Half-Tenure Review, UNM CS

In Fall 2014 I went through my half-tenure review with the University of New Mexico Computer Science Department. These slides are the talk I gave detailing my scholarly work, teaching, and service across my academic career. My half-tenure packet can be found here: patrickgagekelley.com/cv/

Transcript

1. Patrick Gage Kelley
   Half-tenure Review
   patrickgagekelley.com
   @patrickgage
   pgk@unm.edu
   

   View Slide

2. This talk was given in accordance with
   my mid-probationary, or as I like to
   call it: half-tenure, review at UNM.
   I apologize for the absence of my
   narration layer, without which much of
   the following may not be as useful.
   

   View Slide

3. Scholarly work
   

   View Slide

4. P R I VA C Y A N D S E C U R I T Y
   H C I , S P E C I F I C A L LY U S A B I L I T Y
   D E S I G N / N E W M E D I A A R T S
   when I came to UNM I said my interests were…
   

   View Slide

5. and this is what I am doing…
   

   View Slide

6. Today I will focus on…
   Social Network Site (SNS) Privacy
   • Strong focus on theory/methodology
   • Metrics to measure privacy
   • Leads to application in the state of New Mexico
   • It’s interesting!
   • You haven’t heard it all before
   

   View Slide

7. The privacy “paradox”
   

   View Slide

8. “Americans say they are
   deeply concerned about
   privacy on the web and
   their cellphones. They
   say they do not trust
   Internet companies or
   the government to
   protect it. Yet they keep
   using the services and
   handing over their
   personal information.
   That paradox is captured
   in a new survey by Pew
   Research Center.”
   http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/upshot/americans-say-they-want-privacy-but-act-as-if-they-dont.html
   

   View Slide

9. View Slide

10. The privacy “paradox”
    “American adults are concerned about how the government
    and corporations are centrally collecting data about citizens
    and consumers, teenagers are freely giving up personal and
    private information in online journals. Marketers, school
    officials, government agencies, and online predators can collect
    data about young people through online teenage diaries.
    Herein lies the privacy paradox. Adults are concerned about
    invasion of privacy, while teens freely give up personal
    information. This occurs because often teens are not aware of
    the public nature of the Internet.”
    – Susan B. Barnes, First Monday, 2006
    

    View Slide

11. The privacy “paradox” explanations:
    People don’t care about privacy
    they say they do but they don’t really
    People don’t know what the impacts of sharing are
    they say they want privacy, but just because they think
    they should, not because they really understand the risks
    People can’t use the controls
    they really do want privacy, but can’t use the tools to find
    the balance of sharing/protection they want
    

    View Slide

12. Understanding privacy behaviors
    To really understand if there is a paradox…
    How do we measure privacy failures?
    

    View Slide

13. Understanding privacy behaviors
    Pruning and revising profile content is an important
    part of teens’ online identity management.
    59% have deleted or edited something that they posted in the past.
    53% have deleted comments from others on their profile or account.
    45% have removed their name from photos that have been tagged to
    identify them.
    31% have deleted or deactivated an entire profile or account.
    19% have posted updates, comments, photos, or videos that they
    later regretted sharing.
    PewResearch, May 2013
    Teens, Social Media, and Privacy
    

    View Slide

14. Regret as one measure of privacy
    Investigated this through a large 

    scale study of Twitter users

    What states of being lead to regret?
    What types of regret occurred?
    How did people become aware of regretted messages?
    What repair strategies did people use to cope with regretted
    messages?
    “I read my Twitter the next morning and was astonished” 

    A Conversational Perspective on Twitter Regrets. CHI 2013
    

    View Slide

15. Study design
    Two conditions: Conversational Twitter
    Asked to “recall an occasion when” they said or tweeted
    something and then regretted it
    Participants described:
    • Regret
    • Circumstances leading to regret
    • How became aware of regret
    • Repair strategies
    

    View Slide

16. Study design
    Conducted study on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
    3,175 participants started the survey, 946 disqualified

    (609 for posting less than once a month on Twitter)
    1,879 participants, 601 could not recall regrets

    (456 for Twitter, 145 for conversation)
    Participants were paid $0.75 for completion
    Took 14.5 minutes on average
    

