Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding the Privacy Goal Intervenability

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Trust, Privacy and Security in Digital Business (TrustBus 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNSC,volume 9830))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Privacy is gaining more and more attention in society and hence, gains more importance as a software quality that has to be considered during software development. A privacy goal that has not yet been deeply studied is the empowerment of end-users to have control over how their personal data is processed by information systems. This privacy goal is called intervenability. Several surveys have shown that one of end-users’ main privacy concerns is the lack of intervenability options in information systems. In this paper, we refine the privacy goal intervenability into a software requirements taxonomy and relate it to a taxonomy of transparency requirements because transparency can be regarded as a prerequisite for intervenability. The combined taxonomy of intervenability and transparency requirements shall guide requirements engineers to identify the intervenability requirements relevant for the system they consider. We validated the completeness of our taxonomy by comparing it to the relevant literature that we derived based on a systematic literature review.

This work was partially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under grant No. GRK 2167, Research Training Group “User-Centered Social Media”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The draft of the EU data protection regulation was adopted with some changes on 27 April 2016 and entered into force on 24 May 2016. Note that our analysis is based on the draft and not on the final version of the regulation.

  2. 2.

    http://www.core.edu.au/conference-portal (accessed on 20 June 2016).

References

  1. GSMA: MOBILE PRIVACY: consumer research insights and considerations for policymakers, February 2014. http://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MOBILE_PRIVACY_Consumer_research_insights_and_considerations_for_policymakers-Final.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2016

  2. Symantec: State of Privacy Report 2015 (2015). https://www.symantec.com/content/en/us/about/presskits/b-state-of-privacy-report-2015.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2016

  3. Quah, A.M.Y., Röhm, U.: User awareness and policy compliance of data privacy in cloud computing. In: Proceedings of the First Australasian Web Conference, AWC 2013, vol. 144, pp. 3–12, Darlinghurst, Australia, Australian Computer Society, Inc. (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ackerman, M.S., Cranor, L.F., Reagle, J.: Privacy in e-Commerce: examining user scenarios and privacy preferences. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, EC 1999, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–8. ACM (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hansen, M.: Top 10 mistakes in system design from a privacy perspective and privacy protection goals. In: Camenisch, J., Crispo, B., Fischer-Hübner, S., Leenes, R., Russello, G. (eds.) Privacy and Identity Management for Life. IFIP AICT, vol. 375, pp. 14–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Meis, R., Wirtz, R., Heisel, M.: A taxonomy of requirements for the privacy goal transparency. In: Fischer-Hübner, S., Lambrinoudakis, C., López, J. (eds.) TrustBus 2015. LNCS, vol. 9264, pp. 195–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC 29100:2011 Information technology - Security techniques - Privacy Framework. Technical report, International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  8. European Commission: Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52012PC0011. Accessed 20 June 2016

  9. OECD: OECD guidelines on the protection of privacy and transborder flows of personal data. Technical report, Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  10. US Federal Trade Commission: Privacy online: Fair information practices in the electronic marketplace, a report to congress (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jalali, S., Wohlin, C.: Systematic literature studies: database searches vs. backward snowballing. In: Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2012, pp. 29–38. ACM (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bier, C.: How usage control and provenance tracking get together - a data protection perspective. In: IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), pp. 13–17, May 2013

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hoepman, J.: Privacy design strategies - (extended abstract). In: Cuppens-Boulahia, N., Cuppens, F., Jajodia, S., El Kalam, A.A., Sans, T. (eds.) ICT Systems Security and Privacy Protection. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol. 428, pp. 446–459. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Mouratidis, H., Islam, S., Kalloniatis, C., Gritzalis, S.: A framework to support selection of cloud providers based on security and privacy requirements. J. Syst. Softw. 86(9), 2276–2293 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Miyazaki, S., Mead, N., Zhan, J.: Computer-aided privacy requirements elicitation technique. In: IEEE Asia-Pacific Services Computing Conference (APSCC), pp. 367–372, December 2008

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kalloniatis, C., Mouratidis, H., Vassilis, M., Islam, S., Gritzalis, S., Kavakli, E.: Towards the design of secure and privacy-oriented information systems in the cloud: identifying the major concepts. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 36(4), 759–775 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kalloniatis, C.: Designing privacy-aware systems in the cloud. In: Fischer-Hübner, S., Lambrinoudakis, C., López, J. (eds.) TrustBus 2015. LNCS, vol. 9264, pp. 113–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Spiekermann, S., Cranor, L.: Engineering privacy. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(1), 67–82 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Makri, E.-L., Lambrinoudakis, C.: Privacy principles: towards a common privacy audit methodology. In: Fischer-Hübner, S., Lambrinoudakis, C., López, J. (eds.) TrustBus 2015. LNCS, vol. 9264, pp. 219–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Acquisti, A., Adjerid, I., Brandimarte, L.: Gone in 15 seconds: the limits of privacy transparency and control. IEEE Secur. Priv. 11(4), 72–74 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Masiello, B.: Deconstructing the privacy experience. IEEE Secur. Priv. 7(4), 68–70 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Krol, K., Preibusch, S.: Effortless privacy negotiations. IEEE Secur. Priv. 13(3), 88–91 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Deng, M., Wuyts, K., Scandariato, R., Preneel, B., Joosen, W.: A privacy threat analysis framework: supporting the elicitation and fulfillment of privacy requirements. RE 16, 3–32 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Komanduri, S., Shay, R., Norcie, G., Ur, B., Cranor, L.F.: Adchoices? compliance with online behavioral advertising notice and choice requirements. Technical report, CyLab - Carnegie Mellon University (2011). https://www.cylab.cmu.edu/files/pdfs/tech_reports/CMUCyLab11005.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2016

