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
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.
3. Scholarly work
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…
5. and this is what I am doing…
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
7. The privacy “paradox”
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
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
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
12. Understanding privacy behaviors To really understand if there is a paradox… How do we measure privacy failures?
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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)
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
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)
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
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.
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.
25. Fogg Behavior Change Model BJ Fogg's Behavior Model www.behaviormodel.org/
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
27. Types of goals Post more Post better Use more Use better Use less
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
29. Reasons for goals Contact Time Intrinsic Attention Safety/security/privacy Self presentation Less bothering
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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)
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
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.
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
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/
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
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
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
44. Teaching
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
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.”
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”
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.”
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)
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
51. CS293 Ethics Project Showcase Eric Geusz C O M I N G S O O N !
52. InfoVis & Computational Design Danny Gomez Eros Espinola Luke Balaoro
53. Mobile Application Development ? ?
54. Service
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
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
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
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
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
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
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