When Your Biggest Security and Privacy Threats Come From the Ones You Love

Research examines the risks and design challenges of accounting for privacy threats in intimate relationships.

As technology has become more ubiquitous in peoples everyday lives, a new class of privacy threats has emerged in family, romantic, friendship, and caregiving relationships. Dubbed intimate threats by a recent academic paper in the Journal of Cybersecurity, these are the thorny risks that are intertwined with issues around location tracking, always-on monitoring or recording, online surveillance, and the control over technology accounts or devices.
Written by Karen Levy, a lawyer and sociologist, and information security luminary Bruce Schneier,
the paper
examines how the dynamics of different intimate relationships break the security model in a lot of systems. It examines real-world examples of this in action and also provides some recommendations for technology designers and security professionals to start rethinking how they build products and think about threat models and security use cases.
The use of technology in intimate relationships can quickly turn dark with very little recourse from the victim because the product was never designed to account for abuse cases.
Facebook had a system for a while where youd get your account back because theyd show you pictures and youd click on the ones that are your friends, assuming that you know who they are but other people dont, Schneier says. But your partner and your parents all know that stuff too. So its a great system, but it fails in the intimate context. It fails when your boyfriend takes over your account.
While writing the paper, the authors quickly collected many illustrative examples of the abuse of technology not only having to do with covert monitoring, but also control over financial accounts or technology. For example, they pointed to the use of household-shared smart devices and thermostats increasingly being used by abusers and vengeful exes to wreak havoc on intimate partners daily lives.
The difficulty is that there are a lot of complicated dynamics - both ethical and technical - to account for when mitigating intimate threats, says Levy, who explains that she and Schneier spent a long time debating whether to even call them threats. They eventually chose to use that language because it is a common and useful way for the tech community to conceptualize these problems.
Its complicated because the motivations in the intimate context are often pretty complicated and not necessarily nefarious, she says.
For example, a teenager might be told by his or her parents that they can have a later curfew only if the parent can track where their phone is. Or a parent may set up a webcam with full knowledge from their nanny to be able to get a happy glimpse of their little one during a break in an otherwise hectic workday.
Theres lots of ways in which we use this in perfectly beneficent and socially negotiated ways to take care of one another, she says. And so that means that the line between this is okay and this isnt okay is going to be very variable, both within and across relationships.
To account for these complicated dynamics, the duo worked to break down some of the sociological dimensions to the issue, such as different motivations between both the user and the other affected parties, copresence, dynamic power-differential, and also the disparities in technical abilities between different people in a given relationship. They then cross-referenced these with some design recommendations across a number of different design implications.
Its certainly not a roadmap or a checklist or anything quite so definitive, but its a list of things to consider, Levy explains. So one of them is, when youre designing, assume that the person that is buying the product is not necessarily your only user and that you should think of the people who are subject to being monitored as potentially your users too.
The idea is to get the technology-design community thinking critically and remembering that these relationship dynamics are always going to be at play within the user base.
When youre designing systems, we really have to take these relationships into account, Schneier says. They are not the exceptions, they are normal. Its not something we can ignore.
Related Content:
Schneier on Hacking Society
Bluetooth Bug Enables Tracking on Windows 10, iOS & macOS Devices
Korean APT Adds Rare Bluetooth Device-Harvester Tool
8 Supply Chain Security Requirements

Learn from industry experts in a setting that is conducive to interaction and conversation about how to prepare for that really bad day in cybersecurity. Click for
more information and to register
.

Last News
▸ ArcSight prepares for future at user conference post HP acquisition. ◂ Discovered: 07/01/2025 Category: security	▸ Samsung Epic 4G: First To Use Media Hub ◂ Discovered: 07/01/2025 Category: security	▸ Many third-party software fails security tests ◂ Discovered: 07/01/2025 Category: security

**Cyber Security Categories**
Google Dorks Database	Exploits Vulnerability	Exploit Shellcodes

CVE List

Tools/Apps

News/Aarticles

Phishing Database

Deepfake Detection

Trends/Statistics & Live Infos

Tags:
When Your Biggest Security and Privacy Threats Come From the Ones You Love