    View Slide

17. How do you ask about regret?
    Multiple different methods:
    The most regretted thing (life regrets)
    One regret probing for details (recency bias)
    Participants self report frequency
    (certain regrets might be more memorable, more
    frequently occurring, easier to report)
    

    View Slide

18. Types of regret
    Categories from Knapp, M. L., Stafford, L., and Daly, J. A. Regrettable messages:
    Things people wish they hadn’t said. Journal of Communication 36, 4 (1986), 40–58.
    Other
    Expressive
    Implied criticism
    Direct attack
    Blunder
    Reveal too much
    Direct criticism
    Percent of regrets
    0% 6% 12% 18% 24% 30%
    Twitter
    Conversation
    

    View Slide

19. Twitter regrets target multiple people
    Types significantly more likely to be targeted at
    multiple people:
    Blunders (82%)
    Expressive content (84%)
    Content that revealed too much (80%)
    Including unintended audiences (13% for Twitter,
    5% for conversational)
    

    View Slide

20. Repair strategies
    Percent  of  strategies
    0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
    Percent  of  strategies
    0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
    Delete
    Apologize
    Act like nothing happened
    Excuse
    Justify
    Say something to offset
    Deny
    Non-verbal behavior
    Other
    Twitter Conversation
    Percent of strategies
    

    View Slide

21. Twitter is different…
    Twitter participants tended to regret critical messages, often
    targeted at broad audiences
    Twitter participants became aware of regrets more slowly than
    conversational participants
    Twitter participants often relied on self-awareness or third-
    parties to tell them about regrets, absent physical audience cues
    Once aware of regrets, Twitter participants tended to delete the
    regretted tweet and/or apologize (though less than
    conversation)
    

    View Slide

22. So, if social networking sites are
    places for deleting embarrassing
    content, hiding drunk photos from
    employers, and generally putting one’s
    self into situations of regret, why are
    1.23 billion people on Facebook…
    I Would Like To..., I Shouldn’t..., I Wish I...: Exploring Behavior-Change
    Goals for Social Networking Sites. Forthcoming at CSCW 2015
    

    View Slide

23. Understanding privacy behaviors
    another way…
    by using behavior-change goals to explore how
    people view SNSs as impacting their lives, and by
    describing the range of goals participants have.
    

    View Slide

24. Finding a goal
    “the one thing you would most like to change about
    your behavior on” the SNS, which was referred to
    as their goal
    .
    Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting
    and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. Am. psychologist 57, 9 (2002), 705.
    

    View Slide

25. Fogg Behavior Change Model
    BJ Fogg's Behavior Model www.behaviormodel.org/
    

    View Slide

26. We coded the free responses about the goals
    using five sets of codes
    • the goals themselves
    • reasons for the goals
    • benefits of the goals
    • steps to reach the goals
    • facilitators and barriers for the goals
    

    View Slide

27. Types of goals
    Post more
    Post better
    Use more
    Use better
    Use less
    

    View Slide

28. Types of goals
    FB
    Instagram
    Twitter
    0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
    Post more
    Post better
    Use better
    Use more
    Use less
    

    View Slide

29. Reasons for goals
    Contact
    Time
    Intrinsic
    Attention
    Safety/security/privacy
    Self presentation
    Less bothering
    

    View Slide

30. Reasons for goals
    Attention
    Contact
    Intrinsic
    Less bothering
    Security/privacy
    Self presentation
    Time
    0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
    Post better
    Post more
    Use better
    Use more
    Use less
    

    View Slide

31. Importance and difficulty
    Attention
    Contact
    Intrinsic
    Less bothering
    Security/privacy
    Self presentation
    Time
    0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
    Agreement
    Disagreement or neutral
    0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
    Importance Difficulty
    

    View Slide

32. Barriers and facilitators
    Participants also described current habits as a challenge
    (91, 17% overall) for reducing SNS use (43), but also for
    posting more (22) or better (13).
    Described SNS as an “addiction” and how the behavior
    change was not part of what they currently do, for
    example: “I’m too comfortable in my routine.”
    Technology-related factors were also common, such as
    SNS features or general ease of use (66), or easy site access
    or high levels of activity (53), primarily for goals like
    posting or using the site more.
    

    View Slide

33. Overall, goals varied by SNS, demonstrating that
    participants may associate different potential benefits and
    negative consequences with different SNSs
    Examining these goals, facilitators, and barriers allows us
    to explore potential mechanisms for helping users achieve
    desired behavior changes
    Designers of SNS-behavior-change interventions should
    also consider the broader context. SNSs have business
    models that rely on holding user attention. This may be
    consistent with only some behavior-change goals
    

    View Slide

34. Seen as the second most important type of goal
    Only 23 users reported a goal that we coded as
    security and privacy as a main reason
    Of these 21 of them wanted to post or use the sites
    better, only 2 wanted to use the sites less.
    Security and privacy in context
    

    View Slide

35. Instagram and Twitter participants tended to believe
    they should use the sites better, or would generally
    benefit from more posting or use, for example: “I feel
    like I am not using Twitter as fully as I can.”
    Some participants felt a sense of responsibility to
    increase use or posting: “Others follow me and I
    don’t write anything” or “I might be missing
    important information by skipping over certain
    content.”
    Intention of use
    

    View Slide

36. “Herein lies the privacy paradox. Adults are concerned about
    invasion of privacy, while teens freely give up personal
    information. This occurs because often teens are not aware of
    the public nature of the Internet.”
    Back to the privacy paradox
    (the real one)
    

    View Slide

37. Teens and privacy (and race and class and gender)
    Our goal is to provide a deeper understanding of how privacy
    is conceived, implemented, and utilized by youth; how race,
    gender, and socioeconomic status impact this
    engagement, and to provide an initial response 

    to help teenagers develop technological competencies and
    better protect themselves within a dynamic digital
    environment.
    NSF Grant: Privacy’s Sociocultural Divide across American Youth

    co-PI, Myra Washington UNM Communication and Journalism
    

    View Slide

38. Teens and privacy (and race and class and gender)
    Goals
    • Empower teens— help teens develop solutions that allow
    their peers to feel they understand control their information
    • Educate, correct false impressions— we want to design a
    response that is able to combat digital myths and helps
    educate teens on a shifting privacy and security landscape
    • Leverage technological solutions— we intend to create a
    dynamic response, solutions that are not flat, but smart and
    personalized.
    

    View Slide

39. Teens and privacy (and race and class and gender)
    Interview Topics
    Technology understanding, expertise, and access
    Exposure to different technologies and platforms
    General privacy attitudes
    Privacy behaviors (settings, self-censorship, app use)
    Social pressures and norms
    Identity formation and maintenance
    Social-networking goals
    Sociocultural identity
    

    View Slide

40. Teens and privacy (and race and class and gender)
    Interview Topics
    Technology understanding, expertise, and access
    Exposure to different technologies and platforms
    General privacy attitudes
    Privacy behaviors (settings, self-censorship, app use)
    Social pressures and norms
    Identity formation and maintenance
    Social-networking goals
    Sociocultural identity
    exit.cs.unm.edu/immaculacy/
    

    View Slide

41. Students
    P H D S T U D E N T S ( C U R R E N T )
    Steven Garcia – Graphics, visualization
    Anand Paturi – Privacy, Android (not main advisor)
    M D S T U D E N T S ( C U R R E N T )
    Tomas Cordova – Electronic health records, usability
    M A S T E R S S T U D E N T S ( C U R R E N T )
    Aaron Gonzalez – Chat bots, news
    Ramon Lovato – Ethics education, case studies
    Nathan Rackley – Game development, illustration, prototyping
    April Suknot – Game development, privacy, HCI
    U N D E R G R A D U AT E S T U D E N T S ( C U R R E N T )
    Javier Chavez – Android permissions, web development
    Tim Chavez – Game development, scriptwriting
    Evan King – Entrepreneurship
    Chris Ottino – Facebook privacy, web development
    M A S T E R S S T U D E N T S ( C O M P L E T E )
    Amir Arbabshirani – Supervised work on Watchtower
    U N D E R G R A D U AT E S T U D E N T S ( C O M P L E T E )
    Fernando Serrano – Supervised project work on anonymity Currently: MS at UNM
    Julian Lucero – Supervised Thesis work on Synapse
    

    View Slide

42. Grants
    F U N D E D
    EAGER: Privacy's Sociocultural Divide across American Youth

    PI: Patrick Gage Kelley (Co-PI: Myra Washington)

    National Science Foundation, 10/01/2014 – 09/30/2016, $242,832
    Understanding Privacy in Medical Mobile Apps

    PI: Patrick Gage Kelley

    Google, Inc., unrestricted gift, October 2014, $38,746
    U N D E R R E V I E W
    Geospatial Privacy: Legal, Social and Ethical Implications for Users of Geocoded Data

    PI: John Carr (Co-PIs: Patrick Kelley, Shannon Vallor, Francis Harvey)

    National Science Foundation, $294,934 submitted: July 2014
    SaTC-EDU: EAGER: Choices - An interactive approach to creating ethics case studies

    PI: Patrick Gage Kelley (Co-PIs: Vanessa Svihla, Tim Castillo, Kenneth Pimple)

    National Science Foundation, $270,000 submitted: October 2014
    

    View Slide

43. Publication impact
    Total citations 1682
    2012-2014 1254
    h-index 23
    i10-index 29
    

    

    All data from Google Scholar (November 2014)

    http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=4_fN00YAAAAJ
    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
    505
    408
    341
    200
    144
    48
    

    View Slide

44. Teaching
    

    View Slide

45. Teaching IDEA scores raw
    Excellent
    Teacher
    Excellent
    Course
    Fall 2012 CS 251 – Intermediate Programming 4.7 4.5
    Spring 2013 CS 293 – Social & Ethical Issues in Computing 4.7 4.6
    Fall 2013 CS 152 – Intro to Programming §01 4.7 4.6
    CS 152 – Intro to Programming §02 4.8 4.7
    CS 293 – Social & Ethical Issues in Computing 4.5 3.9
    Spring 2014 CS 491/591 – Info. Vis & Computational Design 4.8 4.6
    CS 293 – Social & Ethical Issues in Computing 5.0 4.7
    Fall 2014 CS 293 – Social & Ethical Issues in Computing §01
    CS 293 – Social & Ethical Issues in Computing §02
    

    View Slide

46. IDEA comments
    “Very interesting topics. I was much more engaged in this 

    course than I thought I’d be. Great professor.”
    “He really helped me to improve in this field and, although 

    he helped by answering my questions he often made me 

    find the answers myself!”
    “Enjoyed the atmosphere of this class. Prof. Kelley is a 

    great teacher, very passionate about his subject.”
    

    View Slide

47. CS152 “flipped” classroom
    • Split a 120+ person class into two sections
    • Taught both sections in the CS computer lab
    • Retention: Only 3 students didn’t take the midterm, 

    only 16 more didn’t take the final.
    • Student survey, 30 responses (of 100, conducted over Google form):
    • 28 said “I really liked the combined lecture/lab"
    • 1 said “I am not sure which I would have liked better.”
    • 1 said “I have taken the other CS152 and like this format better”
    

    View Slide

48. CS152 “flipped” classroom
    • “I don't feel like I would have kept up with the assignments in this
    course had the lab been once a week and separate from lecture. I
    found it to be a good thing that lecture time and lab time could be
    shortened or extended based on the needs of the class.”
    • “A true teacher who seems to really care about students, the lab/
    lecture structure. Dr Kelley willing to sit and explain code to his
    students. You don't get this in a setting with a Professor giving
    lecture and separate labs with TA helping students.”
    

    View Slide

49. CS293 Ethics
    • Taught 5 times, every semester for the past 2 years
    • Teaching two sections this semester due to demand
    • (Demand which doesn’t actually make sense)
    • Fall 2014, two sections both full at 20 with waitlists
    • Spring 2015, one section already full at 20, waitlist at 10
    (That’s 60 students just this year, let me know when we start
    graduating that many a year)
    

    View Slide

50. CS293 Ethics, Current Topics
    • The suicide of Aaron Swartz
    • NSA and Edward Snowden
    • Net Neutrality
    • Drones (and NM ties to drone manufacture/operation)
    • The APD and Anonymous
    • #Ferguson
    • #GamerGate
    

    View Slide

51. CS293 Ethics
    Project Showcase
    Eric Geusz
    C O M I N G S O O N !
    

    View Slide

52. InfoVis & Computational Design
    Danny Gomez Eros Espinola
    Luke Balaoro
    

    View Slide

53. Mobile Application Development
    ?
    ?
    

    View Slide

54. Service
    

    View Slide

55. • Appointed member of the SIGCHI Executive Committee
    • Adjunct Chair for Media+Brand, July 2013–May 2015
    • Focus on communications, transparency, and social media
    • Term ends May 2015, hopefully will be nominated for
    Vice President for Membership & Communications
    SIGCHI Executive Committee
    

    View Slide

56. • SOUPS 2015 Publicity Chair
    • Workshop co-organizer: 

    The Future of Networked Privacy: Challenges and Opportunities 2015
    P R O G R A M C O M M I T T E E S
    • Second Workshop on Privacy and Security in Online Social Media,
    PSOSM 2013
    • ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
    Systems, CHI 2014
    • Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, WPES 2014
    • World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2015
    External service
    

    View Slide

57. • ABQid Team Mentor
    Worked with the first class of ABQid technology startups on privacy and user
    interface design issues, was a mentor during their ten-week process.
    • U.S. House of Representatives first annual STEM Challenge Judge
    Worked with Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s office to encourage participation,
    and judge for the first annual high school app development/design challenge.
    • Attorney General of California Advisory Board Member
    Part of advisory group to Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California for
    her guidelines to application developers: Privacy on The Go, January 2013.
    • CivicHackDay
    Part of the organizing group for CivicTech(Hack)Day, a nationwide event to
    support programmers and activists to create tools/apps to improve government.
    External service local-ish
    

    View Slide

58. • ABQid Team Mentor
    Worked with the first class of ABQid technology startups on privacy and user
    interface design issues, was a mentor during their ten-week process.
    • U.S. House of Representatives first annual STEM Challenge Judge
    Worked with Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s office to encourage participation,
    and judge for the first annual high school app development/design challenge.
    • Attorney General of California Advisory Board Member
    Part of advisory group to Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California for
    her guidelines to application developers: Privacy on The Go, January 2013.
    • CivicHackDay
    Part of the organizing group for CivicTech(Hack)Day, a nationwide event to
    support programmers and activists to create tools/apps to improve government.
    External service local-ish
    

    View Slide

59. • University Libraries Committee 2013-2016
    • CS Undergraduate Curriculum Committee 2013-
    • CS ABET Committee 2013-
    • CS Faculty Search 2013
    • SOE Farris Engineering Center Master Planning
    • SOE Academic Council 2014-2015
    UNM Service
    

    View Slide

60. R E F E R E N C E S
    Kelley, P.G., Sleeper, M., and Cranshaw, J. Conducting Research on Twitter: A
    Call for Guidelines and Metrics. Measuring Networked Social Privacy
    Workshop at Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social
    Computing (CSCW) 2013.
    Sleeper, M., Cranshaw, J., Kelley, P.G., Ur, B., Acquisti, A., Cranor, L.F., Sadeh,
    N. “I read my Twitter the next morning and was astonished: A conversational
    perspective on Twitter regrets.” SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
    Computing Systems (CHI) 2013.
    Sleeper, M., Acquisti, A., Cranor, L.F., Kelley, P.G., Munson, S., Sadeh, N. “I
    would like to..., I shouldn’t..., I wish I...: Exploring behavior-change goals for
    social networking sites” Forthcoming at Computer-Supported Cooperative
    Work and Social Computing (CSCW) 2015
    Suknot, A., Chavez, T., Rackley, N., Kelley, P.G. Immaculacy: A game of
    privacy. Student Game Design Contest. SIGCHI Annual Symposium on
    Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY) 2014.
    EAGER: Privacy's Sociocultural Divide across American Youth

    PI: Patrick Gage Kelley (Co-PI: Myra Washington) 

    National Science Foundation, 10/01/2014 – 09/30/2016, $242,832
    

    View Slide

61. For my full half-tenure documentation
    see patrickgagekelley.com/cv
    

    T H A N K S T O
    Alessandro Acquisti, Tim Chavez,
    Lorrie Cranor, Justin Cranshaw,
    Steven Garcia, Matthew Kay,
    Michelle Mazurek, Sean Munson,
    Chris Ottino, Nathan Rackley,
    Norman Sadeh, Manya Sleeper,
    April Suknot, Myra Washington and
    all of my excellent colleagues and
    students at UNM
    Patrick Gage Kelley
    Half-tenure Review
    patrickgagekelley.com
    @patrickgage
    pgk@unm.edu
    

    View Slide