(Blind) Users Really Do Heed Aural Telephone Scam Warnings
Filipo Sharevski, Jennifer Vander Loop, Bill Evans, Alexander Ponticello
Abstract
This paper reports on a study exploring how two groups of individuals, legally blind (n=36) and sighted ones (n=36), react to aural telephone scam warnings in naturalistic settings. As spoofing a CallerID is trivial, communicating the context of an incoming call instead offers a better possibility to warn a receiver about a potential scam. Usually, such warnings are visual in nature and fail to cater to users with visual disabilities. To address this exclusion, we developed an aural variant of telephone scam warnings and tested them in three conditions: baseline (no warning), short warning, and contextual warning that preceded the scam's content. We tested the two most common scam scenarios: fraud (interest rate reduction) and identity theft (social security number) by coldcalling participants and recording their action, and debriefing and obtaining consent afterward. Only two participants "pressed one" as the scam demanded, both from the legally blind group that heard the contextual warning for the social security scenario. Upon close inspection, we learned that one of them did so because of accessibility issues with their screen reader and the other did so intentionally because the warning convinced them to waste the scammer's time, so they don't scam vulnerable people. Both the legally blind and sighted participants found the contextual warnings as powerful usable security cues that, together with STIR/SHAKEN indicators like Scam Likely, would provide robust protection against any type of scam. We also discussed the potential privacy implications of the contextual warnings and collected recommendations for usably accessible implementation.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext c2f12751-a410-4669-a1cf-86a11c64f7c8Builds on12
- SoK: Everyone Hates Robocalls: A Survey of Techniques Against Telephone SpamHuahong Tu, Adam Doupé, Ziming Zhao, Gail-Joon AhnS&P 2016 · 90 citations
- Users Really Do Answer Telephone ScamsHuahong Tu, Adam Doupé, Ziming Zhao, Gail-Joon AhnUSENIX Security 2019 · 53 citations
- SoK: Safer Digital-Safety Research Involving At-Risk UsersRosanna Bellini, Emily Tseng, Noel Warford, Alaa Daffalla et al.S&P 2024 · 48 citations
- Different Researchers, Different Results? Analyzing the Influence of Researcher Experience and Data Type During Qualitative Analysis of an Interview and Survey Study on Security AdviceAnna-Marie Ortloff, Matthias Fassl, Alexander Ponticello, Florin Martius et al.CHI 2023 · 38 citations
- Robocalling: STIRRED AND SHAKEN! - An Investigation of Calling Displays on Trust and Answer RatesGregory W. Edwards, Michael J. Gonzales, Marc A. SullivanCHI 2020 · 7 citations
Related papers
- Assessing Suspicious Emails with Banner Warnings Among Blind and Low-Vision Users in Realistic SettingsFilipo Sharevski, Aziz ZeidiehUSENIX Security 2024 · 7 citations
- A Research Framework and Initial Study of Browser Security for the Visually ImpairedElaine Lau, Zachary PetersonUSENIX Security 2023
- Design and Evaluation of Inclusive Email Security Indicators for People with Visual ImpairmentsYaman Yu, Saidivya Ashok, Smirity Kaushik, Yang Wang et al.S&P 2023
- Blind and Low-Vision Individuals' Detection of Audio DeepfakesFilipo Sharevski, Aziz Zeidieh, Jennifer Vander Loop, Peter JachimCCS 2024 · 5 citations
- From "Be Careful" to "Here's Why": Investigating User Reasoning with Context-Specific SMS Scam WarningsElijah Robert Bouma-Sims, Enze Liu, Alexandra Xinran Li, Lorrie Faith CranorS&P 2026
