Understanding U.S. Users' Security and Privacy Transparency Needs for Consumer-Facing Generative AI
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Users increasingly rely on consumer-facing generative AI (GenAI) for tasks ranging from everyday needs to sensitive use cases. Yet, it remains unclear whether and how existing security and privacy (S&P) communications in GenAI tools shape users' adoption decisions and experiences. Understanding how users seek, interpret, and evaluate S&P information is critical for designing usable transparency that users can trust and act on. We conducted semi-structured interviews and design sessions with 21 U.S. GenAI users. Our findings suggest that available S&P information rarely drove initial adoption in practice, as participants often perceived it as incomplete, ineffective, or not credible. Instead, they relied on rough proxies (e.g., popularity) to infer S&P practices. After adoption, S&P uncertainty constrained participants' willingness to use GenAI tools, especially for high-stakes purposes, and, in some cases, contributed to discontinued use. Participants therefore called for transparency that supports decisions and actions through trustworthy information (e.g., independent evaluations) and usable interfaces (e.g., on-demand disclosure). We categorize participants' desired design practices into five dimensions to facilitate systematic future investigation into best practices. We conclude with recommendations for researchers, designers, and policymakers to improve S&P transparency in consumer-facing GenAI.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 95 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Apr 2026.
Builds on
22 of 95 references.
References · 22
- 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,144
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,068
- 2022Quantifying Memorization Across Neural Language Modelscited by 755
- 2023Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applicationscited by 568
- 2021Counterfactual Memorization in Neural Language Modelscited by 155
- 2023Machine Unlearning: Solutions and Challengescited by 85
- 2023"It's a Fair Game", or Is It? Examining How Users Navigate Disclosure Risks and Benefits When Using LLM-Based Conversational Agentscited by 60
- 2023Typology of Risks of Generative Text-to-Image Modelscited by 55
- 2024Machine Unlearning: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 33
- 2023Deepfakes, Phrenology, Surveillance, and More! A Taxonomy of AI Privacy Riskscited by 31
- 2024A Review on Machine Unlearningcited by 30
- 2024Generative AI Misuse: A Taxonomy of Tactics and Insights from Real-World Datacited by 20
10 more
- 2024Objection Overruled! Lay People can Distinguish Large Language Models from Lawyers, but still Favour Advice from an LLMcited by 16
- 2025Exploring User Security and Privacy Attitudes and Concerns Toward the Use of General-Purpose LLM Chatbots for Mental Healthcited by 12
- 2025Understanding Users' Security and Privacy Concerns and Attitudes Towards Conversational AI Platformscited by 9
- 2020Ask the Experts: What Should Be on an IoT Privacy and Security Label?cited by 8
- 2023Opening A Pandora's Box: Things You Should Know in the Era of Custom GPTscited by 8
- 2025Users' Mental Models of Generative AI Chatbot Ecosystemscited by 7
- 2025Understanding Users' Privacy Perceptions Towards LLM's RAG-based Memorycited by 6
- 2025Helping Johnny Make Sense of Privacy Policies with LLMscited by 5
- 2025Privy: Envisioning and Mitigating Privacy Risks for Consumer-facing AI Product Conceptscited by 4
- 2024SoK (or SoLK?): On the Quantitative Study of Sociodemographic Factors and Computer Security Behaviorscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.