Android introduces a new permission model that allows apps to request permissions at runtime rather than the installation time since 6.0 (Marshmallow, API level 23). While this provides users with greater flexibility in controlling an app's access sensitive data and system features, it brings challenges app development. First, as may grant or revoke any while they are using app, developers need...

Access to youth culture by adolescents has changed as new communication technologies have found ways of offering media content viewers. Adolescents today access more frequently. However, the greater their exposure, higher likelihood this leading risk behaviors such pornography, plagiarism, piracy and copyright violation. The aim present study is, therefore, determine frequency these linked Inte...

Modern browsers and smartphone operating systems treat applications as mutually untrusting, potentially malicious principals. Applications are (1) isolated except for explicit IPC or inter-application communication channels and (2) unprivileged by default, requiring user permission for additional privileges. Although inter-application communication supports useful collaboration, it also introdu...

Several works have recently shown that Android’s security architecture cannot prevent many undesired behaviors that compromise the integrity of applications and the privacy of their data. This paper makes two main contributions to the body of research on Android security: first, it develops a formal framework for analyzing Android-style security mechanisms; and, second, it describes the design ...

JEL codes: L51, L96 I examine the effects of FCC regulation on the innovation and introduction of advanced telecommunications services in the U.S. An interim of lighter regulation provides an “experiment” to test the regulatory regime’s impact on innovation. The econometric model comprises an arrival process (for service innovation) followed by a duration process (for regulatory delay). The num...

We are grateful to the “Private Schools Rigorous Review Team” (henceforth “Team”) for their reply to Tooley and Longfield, (2015), itself a response to the Team’s DFID-commissioned “Rigorous Review” (Day Ashley et al., 2014). In our Rejoinder we have confined our remark to three areas. First, we are pleased that the Team acknowledges it made eight of the errors and misrepresentations we highlig...