Qualitative Analysis for Trust Management

Towards a Model of Photograph Sharing Indiscretion
  • Simon N. Foley
  • Vivien M. Rooney
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7028)


Grounded Theory provides a useful approach for eliciting and justifying subjective characteristics of individuals. A Grounded Theory analysis is carried out on individuals who share pictures, with a view to developing a trust management policy model of indiscretion regarding the sharing of photographs.


Trust Management Ground Theory Bayesian Belief Network Trust Negotiation Photograph Sharing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Adams, A., Sasse, M.A.: Users are not the enemy. Commun. ACM 42(12), 40–46 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker, M., Fournet, C., Gordon, A.: Design and semantics of a decentralized authorization language. In: 20th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium (January 2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blaze, M., Feigenbaum, J., Lacy, J.: Decentralized trust management. In: SP 1996: Symp. on Security and Privacy, p. 164. IEEE Computer Society (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breaux, T., Antón, A.: Analyzing regulatory rules for privacy and security requirements. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 34(1), 5–20 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    CCITT Draft Recommendation. The Directory Authentication Framework, Version 7 (November 1987)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charmaz, K.: Constructing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, London (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, D., Elien, J., Ellison, C., Fredette, M., Morcos, A., Rivest, R.L.: Certificate chain discovery in spki/sdsi. Journal of Computer Security 9(4), 285–322 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Daniel, B.K., Schwier, R.A.: A Bayesian belief network of a virtual learning community. International Journal of Web-Based Communities 3(2) (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dourish, P., Grinter, E., Delgado de la Flor, J., Joseph, M.: Security in the wild: user strategies for managing security as an everyday, practical problem. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 8(6), 391–401 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ellis, C., Bochner, A.P.: Composing ethnography, alternative forms of qualitative writing. Alta Mira Press, California (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flechais, I., Mascolo, C., Sasse, M.A.: Integrating security and usability into the requirements and design process. Int. J. Electron. Secur. Digit. Forensic 1(1), 12–26 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine, Chicago (1967)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hammersley, M.: The dilemma of qualitative method: Herbert Blumer and the Chicago tradition. Routledge (1989)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Howard, R.A., Matheson, J.E.: Influence diagrams. Decision Analysis 2(3) (September 2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., Boyd, C.: A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decis. Support Syst. 43(2), 618–644 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kvale, S.: InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage Publications, London (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li, J., Li, N., Winsborough, W.: Automated trust negotiation using cryptographic credentials. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (January 2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCarthy, J., Wright, P.: Technology as Experience. MIT Press (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McQueen, R.A., Knussen, C.: Research Methods in Psychology. Prentice Hall Europe, London (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Onabajo, A., Jahnke, J.H.: Properties of confidentiality requirements. In: 19th IEEE Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pacey, A.: Meaning in Technology. MIT Press, London (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Putnam, R.D., et al.: Making democracy work: Civic traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press (1993)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, M.A., McCarthy, J.D.: The mechanics of trust: A framework for research and design. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 62(3), 381–422 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seaman, C.B.: Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 25(4), 557–572 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stainton Rogers, R., et al.: Social Psychology: A Critical Agenda. Polity Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Uslaner, E.M.: The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wellman, M.P.: Fundamental concepts of qualitative probabilistic networks. Artificial Intelligence (44), 257–303 (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon N. Foley
    • 1
  • Vivien M. Rooney
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity CollegeCorkIreland
  2. 2.School of Applied PsychologyUniversity CollegeCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations