“Remind Me Later” in Mobile Security Notifications: What Factors Lead to Users’ Deferred Security Coping Behavior?

Smartphone users often find mobile security notifications (MSNs) to be annoying and intrusive. MSNs are security warnings displayed on mobile interfaces designed to protect mobile phone users from security attacks. Traditionally, users are forced to choose between “Yes” (“Accept”) or “No” (“Ignore” or “Deny”) decisions in response to MSNs. However, in practice, to make MSNs less intrusive, a new “Remind Me Later” button is often added to MSNs as a third option. Consequently, this “Remind Me Later” option causes new problems of deferred security coping behaviors. In other words, hesitant users do not take appropriate actions immediately when security threats take place. Grounding our theoretical basis on choice deferral and dual-task inference, we designed two experiments to understand the key factors affecting users’ deferred security coping decisions in a three-option MSN scenario (“Yes”, “No”, “Remind Me Later”), to determine which MSN message and design features facilitate immediate security coping

Safeguarding children and young people from sexual exploitation (consultation document)

"This guidance is designed to assist practitioners in preventing child sexual exploitation (CSE), protecting children and young people who are at risk of abuse or are abused through sexual exploitation, and disrupting and prosecuting those who perpetrate this form of abuse." - introduction

"My Children and I Will no Longer Suffer from Malaria": A Qualitative Study of the Acceptance and Rejection of Indoor Residual Spraying to Prevent Malaria in Tanzania.

The objective of this study was to identify attitudes and misconceptions related to acceptance or refusal of indoor residual spraying (IRS) in Tanzania for both the general population and among certain groups (e.g., farmers, fishermen, community leaders, and women). This study was a series of qualitative, semi-structured, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions conducted from October 2010 to March 2011 on Mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar. Three groups of participants were targeted: acceptors of IRS (those who have already had their homes sprayed), refusers (those whose communities have been sprayed, but refused to have their individual home sprayed), and those whose houses were about to be sprayed as part of IRS scale-up. Interviews were also conducted with farmers, fishermen, women, community leaders and members of non-government organizations responsible for community mobilization around IRS. Results showed refusers are a very small percentage of the population. They tend to be more knowledgeable people such as teachers, drivers, extension workers, and other civil servants who do not simply follow the orders of the local government or the sprayers, but are skeptical about the process until they see true results. Refusal took three forms: 1) refusing partially until thorough explanation is provided; 2) accepting spray to be done in a few rooms only; and 3) refusing outright. In most of the refusal interviews, refusers justified why their houses were not sprayed, often without admitting that they had refused. Reasons for refusal included initial ignorance about the reasons for IRS, uncertainty about its effectiveness, increased prevalence of other insects, potential physical side effects, odour, rumours about the chemical affecting fertility, embarrassment about moving poor quality possessions out of the house, and belief that the spray was politically motivated. To increase IRS acceptance, participants recommended more emphasis on providing thorough public education, ensuring the sprayers themselves are more knowledgeable about IRS, and asking that community leaders encourage participation by their constituents rather than threatening punishment for noncompliance. While there are several rumours and misconceptions concerning IRS in Tanzania, acceptance is very high and continues to increase as positive results become apparent

Digital Market Manipulation

In 1999, Jon Hanson and Douglas Kysar coined the term “market manipulation” to describe how companies exploit the cognitive limitations of consumers. For example, everything costs $9.99 because consumers see the price as closer to$9 than $10. Although widely cited by academics, the concept of market manipulation has had only a modest impact on consumer protection law. This Article demonstrates that the concept of market manipulation is descriptively and theoretically incomplete, and updates the framework of the theory to account for the realities of a marketplace that is mediated by technology. Today’s companies fastidiously study consumers and, increasingly, personalize every aspect of the consumer experience. Furthermore, rather than waiting for the consumer to approach the marketplace, companies can reach consumers anytime and anywhere. The result of these and related trends is that firms can not only take advantage of a general understanding of cognitive limitations, but can uncover, and even trigger, consumer frailty at an individual level. A new theory of digital market manipulation reveals the limits of consumer protection law and exposes concrete economic and privacy harms that regulators will be hard-pressed to ignore. This Article thus both meaningfully advances the behavioral law and economics literature and harnesses that literature to explore and address an impending sea change in the way firms use data to persuade

Beyond Prevention: The Role of Strategic Communications Across the Four Pillars of Counterterrorism Strategy

The rise to prominence of Daesh and its expert exploitation of extremist propaganda has brought in to focus the role of strategic communications in counterterrorism (CT) and countering violent extremism policy. Nonetheless, strategic communications tends to be discussed largely in relation to counter- recruitment and counter-radicalisation. Using the UK’s CT strategy as a case study, Andrew Glazzard and Alastair Reed argue that strategic communications has a far wider application in CT.Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository ‘You share, we take care!’ – Taverne project https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the Dutch legislation to make this work public.Ethics & Philosophy of Technolog

Opportunities for early intervention: bringing perpetrators of family violence into view

This report calls for earlier and more proactive intervention in family violence, arguing that while family violence has finally come to attention as a systemic wrong in need of a National Plan, a significant gap exists in our collective response. Executive summary This report turns the spotlight on perpetrators of family violence. In doing so, it calls for earlier and more proactive intervention - explaining that, while family violence has finally come to attention as a systemic wrong in need of a National Plan, a significant gap exists in our collective response. Equally, while victims of family violence must remain our priority, these victims will also remain at risk unless we step back and widen our gaze. In other words, until we adjust the lens and bring those who use violence and coercion more clearly into view - until we intervene at the source of the problem - the cycle of this violence will simply roll on. This may manifest in assaults against the same or subsequent partners, in the damaging effects we know are experienced by children, in the behaviour of  adolescents, or in the tragic escalation that can devastate an entire community. Either way, it will manifest as core business in our courts and as an ongoing drain on our economic and social wellbeing