eIDeCert: a user-centric solution for mobile identification

The necessity to certify one's identity for different purposes and the evolution of mobile technologies have led to the generation of electronic devices such as smart cards, and electronic identities designed to meet daily needs. Nevertheless, these mechanisms have a problem: they don't allow the user to set the scope of the information presented. That problem introduces interesting security and privacy challenges and requires the development of a new tool that supports user-centrity for the information being handled. This article presents eIDeCert, a tool for the management of electronic identities (eIDs) in a mobile environment with a user-centric approach. Taking advantage of existing eCert technology we will be able to solve a real problem. On the other hand, the application takes us to the boundary of what the technology can cope with: we will assess how close we are to the boundary, and we will present an idea of what the next step should be to enable us to reach the goal

The simpler, the better? Presenting the COPING Android permission-granting interface for better privacy-related decisions

One of the great innovations of the modern world is the Smartphone app. The sheer multitude of available apps attests to their popularity and general ability to satisfy our wants and needs. The flip side of the functionality these apps offer is their potential for privacy invasion. Apps can, if granted permission, gather a vast amount of very personal and sensitive information. App developers might exploit the combination of human propensities and the design of the Android permission-granting interface to gain permission to access more information than they really need. This compromises personal privacy. The fact that the Android is the globally dominant phone means widespread privacy invasion is a real concern. We, and other researchers, have proposed alternatives to the Android permission-granting interface. The aim of these alternatives is to highlight privacy considerations more effectively during app installation: to ensure that privacy becomes part of the decision-making process. We report here on a study with 344 participants that compared the impact of a number of permission-granting interface proposals, including our own (called the COPING interface — COmprehensive PermIssioN Granting) and two Android interfaces. To conduct the comparison we carried out an online study with a mixed-model design. Our main finding is that the focus in these interfaces ought to be on improving the quality of the provided information rather than merely simplifying the interface. The intuitive approach is to reduce and simplify information, but we discovered that this actually impairs the quality of the decision. Our recommendation is that further investigation is required in order to find the “sweet spot” where understandability and comprehensiveness are maximised

Comparing "challenge-based" and "code-based" internet voting verification implementations

Internet-enabled voting introduces an element of invisibility and unfamiliarity into the voting process, which makes it very different from traditional voting. Voters might be concerned about their vote being recorded correctly and included in the final tally. To mitigate mistrust, many Internet-enabled voting systems build verifiability into their systems. This allows voters to verify that their votes have been cast as intended, stored as cast and tallied as stored at the conclusion of the voting period. Verification implementations have not been universally successful, mostly due to voter difficulties using them. Here, we evaluate two cast as intended verification approaches in a lab study: (1) "Challenge-Based" and (2) "Code-Based". We assessed cast-as-intended vote verification efficacy, and identified usability issues related to verifying and/or vote casting. We also explored acceptance issues post-verification, to see whether our participants were willing to engage with Internet voting in a real election. Our study revealed the superiority of the code-based approach, in terms of ability to verify effectively. In terms of real-life Internet voting acceptance, convenience encourages acceptance, while security concerns and complexity might lead to rejection