Towards understanding user perceptions of authentication technologies

ABSTRACT

Digital identities are increasingly being used to facilitate the execution of transactions in various domains. When developing and analyzing digital identity technologies, it is important to consider the perceptions and responses of end users. Users are typically concerned about privacy and security, but do not necessarily understand how these issues are impacted by the use of digital identities. In this paper, we discuss preliminary results of a survey regarding authentication technologies used to generate digital identities. Most respondents were unfamiliar with a majority of the technologies in question (e.g. hand geometry scans), and expressed uncertainty about their use. Perceptions were more positive for the use of authentication technologies in the financial domain, and more negative for their use in the retail domain. The results may inform the design of future systems.

REFERENCES

• 1: Antón, A. I. and J. Earp. Strategies for Developing Policies and Requirements for Secure E-Commerce Systems. Recent Advances in E-Commerce Security and Privacy, ed. by A. K. Ghosh, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 29--46, 2001.
• 2: Annie I. Antón , Colin Potts, Functional Paleontology: The Evolution of User-Visible System Services, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.29 n.2, p.151-166, February 2003 [doi>10.1109/TSE.2003.1178053]
• 3: Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Tracking Public Perceptions of Biometrics, 2003. Accessed April 13, 2007 at http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/press/03/poll-biometrics-e.pdf.
• 4: Deane, F., K. Barrelle, R. Henderson and D. Mahar. Perceived acceptability of biometric security systems. Computers & Security Volume 14, pp. 225--231, 1995.
• 5: Earp, J. B., A. I. Antón, L. Aiman-Smith, and W. H. Stufflebeam. Examining Internet Privacy Policies Within the Context of User Privacy Values. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 52(2), pp. 227--237, 2005.
• 6: Furnell, S. and Evangelatos, K. Public awareness and perceptions of biometrics. Computer Fraud and Security , Volume 1, pp. 8--13, 2007.
• 7: Furnell, S. M., P. S. Dowland, H. M. Illingworth and P. L. Reynolds. Authentication and Supervision: A Survey of User Attitudes. Computers & Security, Volume 19, pp. 529--539, 2000.
• 8: Giesing, I. User perceptions related to identification through biometrics within electronic business. Master's thesis, University of Pretoria, 2003.
• 9: Green, N. A. Establishing Public Confidence in the Viability of Fingerprint Biometric Technology. Master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 2005.
• 10: James, T., T. Pirim, K. Boswell, B. Reithel and R. Barkhi. Determining the Intention to Use Biometric Devices: An Application and Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing Volume 18, pp. 1--24, 2006.
• 11: Magnuson, G. and P. Reid. Privacy and Identity Management Survey: Summary of Results and Findings. 2005, accessed February 12, 2007 at http://www.eds.com/services/whitepapers/downloads/privacy_survey.pdf.
• 12: Moody, J. Public Perceptions of Biometric Devices: The Effect of Misinformation on Acceptance and Use. Proceedings of the Informing Science and Information Technology Education Joint Conference, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia, 25--28 June 2004.
• 13: Nunnally, J. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill, 1978.
• 14: O'Gorman, L. Comparing Passwords, Tokens, and Biometrics for User Authentication. Proceedings of the IEEE Volume 91, pp. 2021--2040, 2003.
• 15: Perakslis, C. and R. Wolk. Social Acceptance of RFID as a Biometric Security Method. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Fall 2006, pp. 34--42.
• 16: Salil Prabhakar , Sharath Pankanti , Anil K. Jain, Biometric Recognition: Security and Privacy Concerns, IEEE Security and Privacy, v.1 n.2, p.33-42, March 2003 [doi>10.1109/MSECP.2003.1193209]
• 17: Christine Satchell , Graeme Shanks , Steve Howard , John Murphy, Beyond security: implications for the future of federated digital identity management systems, Proceedings of the 20th conference of the computer-human interaction special interest group (CHISIG) of Australia on Computer-human interaction: design: activities, artefacts and environments, November 20-24, 2006, Sydney, Australia [doi>10.1145/1228175.1228231]
• 18: Lee S. Strickland , Laura E. Hunt, Technology, security, and individual privacy: New tools, new threats, and new public perceptions: Research Articles, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v.56 n.3, p.221-234, February 2005 [doi>10.1002/asi.v56:3]
• 19: Vethman, A. J. RFID and consumers. Capgemini, March 1, 2005, accessed March 5, 2007 at http://www.capgemini.com/news/2005/Capgemini_European_RFID_report.pdf.
• 20: Woodward, J. D., K. W. Webb, E. M. Newton, M. Bradley and D. Rubenson. Army Biometric Applications. RAND Corporation, 2001.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.6 MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
      K.6.5 Security and Protection (D.4.6, K.4.2)
          Subjects: Authentication

Additional Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.0 GENERAL

General Terms:
Human Factors, Security

Keywords:
authentication, biometrics, digital identities, tokens, user perceptions