  25. Cranor, L.F.: Necessary but not sufficient: standardized mechanisms for privacy notice and choice. JTHTL 10(2), 273–308 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wicker, S., Schrader, D.: Privacy-aware design principles for information networks. Proc. IEEE 99(2), 330–350 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Strickland, L.S., Hunt, L.E.: Technology, security, and individual privacy: new tools, new threats, and new public perceptions: research articles. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 56(3), 221–234 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sheth, S., Kaiser, G., Maalej, W.: Us and them: a study of privacy requirements across North America, Asia, and Europe. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2014, pp. 859–870. ACM (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Fhom, H., Bayarou, K.: Towards a holistic privacy engineering approach for smart grid systems. In: IEEE 10th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom), pp. 234–241, November 2011

    Google Scholar 

  30. Antón, A.I., Earp, J.B., Reese, A.: Analyzing website privacy requirements using a privacy goal taxonomy. In: IEEE International Confernce on Requirements Engineering, pp. 23–31 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Antón, A.I.: Earp: a requirements taxonomy for reducing web site privacy vulnerabilities. Requirements Eng. 9(3), 169–185 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sype, Y.S.V.D., Seigneur, J.: Case study: legal requirements for the use of social login features for online reputation updates. In: Cho, Y., Shin, S.Y., Kim, S., Hung, C., Hong, J. (eds.) Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC, pp. 1698–1705. ACM (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Basso, T., Moraes, R., Jino, M., Vieira, M.: Requirements, design and evaluation of a privacy reference architecture for web applications and services. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1425–1432. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lobato, L., Fernandez, E., Zorzo, S.: Patterns to support the development of privacy policies. In: International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES), pp. 744–749, March 2009

    Google Scholar 

  35. Caron, X., Bosua, R., Maynard, S.B., Ahmad, A.: The internet of things (iot) and its impact on individual privacy: an Australian perspective. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 32(1), 4–15 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Borgesius, F.Z.: Informed consent: we can do better to defend privacy. IEEE Secur. Priv. 13(2), 103–107 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Breaux, T.: Privacy requirements in an age of increased sharing. IEEE Softw. 31(5), 24–27 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Langheinrich, M.: Privacy by design — principles of privacy-aware ubiquitous systems. In: Abowd, G.D., Brumitt, B., Shafer, S. (eds.) UbiComp 2001. LNCS, vol. 2201, pp. 273–291. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Feigenbaum, J., Freedman, M.J., Sander, T., Shostack, A.: Privacy engineering for digital rights management systems. In: Sander, T. (ed.) DRM 2001. LNCS, vol. 2320, pp. 76–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Wright, D., Raab, C.: Privacy principles, risks and harms. Int. Rev. Law, Comput. Technol. 28(3), 277–298 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Guarda, P., Zannone, N.: Towards the development of privacy-aware systems. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(2), 337–350 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hedbom, H.: A survey on transparency tools for enhancing privacy. In: Matyáš, V., Fischer-Hübner, S., Cvrček, D., Švenda, P. (eds.) The Future of Identity. IFIP AICT, vol. 298, pp. 67–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Smith, H.J., Dinev, T., Xu, H.: Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS Q. 35(4), 989–1016 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Meis, R., Heisel, M.: Computer-aided identification and validation of privacy requirements. Information 7(2), 28 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sabit, S.: Consideration of intervenability requirements in software development. Master thesis, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany, August 2015

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We thank Sylbie Sabit who provided a starting point for this research with her master thesis [45].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. paluno - The Ruhr Institute for Software Technology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Germany

    Rene Meis & Maritta Heisel

Authors
  1. Rene Meis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maritta Heisel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rene Meis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Norwegian University of Science and Technology , Gjøvik, Norway

    Sokratis Katsikas

  2. University of Piraeus , Piraeus, Greece

    Costas Lambrinoudakis

  3. Plymouth University , Plymouth, United Kingdom

    Steven Furnell

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Meis, R., Heisel, M. (2016). Understanding the Privacy Goal Intervenability. In: Katsikas, S., Lambrinoudakis, C., Furnell, S. (eds) Trust, Privacy and Security in Digital Business. TrustBus 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9830. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44341-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44341-6_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44340-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44341-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation