Search

D. Hacking and The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) As governments and corporations increasingly rely on the Internet to transmit sensitive data and communications, instances of hacking and cyber [...]

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2010.03.002 Byline: Anthony J. Palmer Abstract: Automated Personal Identification Mechanisms (APIMs), used in the identification of individuals, operate in diverse environments ranging from border control policing to on-line banking. APIM solutions, however, have vulnerabilities and some attract societal issues. In this paper we describe ASMSA, a qualitative approach for selecting the most suitable mechanism to automatically identify individuals for a given context. ASMSA determines the optimum APIM by prioritising stakeholders' objectives and mapping these to comprehensive requirements in order to articulate suitability as measurable attributes. ASMSA includes an evaluation framework and a selection method that builds on our earlier work, which established over 200 criteria to evaluate APIMs. ASMSA's selection method includes Multiple-Stakeholder Processes (MSPs) and the use of Multi-Objective Multi-Criteria (MOMC) decision-making techniques. ASMSA is designed to ensure that relevant stakeholders' needs and preferences are considered effectively prior to the assessment of candidate solutions. Author Affiliation: Information Security Group, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, United Kingdom Article History: Received 23 October 2009; Revised 7 February 2010; Accepted 1 March 2010

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2008.07.007 Byline: Anthony J. Palmer Abstract: The consequences of digital identity compromises suggest that selected Automated Personal Identification Mechanisms, which enable computer systems to identify individuals, may be unsuitable in some contexts. Currently, there is no commonly agreed set of factors upon which to base an evaluation, regardless of purpose or requirements. We establish over 200 evaluation criteria to aid decision on the selection of the most appropriate mechanism for a given context. We consider that the suitability of these mechanisms should be ascertained from a broad approach. Our criteria are designed to expose strategic issues and risk management aspects that influence organisations' objectives and policies for introducing these mechanisms. Additionally, criteria are developed to acquire functional and performance requirements for the intended user community. Our criteria are also formulated to help describe the characteristics of contesting solutions. These qualities range from technological efficiencies to usability effectiveness. Each mechanism may then be assessed for its suitability against the context's risks, issues and operational requirements within an evaluation framework capable of accommodating diverse perspectives and multiple objectives. Author Affiliation: Information Security Group, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, United Kingdom Article History: Received 24 December 2007; Revised 19 April 2008; Accepted 9 July 2008

I was appalled to see The Fountainhead included in Nick Farrentello's 'Real to Reel: Ten Classics in Humanist Cinema' (J/A 2011). If there is a social and political philosophy more [...]