A Conundrum of Permissions: Installing Applications on an Android Smartphone

Abstract

Abstract. Each time a user installs an application on their Android phone they are presented with a full screen of information describing what access they will be granting that application. This information is intended to help them make two choices: whether or not they trust that the application will not damage the security of their device and whether or not they are willing to share their information with the application, developer, and partners in question. We performed a series of semi-structured interviews in two cities to determine whether people read and understand these permissions screens, and to better understand how people perceive the implications of these decisions. We find that the permissions displays are generally viewed and read, but not understood by Android users. Alarmingly, we find that people are unaware of the security risks associated with mobile apps and believe that app marketplaces test and reject applications. In sum, users are not currently well prepared to make informed privacy and security decisions around installing applications.

Linking Platforms, Practices, and Developer Ethics: Levers for Privacy Discourse in Mobile Application Development

“…However, consumers, firms, regulators, and ethicists may understand ''privacy'' differently. Privacy can be defined as variously as technical data protection measures (Kelley et al 2012); individual control over personal data (Westin 1970); appropriate data use in situated contexts (Nissenbaum 2009); or categories of harms to individuals and groups (Solove 2010). Mulligan et al (2016) describe privacy as an ''essentially contested concept,'' arguing that the definition of privacy depends upon situated practice, and that scholars must analyze how privacy is invoked and discussed across multiple contexts.…”

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

“…Some people believe that it is someone else's responsibility to ensure that apps respect their privacy [4] and consequently skip through the permissions interface without taking much notice. Finally, there is evidence that many rely heavily on star ratings, full text reviews or word of mouth when deciding whether to install an app or not [4], so when they see the interface they simply grant the permission without thinking about it.…”

“…Finally, there is evidence that many rely heavily on star ratings, full text reviews or word of mouth when deciding whether to install an app or not [4], so when they see the interface they simply grant the permission without thinking about it.…”

“…They also need to be informed enough to rely on the signal-bearing indicators in deciding whether to grant access or not. A number of researchers have concluded that this understanding is not necessarily a given [4,14,15,16]. Kelley et al [4], for example, declare the permission descriptions to be 'at best vague, and at worst confusing, misleading, jargon-filled, and poorly grouped' (p.78).…”

“…The fact that this decision has to be made post-installation is problematical since it requires post-commitment abandonment of a predefined course of action. These interfaces also tend to use overly technical jargon and complex wording [4].…”