Widely Reused and Shared, Infrequently Updated, and Sometimes Inherited: A Holistic View of PIN Authentication in Digital Lives and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) are widely used as an access control mechanism for digital assets (e.g., smartphones), financial assets (e.g., ATM cards), and physical assets (e.g., locks for garage doors or homes). Using semi-structured interviews (n=35), participants reported on PIN usage for different types of assets, including how users choose, share, inherit, and reuse PINs, as well as behaviour following the compromise of a PIN. We find that memorability is the most important criterion when choosing a PIN, more so than security or concerns of reuse. Updating or changing a PIN is very uncommon, even when a PIN is compromised. Participants reported sharing PINs for one type of asset with acquaintances but inadvertently reused them for other assets, thereby subjecting themselves to potential risks. Participants also reported using PINs originally set by previous homeowners for physical devices (e.g., alarm or keypad door entry systems). While aware of the risks of not updating PINs, this did not always deter participants from using inherited PINs, as they were often missing instructions on how to update them. Given the expected increase in PIN-protected assets (e.g., loyalty cards, smart locks, and web apps), we provide suggestions and future research directions to better support users with multiple digital and non-digital assets and more secure human-device interaction when utilizing PINs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".