE SmartWorld, Ubiquitous Intelligence & Computing, Advanced & Trusted Computing, Scalable Computing & Communi- cations, Internet of Peo...

    2021

  31. [39]

    Private reader: Using eye tracking to improve reading privacy in public spaces,

    K. Ragozin, Y . S. Pai, O. Augereau, K. Kise, J. Kerdels, and K. Kunze, “Private reader: Using eye tracking to improve reading privacy in public spaces,” in Proceedings of the 21st international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services, pp. 1–6, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    A personal resource for tech- nology interaction: development and validation of the affinity for technology interaction (ati) scale,

    T. Franke, C. Attig, and D. Wessel, “A personal resource for tech- nology interaction: development and validation of the affinity for technology interaction (ati) scale,” International Journal of Human– Computer Interaction, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 456–467, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Are iphones really better for privacy? a comparative study of ios and android apps,

    K. Kollnig, A. Shuba, R. Binns, M. Van Kleek, and N. Shadbolt, “Are iphones really better for privacy? a comparative study of ios and android apps,” Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies , 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Age differences in privacy attitudes, literacy and privacy management on facebook,

    M. Kezer, B. Sevi, Z. Cemalcilar, and L. Baruh, “Age differences in privacy attitudes, literacy and privacy management on facebook,” Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace , vol. 10, no. 1, 2016

    2016

  35. [43]

    Privacy? i can’t even! making a case for user- tailored privacy,

    B. P. Knijnenburg, “Privacy? i can’t even! making a case for user- tailored privacy,” IEEE Security & Privacy, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 62–67, 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    User-tailored privacy.,

    B. P. Knijnenburg, R. G. Anaraky, D. Wilkinson, M. Namara, Y . He, D. Cherry, and E. Ash, “User-tailored privacy.,” 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    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

  38. [46]

    Decide yourself or delegate- user preferences regarding the autonomy of personal privacy assistants in private iot-equipped environments,

    K. Marky, A. St ¨over, S. Prange, K. Bleck, P. Gerber, V . Zimmermann, F. M¨uller, F. Alt, and M. M ¨uhlh¨auser, “Decide yourself or delegate- user preferences regarding the autonomy of personal privacy assistants in private iot-equipped environments,” in Proceedings of the CH...

    2024

  39. [47]

    3d-auth: Two-factor authentication with personal- ized 3d-printed items,

    K. Marky, M. Schmitz, V . Zimmermann, M. Herbers, K. Kunze, and M. M ¨uhlh¨auser, “3d-auth: Two-factor authentication with personal- ized 3d-printed items,” in Proceedings of the 2020 chi conference on human factors in computing systems , pp. 1–12, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

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