All Title Author
Keywords Abstract


Secure Military Social Networking and Rapid Sensemaking in Domain Specific Concept Systems: Research Issues and Future Solutions

DOI: 10.3390/fi4010253

Keywords: secure military social network, rapid sensemaking, domain specific concept system, contextualization engines

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

This paper identifies the need for a secure military social networking site and the underlying research issues linked to the successful development of such sites. The paper further proposes a solution to the most basic issues by identifying and tackling known potential security threats to military personnel and their families. The paper further defines the base platform for this development to facilitate rapid sensemaking to inform critical communications and rapid decision making processes during abrupt governance and eco-system change, and how the plethora of information (termed as Big Data) on social networking sites can be analysed and harnessed. Underlying architectural issues, efficiency and complexity are explored and their future development is considered.

References

[1]  Boyd, D.; Ellison, N. Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship. J. Comput.-Med. Commun. 2007, 13, 210–230, doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x.
[2]  Friedland, G.; Sommer, R. Cybercasing the Joint: On the Privacy Implications of Geo-Tagging. In Proceedings of the Fifth USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Security (HotSec 10), Washington, DC, USA, 11–13 August, 2010.
[3]  DeWitt, A.J.; Kuljis, J. Is usable security an oxymoron? Interactions 2006, 13, 41–44, doi:10.1145/1125864.1125889.
[4]  Whitten, A.; Tygar, J.D. Why Johnny can’t encrypt: A usability evaluation of PGP 5.0. In Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Security Symposium, Washington, DC, USA, 23–26 August 1999; pp. 169–184.
[5]  Sasse, M.A. Usability and trust in information systems. Available online: http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file15320.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2012).
[6]  Furnell, S. Why users cannot use security. Comput. Secur. 2005, 24, 274–279, doi:10.1016/j.cose.2005.04.003.
[7]  Chiasson, S.; van Oorschot, P.C.; Biddle, R. A Usability Study and Critique of Two Password Managers. In Proceedings of the 15th USENIX Security Symposium, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 31 July–4 August 2006; pp. 1–16.
[8]  Bennett, D.J.; Stephens, P. A cognitive walkthrough of autopsy forensic browser. Inf. Manag. Comput. Secur. 2009, 17, 20–29, doi:10.1108/09685220910944731.
[9]  Rosenbaum, S. Usability evaluations versus usability testing: When and why? IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 1989, 32, 210–216, doi:10.1109/47.44533.
[10]  Nurse, J.R.C.; Creese, S.; Goldsmith, M.; Lamberts, K. Guidelines for usable cybersecurity: Past and present. In Proceedings of the 2011 Third International Workshop on Cyberspace Safety and Security (CSS), Milan, Italy, 8 September 2011.
[11]  Rubin, J.Z.; Chisnell, D.; Spool, J.M. Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective tests, 2nd ed.; Wiley Publishing: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2008.
[12]  Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction—Part 210: Human-Centred Design for Interactive Systems; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. ISO 9241-210..
[13]  Tomaszewski, B.; Blanford, J.; Ross, K.; Pezanowski, S.; MacEachren, A. Supporting rapid sense making in diverse web document foraging computers, environment and urban systems. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2011, 35, 192–207, doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2011.01.003.
[14]  Tomaszewski, B.; MacEachren, A. Geo-Historical Context Support for Information Foraging and Sensemaking: Conceptual Model, Implementation, and Assessment. In Proceedings of 2010 IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST), Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 25–26 October 2010; pp. 139–146.

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus