Skip to main content

Balancing Trust and Privacy in Computer-Mediated Introduction: Featuring Risk as a Determinant for Trustworthiness Requirements Elicitation

Angela Borchert ; Nicolás Díaz Ferreyra ; Maritta Heisel (2020) — Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES 2020)

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
Unavailable
Average per calendar year
Citation count unavailable

Counts reflect Google Scholar’s coverage and do not measure research quality. Source, calculation and limitations

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1145/3407023.3409208 (opens in a new tab)

Tags:   Computer Mediated Introduction, Conflicting Requirements, Identity Theft, Online Dating, Requirements Elicitation, Risk Assessment, Romance Scams, Trust And Privacy
What do these research terms mean?
Preprint
A manuscript shared before formal peer review and publication. Check whether a later published version is available.
Dataset
A collection of data or examples for others to inspect or reuse. It can appear in Library search and topic mapping, but RSRC does not use dataset records as evidence in Research Insights.
Dissertation or thesis
Research submitted for an academic degree. This describes its format, not its reliability.
Journal article
An article published in a journal. This label alone does not establish peer review, study quality, or how well the findings apply elsewhere.
Qualitative research
Examines experiences, meanings, or processes, often through interviews or observations. It can explain how something happens without estimating how common it is.
Quantitative research
Uses numerical measurements to describe patterns or test relationships. A relationship between two measurements does not by itself show that one causes the other.
Systematic review
Uses a planned, documented method to find and assess research addressing a question. Its conclusions still depend on the included studies and what the search covered.
Meta-analysis
Statistically combines results from multiple studies. Combining studies does not remove weaknesses in their design or make unlike populations interchangeable.
Not classified
This record has no recognized label in this filter. It does not mean the publication used no method, or that no research exists.

Definitions draw on DataCite resource types; Cochrane review methods; NLM: association and causation. RSRC’s dataset and classification rules are explained in our methodology.

Citation tools
Download RIS Download BibTeX 


              
              

            

          

        


      

      

    

        
Transparency

        
Evidence and review status

        
This page contains AI-generated content. No human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

    


    

                    

                
Source basis

                

                    Downloaded PDF
                

            

                    

                
Source updates

                

                    Unresolved
                

            

                    

                
AI-generated page content

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Automated checks

                

                    Passed
                

            

                    

                
Administrative approval

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Human content review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

                    

                
Subject-matter-expert review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

            


    

        
            How this was prepared
        
        

                            

                    
Source basis

                    

                    
RSRC downloaded and privately stored a copy of the paper for internal analysis. The PDF is not offered to viewers from this page.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    PDF added to RSRC:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Source updates

                    

                    
The latest source-status check did not establish whether an incoming update notice exists. Missing metadata or provider access does not establish source validity.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Last source-status attempt:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
AI-generated page content

                    

                    
AI-generated research notes displayed on this page: Synopsis, Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Document analysis recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Synopsis generation recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Page record updated:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Automated checks

                    

                    
The current, source-bound synopsis passed the recorded versioned publication checks.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Checks completed:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                            

                            
                                View passed checks (3)
                            
                            
    
                                                                    
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
    • 
                                                                    
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
    • 
                                                                    
  • English-source lexical grounding check
    • 
                                                            

                        

                                        

                

                            

                    
Administrative approval

                    

                    
An authenticated administrator approved the bibliographic record for public Library display. This is not a review of every research claim.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Approved for public display:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Human content review

                    

                    
No human review is recorded for the AI-generated content displayed on this page.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Subject-matter-expert review

                    

                    
RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.


                    
                                        

                

                    

    


    

        Review-state definitions

        Found a possible error?
        Request a correction.
    



    



              

        
                  

            
Synopsis

            
This publication presents a conceptual extension to an existing method for eliciting trust-related software features in computer-mediated introductions (CMI), by treating risk as a determinant in prioritizing conflicting requirements. The authors aim to help software engineers manage trade-offs between trust-building through self-disclosure and privacy protection within CMI contexts such as online dating. The central premise is that incorporating risk knowledge into the elicitation process can improve trustworthiness assessments and guide feature development to reduce unwanted incidents. The approach builds on prior work that links trust concerns, cues, and workarounds to trustworthiness goals and facets. The extension adds a formal risk assessment (aligned with ISO 31000) that identifies, analyzes, and evaluates risks associated with trust concerns, and then ties these risks to trustworthiness goals, facets, and resulting software features. The method distinguishes hard conflicts (inconsistent requirements that cannot be implemented together) from soft conflicts (goal- or risk-related tensions that can be reconciled with refinements). The authors describe how risk scores, acceptance levels, and a risk matrix inform prioritization of goals and the subsequent elicitation of trust-related requirements and features. An online dating example illustrates how data disclosure, authenticity checks, and data minimization interact with risk considerations to shape design choices. The paper discusses related risk-management approaches (e.g., CORAS, ProCOR) and argues that their method uniquely integrates trust concerns with risk-based conflict resolution in a CMI setting. Limitations acknowledged include the need for further elaboration, empirical validation, and supportive tooling, with future work proposing usability testing, quantitative evaluation, and refinement of process steps to enhance practical applicability for multiple engineering teams.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The conceptual method has not yet been empirically evaluated, and its resulting software features are unproven. The authors identify a need for more specific process guidance, tools for using risk knowledge, and ethical safeguards against self-serving requirement refinement. They also note that conflicts between software features in the solution space may reveal conflicts missed during requirements elicitation.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
This paper proposes a conceptual, stepwise requirements-elicitation method for computer-mediated introduction systems. It extends an existing trust-related feature elicitation method with ISO 31000-style risk assessment. Engineers identify user trust concerns, associated risks, trustworthiness goals, requirements, and conflicts; assess likelihood and severity; prioritize goals; refine unacceptable requirements; and resolve hard or soft conflicts. Online-dating examples illustrate the procedure.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The paper presents a conceptual guideline rather than a validated intervention. Its examples rely on abbreviated and illustrative risk assessments; the authors state that a larger-scale assessment and detailed goal identification are beyond the paper's scope. Risk-data accessibility can complicate assessment, and the proposed features have not been proven to support users' trustworthiness assessments.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Refine each method step with supportive tools and additional process specifications. Evaluate the method, its outputs, and its trustworthiness framework through quantitative and qualitative research and usability tests. Apply it through multiple engineering teams developing an exemplary online-dating application and interview them about the procedure. Develop ethical guidelines for refining conflicting requirements and goals. Analyze conflicts among software features in the solution space as validation.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

            See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.